help to choose 35mm B&W landscape film

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,517
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
BLACK and WHITE

spoken to DiscountFilmsDirect and AG Photographic...helpful
and DSCL about developing + scan

so far I've used C41 process B&W - to be dev and scan to CD by PhotoExpress = Good results for £5 ---- but film choice is 400asa only

now i read that both Fuji Neopan 400CN and Kodak BW400CN are ''soft tones for portraits''
which leaves me Ilford XP2 400asa ...just purchased but not tried

so spent today researching www for B&W films ''recommended for Landscapes'' and found.............

Kodak T-Max100
Fuji Acros100
Ilford Delta100
Ilford PanF+ 50

there's also Ilford FP4+ 125asa...couldn't find much info
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

COLOUR FILM

I have used Fuji Superia 200asa.........
but Kodak Ektar 100 seems to be suitable too

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

so any thoughts -- especially on the B&W, as I wasn't happy with my last roll of Fuji Neopan 400CN [ but could have been me...:LOL:]

thanks.
 
for black and white films, you could try ADOX 25, i used it for some landscape shots and it gives very good tones, its a slow film so a tripod is needed. the only other issue is that it is very intolerant to overexposure. comes out well with a yellow filter

Ilford PanF+ is a good film for landscapes too
 
robhooley167 said:
for black and white films, you could try ADOX 25, i used it for some landscape shots and it gives very good tones, its a slow film so a tripod is needed. the only other issue is that it is very intolerant to overexposure. comes out well with a yellow filter

Ilford PanF+ is a good film for landscapes too
Click to expand...

thanks...i saw the ADOX 25 at AGPhotographic - but was a bit wary of the 'exposure intolerance'' especially as i use a lab who wouldn't do 'custom' developing

I'll have a go with some PanF+ at 50asa....thanks for quick reply....:)
 
I wouldn't personally shoot 400 speed film for portraits or scapes, I mean you can of course, but generally these subjects like smooth and grainless.
That's why your search turns up 100 speed and below.
I get really nice results from neopan 100, but the 400 I didn't like at all, it always seems quite muddy, the 1600 is good though whilst we're on the Fuji.
In fact any of those films you mention are good choices, what you have to figure out is which film/developer/method combo works best for the results you are looking for.
 
John...thanks

the reason to use C41 = 400asa at the beginning was to get used to film again
and PhotoExpress was economical whilst learning

now i am prepared to use labs to process, I can try the 100asa films

jumped the gun a bit .....:D...and just ordered
Kodak T-Max 100
Fuji Acros 100
 
A lot of films will work just fine be it for landscape or whatever. With small format, I'd say its more a matter of a slow film for fine grain vs a faster film with its larger grain for landscapes. And your experience at getting the most out of a particular film/brand and developer goes a long way to that effect. Jumping on a new film and instantly expecting better results is not always the case.

The figital work flow also levels many films more equal in terms of tonality. How well you scan and adjust your shot can be a bigger factor, IMHO, than a difference between, say, 100TMX and 100ACR in many cases.
 
i used to use tmax 100 a fair bit but found it to be quite uninspiring and sometimes developed quite grainy so i started experimenting more, rollei retro 100 is a good contrasty film but may not suit landscapes. the way i experimented was to order one of each film which looked interesting on AG photographic and have a crack at it
 
Isn't really a "correct" answer, you have to do your own tests and make your own decision.

Or I could save you the trouble, FP4+ or TRI-X for b/w, Portra or Ektar depending on what effect you require ;)
 
Top and bottom of it John is simple. Buy half a dozen different 100iso or below films, and try 'em. Whichever you like, buy a big box of it, so you can get used to it, and how hard you can push it at the extremes of exposure. This time around I tried Acros 100, Delta 100, FP4+, Pan F+ 50, Agfa APX100 and Kodak T-max 100. On a totally unscientific basis, the shots I liked, and the grain characteristics that suited my working methods was Acros 100. So, If you were to look in my freezer, there may well be 2-3 rolls of most the other B&W's I mentioned, but there's a whole stack of Acros 100 35mm, and another in 120 format. But, as they say in the car adverts, Your Mileage May Vary. An awful lot is down to how you (or the lab) process the film, and how the digitising process is managed. As I shoot with a hybrid process in mind, I don't mind my neg's being a bit under-contrasty, as long as the details and gradations are there. If I was going for wet prints I think I'd be inclined to want a little more contrast off the film.
 
joxby said:
I wouldn't personally shoot 400 speed film for portraits or scapes, I mean you can of course, but generally these subjects like smooth and grainless.
Click to expand...

This is pretty outdated thinking - T-Max 400, as well as other modern ISO400 emulsions, are considered nearly (or identical) in grain to ISO100 film. For landscapes with a tripod I can understand, but for portraits it can be quite handy to have that additional greater sensitivity to light.
 
Adox 25:


Coeden y Dduallt by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr


ADOX 25 - 00008 by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr


Slow Wave by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr
(with red filter)

XP2 Super @ 500:


Llyn y Dywarchen a copa'r Wyddfa. by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr


Yr Wyddfa o'r Lon ger Llyn Nantlle by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr


Open Road by Richard A. Jones, on Flickr

BW400CN is smoother tones and less grainy but you'd still be hard pushed to tell the difference if you didn't know. XP2 tends to produce purple prints from minilabs who don't calibrate properly, BW400CN doesn't (it has an orange base). It's common practice to expose XP2 at 200 to retain shadow detail, but even here exposed at 500 there is still black clipping necessary when scanning. I'm experimenting with a roll at 100 at the moment, and I have seen results from it exposed at 50, but not sure if it was pulled in development or not. (I doubt it). The slower you expose it the flatter the contrast becomes when devloping wthout change, but should be recoverable in scanning/PP.

FWIW I find XP2 far more detailed than Adox, and both are equal for grain. There's a lot more dynamic range in the XP2 as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are without doubt some wonderful shot shown in the thread and I do not like them, my fixation with colour, but the thread post has to be wrong, if you have to ask what B&W film you should use for landscape, John, shame on you,because for B&W use anything.

Landscape, yes land scape is about colour? is it not, who wants to see our great planet in B&W, come on guy,s lets get back into to natural world and shoot colour, it can be in any ISO you want and lets say you can also convert to B&W as a last resort.:LOL:

Love to all.

Richard.(y)
 
Last edited:
thanks all............i will use a Lab for dev/scan
which leaves me at their mercy on scanner settings.....:shake:
i just dont have money for a good scanner, nor the time to learn/use it


Mark.....Buy half a dozen different 100iso or below films, and try 'em. ..........[/QUOTE]

thanks

I now have prints on a CD for..
Kodak BW400CN
Fuji Neopan 400CN....the ones i sent you

and have just ordered

Kodak T-Max 100
Fuji Acros 100
Ilford XP2 400

I'll also get some Ilford PanF+ 50

have to get shooting now..................:clap::clap:
 
Last edited:
Thanks Alan

i can appreciate Richards sentiment but looking at your #2 beach - i think B&W is excellent here
 
#2 is great a great shot, brilliant.
 
Not a lot to add really as most of the control you gain from shooting B&W is being thrown away by having them lab developed and scanned. Depending on what Dev the lab use as standard (have you asked?) it may influence your film choice...... If they use a solvent type dev (ID11, D76 etc) then you will need to use a film with higher resolution to combat those effects. If they use a more acutance orientated developer then using a finer grained film becomes more important.

I think correct and proper use of filtration on the camera may prove to be more important in the long run than the film you choose as that is probably going to be your best way to control contrast frame to frame, assuming the lab use a general "auto levels" on your scans.
 
Gandhi said:
Depending on what Dev the lab use as standard (have you asked?) it may influence your film choice...... If they use a solvent type dev (ID11, D76 etc) then you will need to use a film with higher resolution to combat those effects. If they use a more acutance orientated developer then using a finer grained film becomes more important.
Click to expand...

A very good point and one I didn't take into consideration with my comments RE Adox above, I haven't a clue what developer they use at Genie.
 
It'll likely be Kodak Xtol or Ilford Ilfotech DD, both are replenishable developers designed for processing large quantities of film with dip and dunk systems, with good all round characteristics on most types of film.
 
s162216 said:
It'll likely be Kodak Xtol or Ilford Ilfotech DD, both are replenishable developers designed for processing large quantities of film with dip and dunk systems, with good all round characteristics on most types of film.
Click to expand...

And labs also want developers that develop at box speed (or very close to it) as in the case of Xtol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top