Question for filmsies.... re: B&W film

[F.Gordon]

I've been playin' with different films. Different lighting. All that stuff. This was taken with the cheap :eyes: Ilford 100. I'm now trying the expensive :( Ilford film. My question.... why is everything outside my focus/exposure point blown way off the contrast charts? Do I need to buy a complete set of color filters? Do different B&W films have different contrast levels?

Ms F would say "I don't know why you're using film"... but I've actually been diggin' it. Besides giving me two bodies it's been a great learning tool. (note: the boo-boos on this are from the camera shop that digitized it.. and I'm doing all my own digitizing and printing now so using film aint so damn expensive)

I mean... now that I know what to expect I can plan my snaps accordingly cause' I kinda' like the effect.. if used "creatively". But I'm not sure that what I expect is really going to be what happens. :crazy:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Yes different films have radically different

contrast levels. There can even be variations in a brand type. And, of course, the development can make a big difference in contrast. So if you are not in control of that...
and on and on.

This is/was one of the main selling points of digital film systems to the money people... that contrast would be controlled, which meant less $$spent on chemicals and paper and the results would be more likely to be useable no matter the conditions.

That make sense? Or did I wander off too deep?

[F.Gordon]

3. How can I tell?

What the contrast level will be?

Ahhh... the development. I don't want to build a darkroom... don't have that kind of time. I use Ritz/Wolf (whatever other name they use) but they have to "send out" almost everything I bring in. Have no idea where it goes...

I've looked at the boxes... nothing that would indicate what the contrast would be... unless I'm missing something. Only "rating" is the film "temperature". It's been so long... don't remember what the significance of that is.
:dunce:

Thanks

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Is that a C-41 B&W film, or a true B&W film?

If it's a true one - are you taking it to a lab that actually can do B&W processing?

Sadly, it used to be that B&W was the cheapest way to go, but now, to do it properly, it's expensive, and unless you are developing your own film or have a lab can that has people who know what they're doing and has actual B&W equipment, you're best off using the C-41 B&W film and taking it to the color labs.

I'm not familiar with the Ilford B&W films, though, so I can't offer much help, except to say that, yes, there is wide variance in different films as to how they react in terms of contrast and other filmic factors.

But if it's a real B&W film, and you took it to a regular lab, that would more than likely explain why it's not as accurately rendered as it should be.

And the other very important question: are your negatives that contrasty? Or just the prints the lab made?

[F.Gordon]

4. C-41

And the negatives are as contrasty. I can kinda' understand why low available light gives me the blown up contrast... but I had the same issue with outdoors good light snaps.

I read good things about Ilford, so that's why I tried it. Have some Tri-X in the frig that I haven't used yet.

Any film recommendations? Like I said.... I could get use to it if I use it selectively but it sure the hell limits what I can and can not snap.

Appreciate the input

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Try this:

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/film/black-and-white-film/PLS_3119crx.aspx

I haven't done B&W in years, so I'm really out of the loop on the good stuff. I used to use Kodak, I think TMAX but I could be wrong, it might have been AGFA, the few years I was into B&W.

Now that I have a medium format camera, and found a photo place that knows what they're doing, I want to start playing around with B&W again. So thanks for your question! It lead me to find that pahe I just linked.

[F.Gordon]

8. Great link. Thanks

The additional link to adorama on each film was extremely helpful.

Afga seems like a good one... and the Ilford XP2 Super that I'm using now is rated as a very good print film.

I found a local lab that is very good but their turnaround time is 3-6 months unless you are a "pro" or you're giving them hundreds of rolls of film.

Glad I inspired you. It's very easy to just do digital .. click a few buttons... but I've noticed from B&W film prints I've seen that to duplicate some in digital would be a very time consuming process. B&W film definitely has a distinct unique look to it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. 3-6 months?!

Holy shit!

The cost to go digital - for a decent quality digital - is so god awful high, I'll stick with film. :-)

Plus, I like having some actual control over the images, and I don't think that even the best digital offers that same kind of control.

Or maybe it's just because I grew up with film, but I prfer something I can control with my hands, and not with transistors and then hope ot hell that the image scanner got colors that the monitor is actually showing accurately and that the printer will manage to have the same concept of color as the computer and the monitor...

[lakemonster11]

6. I don't often use film,

but last year I took a bunch of shots with Kodak T-Max 400. I had pretty similar results with Ilford HP5 400. I liked them both fine.

Neither of them were nearly as contrasty as your picture is, unless I purposefully printed them that way.

[F.Gordon]

11. From what I'm now reading

Sounds like I should stay with the 400 stuff. I can't over-ride the ISO on my camera... it reads the dk (dl??) code and won't let you change it.

Thanks

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. Are you sure you can't?

If it's a cheap point and shoot, you probably can't, but the higher end ones allow you to override.

[F.Gordon]

14. I swear I read the manual.... said I couldn't change the dx code

But I just found this.... Can also be set manually from ISO 6-6400 in 1/3-stop increments. High-speed infrared film cannot be used. Sure nuff... just re-read the manual.
:dunce: :silly:

That infrared thing? x( The super freak that sold me this camera (Canon Elan7ne) said I COULD use infrared film. (sorry CC... guess I won't be posting any infrared shots) Someone is going to get an earful tommorrow....

On Edit... anyone want to buy some Infrared Film... real cheap

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Here's another helpful one:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_film/faq_what_film_to_use.html

[F.Gordon]

9. Another keeper. Thanks

But.... Nikon??!!!?? Ughhh
:evilgrin:

Saw the ad for lensbabies... I've been thinkin' of trying one of those.

Thanks
:hi:

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. And the Ilford site itself:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html


Crap, now I'm really feeling the need to go get some 120 Ilford HP5 Plus and go fire off a few rolls!

[BamaGirl]

17. If you do, post how you like it

I have some 120 TMAX. I like it fine, but in 35mm I always use Ilford, just can't get 120 locally.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Every medium (film paper, eyballs, monitors...) has a range of brightness

that it can record or reproduce. Anything outside that range ends up as all black or pure white. It is why bright sunlight often yields highlights and shadows with no detail. Filters and such won't help, but if you've seen professional outdoor shoots, it is wht reflectors or diffusers or additional lighting are used -- to reduce the extreme contrast in the scene to something that can be recorded.

[F.Gordon]

16. reflectors or diffusers or additional lighting

I carry enough crap around with me when I go out. But.... I think I'll try doing some B&W film stuff in my dark - dead spider infested basement "studio". I've made some cheap homemade reflectors and diffusers... and have my "custom" Home Depot lighting.

Thank you ConsAreLiars.... some days I feel like my knowledge level is an insult not only to myself but to all of photography. So much to learn. So little time. Have to keep focused on the fact that I do this first.... for fun and to meet lots of interesting people.... and second; take snaps.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. What we "see" and what the film/sensor "sees"

are different, and a lot of the so-called technical stuff involves ways of clarifying this difference. Unfortunately, the physical reactions of various media are most precisely described in math terms that our education system normally fails to teach. Science being heresy and all, and, of course, understanding how things truly work is inapproriate knowledge for people of our stations in life - might cause some, and it is a bad habit to inculcate among the masses.

People naturally assemble all the sensory info into a "picture," but recording mechanisms only gather a limited range. We look at the dark areas of the scene in front of us and our pupils dilate and we "receive" tha data, and then look at the bright areas and the pupils close to 1/16 of the the "wide open" diameter used in the shady are. And we combine all these "looks" into a composite. But the camera lens gets set at only one aperture for everything, and totally ignores the sounds and smells and social setting.

[BamaGirl]

18. There seems to be a wide range in b&w's

I like Ilford Delta and Super, and also Agfa is cool. How old was the roll you shot? My experience with Ilford has always been a nice smooth grain. (I use filters if I want contrast.)