p.1 #1 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
I must have shot so few B&W films that I barely remember doing so.
I’m terribly drawn to color film and have been less so to B&W.
I was looking on the net at a bunch of photos taken with various films to try to see what appealed to me.
I did look more 400 iso rolls than other iso values since I find generally 400 to be quite handy with ND filters. I still searched more broadly than just 400 just to have a sense of what I could miss with other isos.
Fomopan 400 did get my attention, I believe I prefer what I saw from that emulsion, I dig the levels of contrast(not too high but not washy either), the grain and the values in the greys that feel quite luminous.
What’s your take on Fomopan 400, is it a good starter?
p.1 #3 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
I'd say start with Tri-X, it has a very pleasing contrast "out of the box". HP5 is a great alternative to Tri-X and a bit cheaper, but to get you hooked, I'd still try Tri-X first
Kentmere 400 is pretty low contrast unless you push it. It does push great though, I really like it pushed to 1600.
B&W film isn't that expensive, so I don't think its worth getting Foma over something from Ilford or even Kodak.
p.1 #4 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
geekcop wrote:
If you want cheap but slightly more grainy than other films I'd shoot Kentmere 400.
If you want a classic 400 speed film for not much more money but better grain structure I'd start with Tri-X.
You can push both Kentmere and Tri-X with great results. Keep it simple. Buy a bottle of DF96 and a tank and reels and develop it yourself easily.
The issue with Foma films is that their film speeds are a stop overrated. So 400 is actually best rated at 200 and 200 speed rolls are actually 100.
Thanks for the insight, I really like what I see from Fomopan 400 but if it’s best used rated at 200, it sure is to consider, however I might try it anyway cause I really dig the results.
Tri-X, I don’t know, it feels very contrasty, I guess a bit much to my taste.
To develop is on the table, but the scanning part is what I try to go for first. I’m trying to go for a setup soon.
p.1 #5 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
fjablo wrote:
I'd say start with Tri-X, it has a very pleasing contrast "out of the box". HP5 is a great alternative to Tri-X and a bit cheaper, but to get you hooked, I'd still try Tri-X first
Kentmere 400 is pretty low contrast unless you push it. It does push great though, I really like it pushed to 1600.
B&W film isn't that expensive, so I don't think its worth getting Foma over something from Ilford or even Kodak.
As I mentioned to @geekcop I’m a bit on the fen with Tri-X, Kentmere is somehow more pleasing to me, I don’t find it to low contrast in a way where it would be washy.
HP5 looks good too, I saw some variants from Ilford such as XP2 but I have a hard time deciding between Kentmere and HP5.
I looked at Agfa APX400, it’s very cheap but I like it too from what I saw.
The cheap emulsion seem to do it for me at first glance.
p.1 #6 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Here's a good technical review of Fomapan (also includes a comparison to Tri-X) - a bit coarser grain, more sensitive to red and not true ISO 400, but not bad:
?si=jLF_7yfzsZpVxRX_
You could also just try a couple of different films and just find out which one you like the most
p.1 #7 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
fjablo wrote:
Here's a good technical review of Fomapan (also includes a comparison to Tri-X) - a bit coarser grain, more sensitive to red and not true ISO 400, but not bad:
?si=jLF_7yfzsZpVxRX_
You could also just try a couple of different films and just find out which one you like the most
It’s heading that way, I do have a few contenders now to try out.
p.1 #8 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Thanks for the insight, I really like what I see from Fomopan 400 but if it’s best used rated at 200, it sure is to consider, however I might try it anyway cause I really dig the results.
Tri-X, I don’t know, it feels very contrasty, I guess a bit much to my taste.
To develop is on the table, but the scanning part is what I try to go for first. I’m trying to go for a setup soon.
I have a couple of rolls of Fomapan 400 in 120. Thanks for the tip about ratings it at 200. I learned from my experience developing a couple of rolls of the 100 speed film to pre soak.
p.1 #9 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Unless someone is doing a 1:1 comparison, I think it's hard to judge from pictures online how different B&W films compare.
For example Kentmere 400 is pretty low contrast compared to other films, but you can of course dial that up in post. And you can also dial back the contrast of Tri-X a bit (it does have pretty high dynamic range)
Now that I've established that I don't think example pictures are that useful, here are some more
First four are Tri-X, last one is Kentmere 400 (with contrast dialed up in post):
p.1 #10 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Try Ilford XP2. It is processed in C41 just like color. It handles -2 to +4 stops of exposure. It's very fine gained for 400. It does have a different look than traditional BW, with more grain in the shadows instead of in the highlights.
p.1 #11 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Since no one has mentioned it yet - Eastman 5222-XX has excellent contrast at it's rated 250, and at 500 (which I prefer for the speed) - there doesn't seem to be any penalty. Others have pushed it higher. I came from an era that for B&W Tri-X was used 90% of the time, and Plus-X was used for product shoots in the studio. Today there are so many choices, So far, I have tried 6 different films, and a few more to go, but I haven't found one that I didn't like.
p.1 #12 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
James Markus wrote:
Since no one has mentioned it yet - Eastman 5222-XX has excellent contrast at it's rated 250, and at 500 (which I prefer for the speed) - there doesn't seem to be any penalty. Others have pushed it higher. I came from an era that for B&W Tri-X was used 90% of the time, and Plus-X was used for product shoots in the studio. Today there are so many choices, So far, I have tried 6 different films, and a few more to go, but I haven't found one that I didn't like.
I used a lot of Double X in 2020. I would head to downtown Portland early in the morning and could smell the tear gas in the air from the previous nights activities. I developed in HC-110 Dilution B and even considered making it my main film.
p.1 #14 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
Also remember the developer that you use can effect contrast.
I love Kentmere 400. And TriX. And HP5. But shoot Kentmere the most because while I like it as much as the others, it has the bonus of being the cheapest.
p.1 #16 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
I am a big Foma 400 fan, mainly because it always seems to have a mood. I shoot it at 200 or at most 320. I develop in very diluted Rodinal (1:100) for one hour using the "semi stand" approach, where you agitate gently in the beginning (I agitate for a minute) and then three agitations again at 30 minutes. I always presoak when doing semi-stand; the soaking water for Foma films comes out emerald green, which is just the halation layer coming off. I only notice this colour in 120, not 35mm.
I've also tried developing it in Black, White, and Green at 1:49 for 12.5 minutes, no presoak; the look is different (lots of halation) but I also used a different camera for these and think there might be some haze in the lens. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCqdYK
p.1 #17 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
bjhurley wrote:
I am a big Foma 400 fan, mainly because it always seems to have a mood. I shoot it at 200 or at most 320. I develop in very diluted Rodinal (1:100) for one hour using the "semi stand" approach, where you agitate gently in the beginning (I agitate for a minute) and then three agitations again at 30 minutes. I always presoak when doing semi-stand; the soaking water for Foma films comes out emerald green, which is just the halation layer coming off. I only notice this colour in 120, not 35mm.
I've also tried developing it in Black, White, and Green at 1:49 for 12.5 minutes, no presoak; the look is different (lots of halation) but I also used a different camera for these and think there might be some haze in the lens. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCqdYK ...Show more →
Do you do a pre soak? I did some Fomapan 100 in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal and had to toss both the stop and fixer because it turned everything blue. I have two rolls of 400 which should be fun to try.
p.1 #18 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
bjhurley wrote:
I am a big Foma 400 fan, mainly because it always seems to have a mood. I shoot it at 200 or at most 320. I develop in very diluted Rodinal (1:100) for one hour using the "semi stand" approach, where you agitate gently in the beginning (I agitate for a minute) and then three agitations again at 30 minutes. I always presoak when doing semi-stand; the soaking water for Foma films comes out emerald green, which is just the halation layer coming off. I only notice this colour in 120, not 35mm.
I've also tried developing it in Black, White, and Green at 1:49 for 12.5 minutes, no presoak; the look is different (lots of halation) but I also used a different camera for these and think there might be some haze in the lens. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCqdYK ...Show more →
Great album! Thank you. I do like what I see from that emulsion, I’ve seen some people manage some low contrast results that I find quite beautiful. It can give oddly some pop to the images.
p.1 #19 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
madNbad wrote:
Do you do a pre soak? I did some Fomapan 100 in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal and had to toss both the stop and fixer because it turned everything blue. I have two rolls of 400 which should be fun to try.
I do a pre-soak whenever I do semi-stand development; I've also developed a few rolls in BW&G for 12.5 minutes and didn't presoak, but that was 35mm and in my experience the water in a pre-soak comes out clear from 35mm rolls of Foma 400, 100, and 200. But 120 film is a different story: the presoak washes off a bright emerald-green anti-halation layer and the soaking water comes out green.
p.1 #20 · New to B&W Photography, Which Film to Use?
bjhurley wrote:
I do a pre-soak whenever I do semi-stand development; I've also developed a few rolls in BW&G for 12.5 minutes and didn't presoak, but that was 35mm and in my experience the water in a pre-soak comes out clear from 35mm rolls of Foma 400, 100, and 200. But 120 film is a different story: the presoak washes off a bright emerald-green anti-halation layer and the soaking water comes out green.
