Best film for deep tone detail

[olwick]

Can anyone recommend a B&W film that retains good detail and gives true, rich, deep blacks? On the scale of flat to contrasty, my preference is more towards the contrasty side.

Speed isn't a factor as I'm usually working on a tripod.

Needs to be available in 120 size and currently produced.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience,

Mark

 

[keithwms]

Many or most films can do this if exposed appropriately. Just guessing blindly at what you want, ilford fp4+ and hp5+ come to mind.

 

[olwick]

I've been shooting with HP5+ for a while, and it's still not giving me what I want. I also would prefer using something finer grained.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[Athiril]

FP4+.

If you're scanning set your black and white levels correctly.

If you're enlarging alter your print time.


If you want thinner shadows on the negative, push the film a corresponding amount to match your scenes contrast range.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

If you want 'true, rich, deep blacks' you want to err on the side of less contrast in your negatives.

Buying a particular brand of film will not get you those 'true, rich, deep blacks'.

The secret to good shadow detail - what you are really looking for - is plenty of exposure. You want to get the exposure for the shadow areas off the toe of the film's curve. Try overexposing a stop or two and reducing the development by 10-20%.

Now that you have the information on the negative you need to transfer it to the print. Do not try for 'maximum black' - expose 1/2 to 1 stop less than what is required for max-black. This keeps your shadow detail off the low-contrast shoulder of the paper's curve. This is also why you want a lower contrast negative - as you need about 1 stop less contrast in the negative than you might if you were going for pure white to 'max black'.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with HP5+ as a film when it comes to shadow detail. If you want something finer grained try TMax100 developed in Xtol or Microdol. Ilford makes equivalent materials. TMax100 in Microdol-X is the finest grain combination you can find without going into microfilms and ultra-low-contrast developers. Well, with the exception of picking up some Tech Pan and Technidol on ebay.

If you are looking for excellent shadow detail do not use Rodinal. Rodinal bends the HD curve of a film, lowering shadow contrast and increasing highlight contrast. It is a good choice for high-key pictures or pictures where you like its rather prominent grain.

 

[white.elephant]

. . . If you want something finer grained try TMax100 developed in Xtol or Microdol. Ilford makes equivalent materials. . .

Nicholas, what is Ilford's equivalent of Xtol?

 

[pgomena]

Nicholas nailed the answer. Give the film generous exposure and reduce the development a little. Place the shadows that you insist hold visible detail on Zone IV and print them down to a zone III print value and your shadows will be full of deep, rich detail.

Peter Gomena

 

[2F/2F]

Can anyone recommend a B&W film that retains good detail and gives true, rich, deep blacks? On the scale of flat to contrasty, my preference is more towards the contrasty side.

Speed isn't a factor as I'm usually working on a tripod.

Needs to be available in 120 size and currently produced.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience,

Mark

You seem to be asking for two different (some might say "entirely opposite") things.

By definition, a film that naturally retains detail "well" in the high and low end in your average-contrast composition is not going to be a super contrasty film. The same things that cause a film to retain detail well in the high and low end are the things that make a film something other than a high-contrast film.

If you mean that you still want punch in the mid tones while having a good deal of printable detail in the low and high end, I would say that a "modern" emulsion would be your best bet, as they tend to have a bit less "sag" in the graph of the low end of their tonal rendering, and on the high end, hold tons of printable detail on a long straight[ish] line. Strictly technically speaking, something "T grained," like T-Max, Neopan, or Ilford Delta would be a good choice.

Non technically speaking, I usually prefer the way non-T-grained films react to light and shooting/processing tweaks (tonality), and the way they render grain and detail on the print (or, rather, they way they don't render, in the case of detail). I would personally use FP4 or Plus X. They have plenty of malleability and versatility, and are just plain gorgeous IMHO.

This is all assuming that you know what you are doing with a light meter, and understand how to shoot, process, and print to manipulate the picture, of course. These are the most important things, by far.

 

[kozesluk]

delta 400 in dd-x

 

[mesh]

I'm still a relative beginner so take my comments with a pinch of salt ;-) But from the combinations I've tried so far, I think TMY100 in Xtol would fit the bill nicely. I get more of those 'richer blacks' than when I used D-76 for some reason. Hard to compare without proper testing but IMO TMAX and XTOL it's a really wonderful combination.

 

[olwick]

Thank you everyone, this is all very helpful.

Mark

 

[Sirius Glass]

with a pinch of salt

Yes, some here use salt in photography. I thought that you would want to know.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Exposure controls density in the blacks or shadows. Time in developer controls density of highlights always and forever. No exceptions.

Some older films have a curve shape to give less contrast in the shadows, tri X. T Max will have a straight line and liinear contrast.

For even more shadow detail, expose at 1/2 the ISO speed and cut development 20%.

If you can not scan or print because the shadows are correct, but highlights lack detail and are all white, cut development time. Opposite if highlights are grey instead of white.

 

[vedmak]

just like saint Ansel said - expose for the shadows and develop for highlights

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Exposure controls density in the blacks or shadows. Time in developer controls density of highlights always and forever. No exceptions.

Different films will look SLIGHTLY different. But as Ronald is saying - how you expose and process your film entirely controls what your tonality and contrast is going to be.
Some people claim that certain films have 'more inherent contrast' than others. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that this is correct, and you are using two films.
One has more 'inherent contrast' than the other. If you take the film with lots of contrast, expose generously, and then learn to control your development - you will easily yield a normal contrast negative with some practice. With the low contrast film, you can expose a bit less compared to box speed, and control contrast in development to add the extra contrast you need to yield a normal contrast negative.

So, it doesn't matter much what the film is like to begin with, because you control it with your exposure and development. That is the simple truth.

Instead of asking what film - ask how to use your film to yield negatives of deep rich blacks with lots of shadow detail. Therein lies the pudding containing the truth.

 

[Ian Grant]

Adding to what Thomas & others have said choice of film is less important than knowing how a film behaves in a particular developer and how exposure & development time control contrast.

I shoot HP5+ (hand held LF), Delta 100 & 400, and all are capable of controlling contrast and retaining excellent shadow detail, in the past I've used Tmax and APX100 they are equally as good.

Shooting in the harsh sunlight here in Turkey I do't have no greater problems than the more subdued light in the UK. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) was shot last Wednesday close to Midday, yet I've plenty of detail in the shadows.

Ian

 

[Robert Budding]

I agree with what Nicholas and others have said - stay off of the toe. As for grain, you might like Fuji Acros if you have enough light for slow film. Or try shooting a larger format.

 

[2F/2F]

The suggestion to "stay off the toe" in order to get a good amount of tonal separation (which leads to texture and detail) in the low tones is a good one.

However, please note the in order to. In general, I'd say to land right on the toe, or even completely off of it (to the left) if you like the way pictures look when you do this. Any film's characteristic curve in a given process is nothing but a palette for you to use as desired. It is not about rules of thumb so much as learning what things look like when you do them in certain situations.

Personally, I find that basing exposure on a mid tone, rather than on a low tone, leads to results that I would call "better." It is all about knowing your film and your light, not about assigning certain levels of exposure to ALL low tones in ALL pictures. If the luminance range of the composition combined with the characteristics of the film when it is given certain exposure and development come together to mean that one will not capture enough on the low or high end to satisfy his or her desires for the image at hand, one can simply alter exposure and development so that one does capture what one wants on the film.

It comes down to seeing the SBR, and knowing how your film will react to it when treated in certain ways, and, most importantly, how your print will react to the resulting negative. IMHO, avoid rules of thumb as to what tones should be placed at what negative densities, and take a more subjective approach, with exposure and processing tailored to each image.

 

[c6h6o3]

Can anyone recommend a B&W film that retains good detail and gives true, rich, deep blacks?

Just about any film that you can load into your camera will do that.

 

[Rick Jones]

Finally, use a selenium toned high D Max paper.

 

[Wade D]

I spot meter the shadows and open up 2 stops for exposure. If the scene is of normal contrast this works well. Higher contrast scenes would require a development adjustment which is hard to do with roll film.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I spot meter the shadows and open up 2 stops for exposure.

Done that many times. And meter the highlights and stop down 3 stops. There's nothing like the Zone System where one can meter, fill in worksheets, calculate and then set an exposure of 1/50th at f8 for exposing Tri-X in bright sun with nary a bit of common sense.

 

[Robert Budding]

I spot meter the shadows and open up 2 stops for exposure. If the scene is of normal contrast this works well. Higher contrast scenes would require a development adjustment which is hard to do with roll film.

Don't you mean stop down? The spot meter reading will place your shadow tone at zone V. Stop down 2 stops and it will end up at a Zone III density.

 

[Ian Grant]

He should mean stop down

I spot meter the shadows and open up 2 stops for exposure. If the scene is of normal contrast this works well. Higher contrast scenes would require a development adjustment which is hard to do with roll film.

Sometimes the shadows fall on Zone 4, other times they need to be closer to Zone 2 depending on the type of shadow and the detail required.

At the moment in the early evening bright sun light the shadows here are only a stop less than a Zone V or Incident reading - which gives the same.

It's better to read both the extremes before making your zone V placement, you're less likely to make a mistake

Ian