Anything I should know about Black&White film?

S

Shnarf76

Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
Now that I'm a little clued up on what film camera to go for I guess I should turn my attention to film. I will be using 35mm Black&White, is there anything I should know/be aware of when purchasing film please? If someone could explain a little about different film and their uses it would be a great help please. Many thanks in advance.
 
The main thing to note at this stage is that there are two different general types.

1. Film that can be processed by a lab, like colour film, using the C41 process.
eg
Ilford XP2

2.
Film that can be easily developed at home but is difficult and very expensive to get done by a lab.
eg
Kodak Tri-X
 
Last edited:
Shnarf76 said:
will be using 35mm Black&White, is there anything I should know
Click to expand...

Yes, you don't get a colour image. :p

Apart from the obvious it depends what you're shooting and your expectations. Want a fine grain image use a slower film, grain is more obvious imo with black and white than colour
 
My suggestion is: buy several rolls of the same film, and shoot it all with no colour film in between. Preferably shoot nothing else than that film for at least 3 months. Even better if you shoot it with just one camera and one (prime) lens! It's the way to really learn how to "see" in black and white.
 
simon ess said:
The main thing to note at this stage is that there are two different general types.

1. Film that can be processed by a lab, like colour film, using the C41 process.
eg
Ilford XP2

2.
Film that can be easily developed at home but is difficult and very expensive to get done by a lab.
eg
Kodak Tri-X
Click to expand...

I think the first kind is sometimes called "chromogenic" isn't it? AFAIK there were only ever 3 of such films. The Kodak one is discontinued for a few years, and the Fujifilm one is quite rare, but XP2 is widely available (eg Boots etc). It's actually a decent film, a bit contrasty perhaps but capable of excellent results.

There's actually a huge variety of these "traditional" black and white films. Roughly speaking, for 135 (35mm) film, those below 400 ISO will normally show relatively little grain. At 400, grain is a potential "issue" to be aware of. Some photographers really love grain and use it to great effect. Personally I find that Tri-X doesn't show too much grain, but I don't like the grain of HP5. OTOH @thedarkshed seems to be able to shoot (and process) HP5 in 135 with very little grain; maybe it's the developer he uses.

Note @simon ess although replying to you, I know you know all this stuff, this comment is really aimed at the OP!
 
Thank you for the helpful replies, XP2 seems to be the one I'd use being able to have the film processed at normal labs. I actually like photos with a bit of grain so wouldn't be put off by that.
 
I'd experiment with different B&W films. I don't know if Filmdev charge a premium for B&W, but AG Photographic charge 50p more for B&W vs a C41 (colour) process. Think about what it means to lock yourself into just 1 film for 50p...

Also, the method you use to get a viewable print will affect your choice as no negative is going to be developed precisely the same. I get AG to dev, and I scan (which is super cheap). If you want scanning, other places will do dev & scan (or dev & print, or both!) Prices vary wildly for these services.

So (and your mileage will vary!) I found...

Kodak Tri-X (400) to be a film I didn't get on with at all. I found it flat & featureless.
Ilford PanF+ (50) is fab. I love how it renders images just like the "film" photos I used to take back in the (g)olden days. It's not very flexible though and your metering has to be spot on, because recovering in post isn't pretty.
Ilford HP5 (400) is a solid reliable medium speed film that gives nice contrast and also has a lot of flexibility if you get the metering wrong.
Fomopan (100) is gorgeous & cheap and when it's pushed to 400 (push = under-expose but develop for longer for more contrasty images) it's lovely. Also very forgiving.
XP2 (400) is middle of the road/nothing special (to me)

I still have a few films to try, but this is my experience so far... And I'm sure there are others out there who think differently which is why I'd urge you to try different film to see what *you* like. Some places do starter packs/bundles (like this or this)
Hope that helps!
 
Harlequin565 said:
I'd experiment with different B&W films. I don't know if Filmdev charge a premium for B&W, but AG Photographic charge 50p more for B&W vs a C41 (colour) process. Think about what it means to lock yourself into just 1 film for 50p...

Also, the method you use to get a viewable print will affect your choice as no negative is going to be developed precisely the same. I get AG to dev, and I scan (which is super cheap). If you want scanning, other places will do dev & scan (or dev & print, or both!) Prices vary wildly for these services.

So (and your mileage will vary!) I found...

Kodak Tri-X (400) to be a film I didn't get on with at all. I found it flat & featureless.
Ilford PanF+ (50) is fab. I love how it renders images just like the "film" photos I used to take back in the (g)olden days. It's not very flexible though and your metering has to be spot on, because recovering in post isn't pretty.
Ilford HP5 (400) is a solid reliable medium speed film that gives nice contrast and also has a lot of flexibility if you get the metering wrong.
Fomopan (100) is gorgeous & cheap and when it's pushed to 400 (push = under-expose but develop for longer for more contrasty images) it's lovely. Also very forgiving.
XP2 (400) is middle of the road/nothing special (to me)

I still have a few films to try, but this is my experience so far... And I'm sure there are others out there who think differently which is why I'd urge you to try different film to see what *you* like. Some places do starter packs/bundles (like this or this)
Hope that helps!
Click to expand...

That's a great help, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top