b&w film

[messier]

i was recently reccomended pro B&w film. I was wondering if anyone has found a difference between standard and pro b&w film. i was basically shooting old barns and such outdoors. i shot 2 rolls of 125 and 1 roll of 400 pro film and am waiting on the lab to develop them. also what tends to look better matte or glossy finish. thanks in advance for any feedback

 

[Rob A]

i like matte much much mire than glossy for black and white, but i guess thats just my opinion. im not sure about the difference in films though sorry. :shock:

 

[terri33 4]

Personal preference, but for B&W enlargements I think semi-gloss or gloss looks very classy.

 

[Jeff Canes]

I prefer matte or simi-gloss with B&W because whites on glossy paper reflect light.

Not sure what you mean by pro B&W, because IMO most B&W film could be consider pro film.

 

[santino]

usually "pro" films have less grain, thats all I can think of atm

 

[ksmattfish]

The only BW film that I'm away of that even has a "pro" and a "standard" version is Tri-X. Tri-X Pro is made for easy retouching, and is ISO 320 instead of ISO 400. I guess there is probably pro and consumer C-41 BW.

Maybe consumer C-41 BW is "amateur", and traditional process BW is "pro"

For landscapes with 35mm film I would have chosen Tmax 100 on a tripod, but I've heard that the new version of Tmax 100 is not the same beast it used to be. An ISO 125 film would be a good choice. I like fine grain in my BW landscapes.

Film choice is personal. There is no magic film that is perfect in all situations. In fact I'd say a tripod will do more for landscape work than any particular brand of film. It's better to choose one film and stick with it for a dozen or so rolls to really get to know how you and the film get along. What works for me may not work for you.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Pro colour films are made to have better colour accuracy but this means that they are more unstable and go 'off' quicker which is why they have to be kept in a chiller or freezer. They are also made in 'daylight' and 'tungsten' types.
Amateur colour film is designed to be kept on a warm shelf in a brightly lit store for months without loosing fidelity - but the tradeoff is that the colour accuracy isn't too good.
Under most circumstances amateurs wouldn't notice the difference (but then neither would a lot of 'pros'!).
Black and white has a similar deal going with the amateur stuff being designed to sit on a warm shelf etc.
The pro b/w film tends to loose tonal range due to build up off base level fog unless it is refrigerated. At one time pro b/w used to have a gelatine coat on both sides for retouching and to reduce curl.
Once you get to 5x4 and 10x8 you can only get pro film.
There are other advantages to using pro film - you know when it was manufactured and you can buy it all from the same batch (if you want me to go into the technical reasons why these are important to pro's I will if you ask but it is very boring).
Pro labs sell film off cheap when it has gone over it's use-by date so it is worth going in and asking if they have any - you can pick up a bargain and as it has been kept chilled it is usually OK.

 

[Artemis]

www.Darkroompros.com is a site devoted to black and white photography, maybe they can help you?
(Sorry Had to try and advertise)

 

[Soulreaver]

I think matte papers give less contrast than gloss ones.Sometimes I use semi matte and other times gloss.
If its fiber I use gloss, didnt like matte fiber.

 

[PreludeX]

T grain films are really crappy.. i hate them so much but thats what we mostly shoot in my classes... id say plus x is good or even better.. ilford pan f plus 50... thats some good stuff!!!

 

[PreludeX]

The only BW film that I'm away of that even has a "pro" and a "standard" version is Tri-X. Tri-X Pro is made for easy retouching, and is ISO 320 instead of ISO 400. I guess there is probably pro and consumer C-41 BW.

Maybe consumer C-41 BW is "amateur", and traditional process BW is "pro"

For landscapes with 35mm film I would have chosen Tmax 100 on a tripod, but I've heard that the new version of Tmax 100 is not the same beast it used to be. An ISO 125 film would be a good choice. I like fine grain in my BW landscapes.

Film choice is personal. There is no magic film that is perfect in all situations. In fact I'd say a tripod will do more for landscape work than any particular brand of film. It's better to choose one film and stick with it for a dozen or so rolls to really get to know how you and the film get along. What works for me may not work for you.

tripod just helps you get better detail, while that the films are different and have a different impact.. such as kodak 125px has a better tonal range than tmax 100... and really, to make shots look good is to do some work in the dark room yourself thats how i like to do it

 

[Mumfandc]

My favorite B&W films:

1) Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (very nice smooth tone)
2) Ilford Pan F Plus (processed w/care, VERY fine grained)
3) Agfa Scala 200 (B&W transparency)

I also REALLY like Ilford XP2, despite B&W enthusiasts arguing it's not "real" B&W. You'll often get a slight color cast w/this film, though one time I got proofs which came back with an INTENSE cyan blue cast/midtone color to them...real crappy 1-hour lab anyway.

I always prefer to have B&W printed on matte paper or semi-matte. Maybe it's just me, but I think it has better contrast this way. Color I always print glossy (2nd option Lustre), the color seems more saturated, I guess because less light scattering on the paper surface...

 

[Jess]

There are other advantages to using pro film - you know when it was manufactured and you can buy it all from the same batch (if you want me to go into the technical reasons why these are important to pro's I will if you ask but it is very boring).

I'm interrested!

 

[Mumfandc]

I think ksmattfish made one point. Tri-X has a retouchable base. Though I believe the word "professional" can also be used as a marketing strategy. I've read that the "new" Kodak "High-Definition 200" is basically the old Kodak "Royal Gold 200"...just a different name!

But speaking of B&W, I wonder why a lot of people still prefer B&W images over color. I know someone who says that color is just a hindrance on the "creative process", another guy says that "color can give points to just a plain BAD photo". I find the first argument funny, because B&W delivers tonality, whereas color is tonality+hue (more to "work" with)??

Even today with digital cameras, people still convert their RGB color images to greyscale. You would think monochromatic images to be rather "old" in photographic history, as we have color film/digital anyway, even color enhancing film (speaking of which, have you guys seen Fujifilm Fortia slide film?? So much contrast and color saturation you'll vomit if you're a dedicated B&W enthusiast. But it's a Japan-only film, I guess more-suited to their tastes).

If you go to Photosig.com, many people submit an image in color, then they submit a Photoshopped B&W version side-by-side asking which one is better. In my eyes, I'm already biased knowing it was a color image originally...so I tend to view the B&W photo as a color image...missing the color!

But one area, where I believe B&W truely shines are platinum prints. I saw some at the Met museum, didn't get the photographers name...but wow!

 

[ksmattfish]

But speaking of B&W, I wonder why a lot of people still prefer B&W images over color...

I'm sure there are as many different reasons as there are BW photographers. I think that color may be the most powerful visual aspect of a photograph when it comes to emotions and energy. It can easily overpower the qualities of other visual aspects (texture, shape, tone, form, etc...) of an image. By leaving it out I can bring out those other aspects more.

Texture particularly fascinates me, and in many of my BW images I follow the f/64 philosophy, and go for lots of sharp detail. On the other hand when I do shoot color for personal work I like to hand hold with slow shutter speeds. The images have more movement and blur which loses the texture; I concentrate more on the energy and motion of the subject.