Slow black and white film for 35mm and 120
-
A
- Thread starter Joseph Bell
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
-
Want to Buy Shen Hao TFC617 A or B
- Started by djdister
-
Free CP40Y Color Printing Filtet
- Started by Roger Thoms
Forum statistics
I like young romanticism. So cute!
MattKing
Moderator
The information on the Ilford site states that the film is usable at EIs between 50 and 800, with EI 50 giving the finest grain. Chromogenic films work that way - the dye clouds present finer and finer grain as you increase exposure.
Here is the data sheet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/703/
If your workflow includes scanning, you also can employ ICE or other dust removal technology - which normally isn't possible with standard black and white film.
The fact that you are not doing your own development forms part of my recommendation. Around here, there are a lot more resources available for C41 development than black and white.
Sure, if you don't want a better digital file from a good sensor, and if you want to scan film, no doubt chromogenic film is in you case a better option than black and white film technology.
MattKing
Moderator
The chromogenic films are great for those who do both - print optically and scan for digital presentation.
Great is a misleading word...
That would mean chromogenic film replaced digital cameras for those using digital files, and also that chromogenic film replaced black and white film for optical printing...
As far as I know, those two have not happenned.
Anyway, Matt, I agree it can be done, as I said in my previous post: using film, but just for scanning, and trying to avoid grain, is a strange choice, but I do agree as I said: chromogenic film works for that...
Great is what I would say about best sensors for files, and best films for wet printing. Not arguing: just what I really think...
Hope OP uses chromogenic film: it's easy, and as you say, great and guaranteed precisely because someone else will develop, so big risks will be wisely avoided.
That would mean chromogenic film replaced digital cameras for those using digital files, and also that chromogenic film replaced black and white film for optical printing...
As far as I know, those two have not happenned.
Anyway, Matt, I agree it can be done, as I said in my previous post: using film, but just for scanning, and trying to avoid grain, is a strange choice, but I do agree as I said: chromogenic film works for that...
Great is what I would say about best sensors for files, and best films for wet printing. Not arguing: just what I really think...
Hope OP uses chromogenic film: it's easy, and as you say, great and guaranteed precisely because someone else will develop, so big risks will be wisely avoided.
Juan, remember, this is the analog part of the site -- here, it's heresy to suggest that a digital solution could possibly be superior to an analog one.
That said, the reason digital "won" in the first place was all about money. The incremental cost for any given image on digital is effectively zero (unless you're one who doesn't reuse memory cards, but even then it's much smaller than for film). Also, the post you responded to suggested that chromogenic B&W was better than silver image B&W in some ways (grain and the way grain responds to increased exposure, easy access to and economy of commercial processing, and the fact that it's easier to get good scans because infrared dust reduction is possible with chromogenic, which is not the case with silver image). Nothing said there implied (at least to me) that XP2 Super or color films were likely to replace either digital photography or silver image film for the thing they respectively do well -- rather, I read that statement as XP2 being superior if you need to do both from the same negative.
Having used a good bit of XP2 over the past few months, and being able to process it at home, I'd go so far as to say if it didn't cost twice what I pay for economy silver image film (and if I could get it in 4x5), I'd use XP2 Super exclusively for B&W. I can process it in C-41 or B&W chemistry, or C-41 bleach bypass to get a "free" speed increase with almost no change in grain; it scans well, both with and without the silver image present (though i can't use infrared dust removal if I leave the silver in it), and unlike Kodak chromogenic B&W products, it prints well in a B&W darkroom.
That said, the reason digital "won" in the first place was all about money. The incremental cost for any given image on digital is effectively zero (unless you're one who doesn't reuse memory cards, but even then it's much smaller than for film). Also, the post you responded to suggested that chromogenic B&W was better than silver image B&W in some ways (grain and the way grain responds to increased exposure, easy access to and economy of commercial processing, and the fact that it's easier to get good scans because infrared dust reduction is possible with chromogenic, which is not the case with silver image). Nothing said there implied (at least to me) that XP2 Super or color films were likely to replace either digital photography or silver image film for the thing they respectively do well -- rather, I read that statement as XP2 being superior if you need to do both from the same negative.
Having used a good bit of XP2 over the past few months, and being able to process it at home, I'd go so far as to say if it didn't cost twice what I pay for economy silver image film (and if I could get it in 4x5), I'd use XP2 Super exclusively for B&W. I can process it in C-41 or B&W chemistry, or C-41 bleach bypass to get a "free" speed increase with almost no change in grain; it scans well, both with and without the silver image present (though i can't use infrared dust removal if I leave the silver in it), and unlike Kodak chromogenic B&W products, it prints well in a B&W darkroom.
No, please do share them
Ilford FP4+ is as slow as I go.
Ok, and how does that help him when several slower alternative films have already been suggested?
Last edited:
Ilford PanF is fine for sun-lit scenes, and it does not have to be developed so soon. There is at least one other thread on PanF that gets into the details. I use it a lot and never have any trouble with it.
Cinema lab films are great for different slow films. My favorite is Kodak 2234. Which is Iso 6.I got it from Colorlab. They also sell Kodak 2378 for 35mm. It is orthochromatic sound recording film at about Iso 12. Great for a silhouette look. Photo Warehouse sold Kodak 5234, which is the same as 2234 on a different base. They're sold out now. Not sure if the will get more. I wish they would. The price for the 100' role was reasonable.I am not brave enough to buy a 400' roll yet. I've used the Lomography Fantome and Babylon. I didn't really like Babylon but do like Fantome. I think it shoots a bit like ortthochromatic film. Is Fantome, Orwo DP31? Orwa describes it as similar to Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Positive Film 2366/3366 which is orthochromatic. I am going to order another 100' from Orwo and have been stuck figuring out which one to buy. There was nothing wrong with Babylon. It just felt plain.
I like RPX 25 but have only shot it once. I tried several of the Rollei branded films a while back and RPX 25 stood out to me. Retro 80s is interesting as well. Near infrared film that gave some really intriguing photos.
I like RPX 25 but have only shot it once. I tried several of the Rollei branded films a while back and RPX 25 stood out to me. Retro 80s is interesting as well. Near infrared film that gave some really intriguing photos.
Well, in part, I agree; DN21 is "plain" -- and that's not entirely a bad thing for a film this far from the beaten path of ISO 100-400 films we usually use. Nothing weird about its spectral curve, develops in standard developers at fairly normal times, has good sharpness and (as you'd expect for ISO 13) very fine grain. And in bulk, it's reasonably priced for a specialty stock.
Went back and looked at the roll I shot and the pictures were better than I thought. Just had a bunch of new to me film and it didn't stand out in comparison. The sharpness is good and probably more usable as a standard film than DP31. I am most likely going to order a 100' of it from Orwo. Well I have it down to DN21 or UN54. I have some UN54 in my bulk loader right now that I got from them. With summer almost here ISO 13 should be fine.I imagine it would push to ISO 25 or 50 decently if needed but ISO 13 is a comfortable speed for me to use anyway. I like slow films and especially cinema lab films. When you get them right it feels like an image that digital couldn't deliver, even more so than higher speed film to me. But opinions vary. I think that is the beauty of photography to me. Different methods to the same goal.
For the mid-latitudes, ISO 13 means mid-day exposures on a clear day will run to f/8 at 1/25 to 1/50, pretty comfortable if you have a steady hand. If you like razor-thin DOF, you can open up to f/2 at shoot at 250-500 shutter, and if you need to get into the shade, you can keep the 1/25 to 1/50 and open up to f/2.8 or f/4. Honestly, for day shooting outdoors in summer, ISO 13 to 25 is a very good range to be in.
Thank you Matt, sadly I will not be doing my own development. Your recommendation is excellent, and I do enjoy the look of xp2, and indeed I will be scanning the negatives myself, and ICE will certainly come in handy. I had no idea I could go with EI50 and still have things developed normally. I'll give it a try!
Hi Juan,
If I had my druthers I would develop everything myself, playing around with different developers and recipes, but that is not a feasible option for me at this time. Back to happy youth - developing and wet printing was in all ways delightful, and I hope to get back to it soon!! I do think xp2 might be a good solution for this particular project. I will also use TMAX100 at EI50, given the stability of the film. As much as I'd love to play around with these exciting films like Ilford Pan 50 and some of the super-slow films mentioned above, I think it's probably best for me to keep it simple for now!
Hi Donald,
this is terrific information, many thanks. Will you ever shoot xp2 at EI50? My next plan is do a test roll at EI50 and have the lab process it as C-41. I am nervous, excited, etc!
Ha, thanks Paul, I promise to share the results after the project is complete. But for now my dumb little project is top secret! It's not because the idea is particularly good or original, it's only that I am strange and superstitious when it comes to talking about things before they've happened!
Many thanks. I am planning to shoot a test roll with this film as well. To get things started, I'll shoot test rolls of TMAX100, xp2, and PanF, all shot at EI50. Test rolls are fun and good for the economy, in ways.
I seriously doubt I'll shoot XP2 Super at EI 50 -- I shoot enough indoor available light to be much more interested in using bleach bypass to get EI 800 with better shadow detail than a common push. In fact, my most common process for it now is room temperature stand (30 seconds agitation at start, then 45 minutes undisturbed) with bleach bypass. I can process a tank of conventional B&W while it's standing, letting me get more productivity out of my limited darkroom time, and I haven't seen any difference in the results from conventional 100F process.
Hear hear
I end up shooting in the middle of the day a lot so I never mind a low ISO. Also, for me 1/50 seems a sweet spot. I am not sure if it is anything more than superstition but unless I am trying to do something creative with the shutter speed; ie blur or freeze action, I gravitate to 1/50. The more slower film I shoot the more I realized why older cameras didn't have the faster shutter speeds.Until Tri-X you probably rarely needed 1/500.
Exactly. Well, there were fast films before Tri-X still film (including a Tri-X Negative cine stock that was the ancestor of the same-name stuff still sold today). Royal-X, for instance (old ASA 800, which is equivalent to post-1960 1600) -- but Tri-X was the first fast film that had grain that was broadly acceptable from 35mm negatives.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |