B&W film 100 ISO. Which is the best?

[Axel]

I am looking at Adorama's site and see that there are two different Fuju Films. One is the Fujifilm Neopan 100 Black & White Film ISO 100 and another one is Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros Black & White Film ISO 100. The price is quite different, but what is the difference between the films?

Are there any better films out there (better=price/quality of pictures)?

Thank you

 

[Don Simon]

I think Acros is finer grain. Whether it's "better" than any other film depends on what you want it for. There are loads of b&w films out there that can give you great picture quality; if you tell us what sort of photography you want to do then we can probably recommend something specific.

For a general-purpose film at a good price, as long as you don't want to do massive enlargements, I'd personally recommend Ilford Pan 100 if you can get it; I'm not so familiar with Kojak and Fuji b&w but others who are can probably recommend a good one.

 

[Happy Medium]

My personal favorite B&W film is Kodak Plus-X pan 125.

 

[montresor]

Have had good results from Ilford Delta 100, provides good contrast in mediocre-light conditions; Plus-X is nice too, softer and a little less contrasty than the Ilford. T-Max at any speed I've not liked much. Fuji Acros has a good tonal range, but here in Cleveland, where there's often heavy cloud cover, much of that wide range is wasted. Or maybe it's just my lens (Canon 28-80 for EOS) doesn't like the Fuji as much? Come to think of it, I have a 45mm Schneider that doesn't much like Plus-X at all. Lens-film interactions, hmmm....

 

[wharrison]

Axel:

I'd second the motion for Plus-X with Microdol-X 1:3.

For additional information, you might link to this site.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html

Hope this helps!

Bill

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I got the cheapest in canada - agfa

Works good so far. Film choice doesn't matter much.

 

[Smith2688]

Film choice doesn't matter much.

Huhhh?

 

[Don Simon]

I second the "Huhhh?". Plenty of films work good in terms of capturing a properly exposed image, but if you want your photos to have a specific look then film choice does matter, as does the method of developing, enlarging and the kind of paper used.

 

[KevinR]

I would say for me Delta 100 has been the film of choice for 100 speed films.

What doc probably means is that the variables with B&W film makes just the film choice not that big a decision. The developer is huge and how it is developed is a big part too, as in the amount of agitation, temps, etc.

 

[Don Simon]

True, they're all inter-related but the choice of film does matter. I mean, otherwise why choose Delta over a cheaper film?

 

[ksmattfish]

I would agree with DocFrakenstein that film choice between similar BW films (with roughly the same ISO and spectral sensitivity) is not critical. Agfa, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc... are all much more alike than they are different. With some very cheap films I have found an annoyingly curly film base which makes it difficult to handle, but the prints I make from them are fine.

There are so many variables that go into how a BW photo looks. ZaphodB mentioned developing technique, enlarger type, and paper choice. To these I would also add: the lighting of the scene, lens aspects, filters, metering type/style, exposure, film chemical choices, print chemical choices (or a non chemical printing method), print size, and print contrast. Including film choice we now have 12+ variables, and there are more. A change in any one of these can affect how the photo is going to look, and in many cases the differences will be much more pronounced than just a change in film brand.

In my opinion, choosing a film, and sticking with it long enough to really learn how it works is much more important than what film you choose. I have found that once I really know a film, I can manipulate it's look to have similar aspects that other folks may attribute to a particular brand.

 

[Smith2688]

Right, I imagine that any of the films listed here would yield better results than Kodak's consumer Black and White film, which requires color C-41 developing. (I don't know much about b&w film, but I imagine that the good ones need special developing.)

 

[ksmattfish]

Right, I imagine that any of the films listed here would yield better results than Kodak's consumer Black and White film, which requires color C-41 developing. (I don't know much about b&w film, but I imagine that the good ones need special developing.)

There are many professional photographers using C41 BW film. It has it's own pros and cons, and in some situations may be a better choice than traditional process BW film. I have used it quite successfully.

Gear is fun, but remember to take the sales pitch with a grain of salt (or silver) .

 

[santino]

what are the major pros of C-41 B&W film? (except for the fact that EVERY lab will process them)

I don't no nothing about C-41 B&W stuff so any explanation is welcome

 

[ksmattfish]

what are the major pros of C-41 B&W film?

Well, one photog's pro is another photog's con.

C41 can be developed almost anywhere; this is a huge benefit to someone without a darkroom, or a local pro lab.

Another aspect is that C41 BW has a large exposure latitude; you can expose from ISO 100 to 800 on the same roll with no change in development. This is a pro if you are going to be experiencing big lighting changes (like moving from outdoors to indoors) on the same roll of film. This is a con if you need to use exposure and development to control tones and contrast.

EDIT: Another pro would be that you can usually get one-hour service on it, while you may have to wait for a day or more to get regular BW processing.