Some recommendations for B&W film

Kell

Kell

Messages
5,307
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been very happy using Ilford XP2 in the past.

Recently, I picked up a little Minolta Himatic G2. No way to change anything and the film that it came with is also ASA400. Just pointing it at stuff in the garden, it look like it's already overreading and going into the red on the meter that show the f/stop it would use.

All of which makes me think it needs some slower film.

I'm not up to speed (pardon the pun) on what film is what. I from certain posts I've read, I've seen comments like "Oh you should have bought XX instead as it's really just respooled YY but cheaper"

I'd be looking to shoot in and around London and what nice contrasty images.

I 'think' I could use the XP2 and shoot it (and get developed) at 200 and that might be the best solution. But wondered if anyone has any other suggestions for something that would work in a sunny city.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
 
I've had good results with XP2 and a snapic with 1/125 and a fixed F10 or so I think it is. I'd just set it to ASA400 and try some XP2 and see how it actually turns out. I don't think my olympus trip goes beyond 1/250 either and I didn't notice that being unduly over exposed when I used Fuji 400 in it.

If XP2 is washed out then the Kentmere 200 or the FP4 125 is worth a go for traditional black and whites. I suspect it will end up just fine in the end.
 
I'd stick a roll of FP42 through it to test it and see how accurately it's exposures are, It's less forgiving than XP2.

Ian
 
XP2 with the standard C41 process is pretty forgiving for over/under exposure. But if there's not a separate way to set exposure and the meter's throwing up red flags, then that's an issue. I'd go for Kentmere 100 if you want a slower film (200 ISO is just the one stop if 400 is too fast, so 100 might work better). Quite a bit cheaper than FP4, and still a lovely film. But of course you're into black and white developing with either of those which ups the cost a bit (only around £2 a roll at Filmdev though, IIRC).
 
Just remember Foma films behave very differently to Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc, you need to shoot at half box speed and also reduce development time typically to 75% of other films. I've used a lot of Foma 100 & 200 over the last 20 years.

Ian
 
Kell said:
I won’t be doing any development myself I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Why not, it is not a difficult process.
Experience to get satisfactory results, but not difficult.
If you are not going to try and control the development process based on the decisions that you take at exposure, then it makes sense to me to use the most forgiving film.

And all my research has led me to XP2 super @ 400

Ilford claims that Exposure Value can be anywhere between 50 and 800 on the same roll without modification to development process or times etc.

You could start out with immediate excellent results.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
Why not, it is not a difficult process.
Experience to get satisfactory results, but not difficult.
If you are not going to try and control the development process based on the decisions that you take at exposure, then it makes sense to me to use the most forgiving film.

And all my research has led me to XP2 super @ 400

Ilford claims that Exposure Value can be anywhere between 50 and 800 on the same roll without modification to development process or times etc.

You could start out with immediate excellent results.
Click to expand...

I simply don’t shoot enough film to justify it.

I studied photography at college long enough ago to do our own prints, but I don’t think we ever developed our own film.
 
Kell said:
I simply don’t shoot enough film to justify it.

I studied photography at college long enough ago to do our own prints, but I don’t think we ever developed our own film.
Click to expand...
When I started developing film last year I bought a complete kit with a HC110 type developer from Nick N trick (no affiliation) for about 25 quid, I found it really encouraged me to take more film shots as the development process is quick and simple and can be completed within hours of taking the shots if desired.
 
Ian Grant said:
Just remember Foma films behave very differently to Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc, you need to shoot at half box speed and also reduce development time typically to 75% of other films. I've used a lot of Foma 100 & 200 over the last 20 years.

Ian
Click to expand...

Why? I've shot Foma 200 at box speed and it's been spot on.
 
Kell said:
I simply don’t shoot enough film to justify it.

I studied photography at college long enough ago to do our own prints, but I don’t think we ever developed our own film.
Click to expand...

Developing B&W films is far easier than printing, as is processing C41 or E6. You'd probably get a tank etc on Facebook Marketplace or a Car boot sale for next to nothing.

Plain Nev said:
Why? I've shot Foma 200 at box speed and it's been spot on.
Click to expand...

I did some Zone System film tests to determine my effective EI and that was 100 with Fomapan 200, that controls the contrast. It also matches many other peoples experiences. It is also getting the best out of a film in terms of shadow detail, tonality, sharpness & fine grain.

For me it is important that images made on different films are easy to print, and can sit in an exhibition set together. Almost all my work is project based and print consistency is critical.

Ian
 
It's useful (for some) to be able to develop a short roll when testing etc. Home dev helps here too.
I like Fomapan200 and have shot it at 200, but it comes out a bit thin for my scanning (camera scans).
It's better at 100-125. I found that Fomapan100 is pretty good at 100 (for me), so I'm wondering if I need the 200 version, although I have a couple of bulk rolls left.
 
Kell said:
I've been very happy using Ilford XP2 in the past.

Recently, I picked up a little Minolta Himatic G2. No way to change anything and the film that it came with is also ASA400. Just pointing it at stuff in the garden, it look like it's already overreading and going into the red on the meter that show the f/stop it would use.

All of which makes me think it needs some slower film.

I'm not up to speed (pardon the pun) on what film is what. I from certain posts I've read, I've seen comments like "Oh you should have bought XX instead as it's really just respooled YY but cheaper"

I'd be looking to shoot in and around London and what nice contrasty images.

I 'think' I could use the XP2 and shoot it (and get developed) at 200 and that might be the best solution. But wondered if anyone has any other suggestions for something that would work in a sunny city.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
Click to expand...


XP2+ exposed at 200 and developed in C41 is extraordinary imho. I've never seen anything quite like it. E.g. absolutely grainless pure highlights. I should really shoot it more.

I should stress that IME for the magic to happen it really needs to be developed in C41 chemistry. Cross processing it in BW chemistry leads to pretty bog standard results.
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
XP2+ exposed at 200 and developed in C41 is extraordinary imho. I've never seen anything quite like it. E.g. absolutely grainless, pure highlights. I should really shoot it more.

I should stress that IME for the magic to happen this needs to be developed in C41 chemistry. Cross processing it in BW chemistry leads to pretty bog standard results.
Click to expand...
Have you printed it out Trypdal?

What are the enlargements like?
 
Cluster said:
It's useful (for some) to be able to develop a short roll when testing etc. Home dev helps here too.
I like Fomapan200 and have shot it at 200, but it comes out a bit thin for my scanning (camera scans).
It's better at 100-125. I found that Fomapan100 is pretty good at 100 (for me), so I'm wondering if I need the 200 version, although I have a couple of bulk rolls left.
Click to expand...

I also tested Fomapan 100,and found I had to use it at 50 EI, in terms of final print quality it is difficult to spot a difference between the two, I went for Fomapan 200. It's not my primary film, those are Delta 100 & 400, and HP5 for hand held LF 5x4 work.

Barney said:
Have you printed it out Trypdal?

What are the enlargements like?
Click to expand...

XP2 enlarges well, I don't like its tonality, I usewd it push processed to shoot rock concerts.

Ian
 
Barney said:
Have you printed it out Trypdal?

What are the enlargements like?
Click to expand...

Yes, on Fomabrom 111, wonderful.

Unlike standard B&W, the "grain" (dye clouds really) is in the shadows, the highlights look grainless. Difficult to describe, you need to see it.
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
Yes, on Fomabrom 111, wonderful.

Unlike standard B&W, the grain is in the shadows, the highlights look grainless. Difficult to describe, you need to see it really
Click to expand...
Thanks for that !
 
If you are using commercial development then XP2 is a great bet. Other films like FP4 are also great but unless you go to a specialist B&W lab most places are going to do a poor job.
So one option is use XP2 and an ND2 filter if it's a very bright day.
Not ideal perhaps but might give you the best results with the least faf or cost.
 
Plain Nev said:
Why? I've shot Foma 200 at box speed and it's been spot on.
Click to expand...

It's worth looking at, and analysing, the Fomapan 200 Data sheet. It's only 200 ISO processed in Microphen to a gamma of 0.8 about 9 mins at 20ºC.

Now Microphen/ID-68 is a speed increasing developer, approx 2/3rds of a stop. Now Foma recommend 5-6 mins for Fomapan 200 in Microphen. Hence the need to do your own tests.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
It's worth looking at, and analysing, the Fomapan 200 Data sheet. It's only 200 ISO processed in Microphen to a gamma of 0.8 about 9 mins at 20ºC.

Now Microphen/ID-68 is a speed increasing developer, approx 2/3rds of a stop. Now Foma recommend 5-6 mins for Fomapan 200 in Microphen. Hence the need to do your own tests.

Ian
Click to expand...


What you say is true, but in fairness to that film (a wonderful one, I use it routinely) it's an easy 160EI with a number of general-purpose developers - e.g. with both Xtol (the curves you link to above show data for Foma Excel, Foma's Xtol clone) and Ilfosol (the curves you link to above show data for Fomadon LQN, Foma's Ilfosol clone).

So very close to box speed for many intents and purposes (e.g. gamma .6 negs for printing to grade 2 paper with condenser enlarger, or scanning).
 
trypdal said:
What you say is true, but in fairness to that film (a wonderful one, I use it routinely) it's an easy 160EI with a number of general-purpose developers - e.g. with both Xtol (the curves you link to above show data for Foma Excel, Foma's Xtol clone) and Ilfosol (the curves you link to above show data for Fomadon LQN, Foma's Ilfosol clone).

So very close to box speed for many intents and purposes (e.g. gamma .6 negs for printing to grade 2 paper with condenser enlarger, or scanning).
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Trypdal, you made me look at and start to understand those curves are they accurate do you think? Or should I buy a densitometer and check myself ?
 
Barney said:
Thanks for that Trypdal, you made me look at and start to understand those curves are they accurate do you think? Or should I buy a densitometer and check myself ?
Click to expand...

Generally accurate IME although I suspect a bit of cut & paste going on on Foma's side on those tech sheets...Check out the spectral response curves - they seem to be identical across products, only shifted around a little? Also they have no Y axis labels..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top