Black and white film comparisons?

AJQS

AJQS

Messages
7,314
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Is there anywhere online I can see a comparison / sample shots of various B&W films? I'm after a nice crisp 100-200 speed for outdoors...:thinking:
 
Should probably add that since I won't be devloping in house it would ideally be something that isn't too fussy on chemicals!
 
Pretty much any of the 100/125 black and white films such as Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100, Kodak Plus-X or T-Max 100, Fuji Acros 100 or perhaps even Efke/Adox 100, theres tons of films that will do what you want.

Take a look around the black and white film section of AG Photographic, they sell about ever black and white film known:

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/black--white-film-1-c.asp

Just buy a few different films and after shooting all of them decide which ones you like then use them in future. Most labs use general purpose Ilford or Kodak chemicals like Xtol or Ilfotec DD so the results you'll get will be a balance of sharpness, grain etc rather than leaning further towards one developer attribute than the other.
 
Last edited:
Are you looking for a true black and white or something like Ilford XP2?
 
It's a nice film and smooth given it's a 400 film, the only other one similar as far as I know is the Kodak one ummm BW400CN I think it is, I don't particularly like that one though personally. Want me to dig a few shots out?
 
Have a look at Fuji Neopan 400 if you are looking at C41 process, its sharp with a fine grain, quiet contrasty and it does have a wide exposure latitude.
 
I tried all 3 of the C41 B&W films, and to be honest, preferred Neopan/XP2 to the kodak. Although, in my experience, the differences between all three of them, if working purely with the minilab results,were less than the differences between one minilab and another. If I was scanning the shots myself, I found that Neopan was MARGINALLY better than the others, but none of them came close to what you can get from proper B&W film. I've still half a dozen rolls of Neopan, which I plan to use up if I go away on holidays - as I'll be able to bung 'em in minilabs while I'm away, rather than having to take a box of chemicals and a tank with me, and dev. my own in the hotel bathroom. Mind, it wouldn't be the first time I'd done that either....
 
Mark, your point about the Mini-lab quality is so very valid, I must say that all high street companies have without exception produced poor results.
The first lab not high street that I have been 100% happy with on the quality of the process has been Photo Express in Hull and as you know I have agreed a .50p discount per rolls on the cost and at £4.00 per roll processed and scanned to disc[large file] is in my opinion great value, better than most high streets now.
 
I'd love to see some samples guys if you have some available
 
Well let,s not get into the quality of the shot posted, to illustrate the quality of the film.
Fuji Neopan 400.
The shot I could find is the most contrasty?


64850005A.jpg
Now I think that shows quality B&W film.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
I tried all 3 of the C41 B&W films, and to be honest, preferred Neopan/XP2 to the kodak.
Click to expand...

Thats probably because Ilford licensed the technology from XP2 Super to Fuji and as so they are quite similar. Kodak on the other hand developed their own way of doing it which gives a different sort of image.
 
This is XP2, think this was developed at a Tesco. It shows a good tonal range and even some detail in the sky bearing in mind it was pretty much total plain cloud.

5092989143_81305003e7_b.jpg


This is XP2 home developed in Rodinal, still pretty good I think.

5255194171_20df385d64_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Both are looking very good there, I think I'll have to get a cuple of rolls of each, there's very little in it, although the Neopan is looking more representative of what I'm after there.
 
SparkUK said:
T

5255194171_20df385d64_b.jpg
Click to expand...

What is going on with the sky around the buildngs in this one ? is this a scanner issue ? it looks like a kind of HDR artifact
 
Tricky69 said:
What is going on with the sky around the buildngs in this one ? is this a scanner issue ? it looks like a kind of HDR artifact
Click to expand...


Hmmm could be, I think I scanned that with my old HP scanner which wasn't always brilliant. It's not like that printed.
 
medwaygreen said:
Have a look at Fuji Neopan 400 if you are looking at C41 process, its sharp with a fine grain, quiet contrasty and it does have a wide exposure latitude.
Click to expand...

fuji neopan 400 is'nt c41 . ( the neopan cn is though )
 
Last edited:
I'm stilll using Tmax 3200 in 'proper' B&W, I have shot a roll at EI800 through my OM30 this week, see how it goes (more to test the camera than the film).

I've ordered a job lot of XP2 to see how that gets on as well. Hopefully it'll all be here by the weekend and I can give the new OM2SP a trial with some.
 
medwaygreen said:
The box does say CN after the Neopan 400.
Click to expand...

You can get both types of Neopan, though, so it pays to double check that you get the one you want. CN if you want it developed anywhere, without the CN for traditional B&W development.
As a side note, I've often wondered whether there is a notable difference between the C41 type B&W and a comparable colour film converted to B&W in post processing (but developed as colour).
Filmdev.org is handy to compare B&W films, but as it includes variations in development, it opens a whole new kettle of fish!
 
SparkUK said:
I think.... it was Rodinal @ 100:1 (3ml + 300ml) 1 hr stand developed with 10 seconds agitation at the start and at 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've experienced the same thing with Rodinal once. I'm not sure what caused it. I haven't seen it since. The film was Neopan 400. It looks like a bromide streak but there is no bromide in Rodinal.

Mostly my problems with Rodinal and stand is random uneven development across the frame with 120 and 4x5 sheet film which is not the same thing has you have here. One frame can be fine and the one next to it is uneven. I've read everyone's advise, measure temperatures really accurately and still the un-even problem exists.

So I went with a semi-stand method that uses a shorter time and more agitation and I've had more success. A common thread I've noticed is all the people who have advised that I shouldn't have the problem and they get great results is they don't shoot 120 or 4x5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top