- This topic is empty.
Taking the plunge
-
Be careful… I may take you up on that Eddie :)
I’m nervously looking forward to Wednesday to see the results of my film experiment
Well my toes have been well and truly dipped in the water. I’ve finished my roll of 36 (Ilford HP5+ 400), had the film developed and negs scanned. I used Gunn’s on Camden/Wicklow Street.
Being honest, I have mixed feelings about the experience. I struggled with the camera quite a bit, both in terms of simply the handling/control but primarily with the exposure and metering. I found it quite difficult to rely on the matrix/evaluative metering, where I kept trying to preview each shot to make sure I haven’t under or over exposed a scene! But film definitely slowed me down, made me more deliberare, always forcing me to think about each shots composition and exposure, which can only be a good thing.
The results are VERY noisey/grainy, which I do like, but am still surprised at the extent of it. If I was to make a comparison to my digital camera, I’d say it’s like shooting at above 800 if not even 1600 ISO.
Thanks to everyone for your help and advice. I’m now on to roll two so will no doubt be back looking for more tips/advice. Here are two shots from the roll.
Yup – the grain is cool ..
The second shot has you written all over it… its VERY nice
But I LOVE the first – its like you used a time machine not a film camera – it looks brilliant, very 1960’s
Now … I want to play :)
Lorraine
Its been over 4 years since I used film now and even probably twice as long since I used B&W film (Used to use Ilford XP2 which is a C41 process….which I really never considered as “real” B&W). In fact I’m just clearing out the darkroom and dumping lots of old paper and stuff to convert thae room to a fireproof media storage room. Anyway……you’re right it was always grainy. To me it seemed that the manufacturers perfected the grain in colour films and did not really progress so much with the B&W. Most popular B&W films in the 60’s & early 70’s BC (before colour) were 50ASA or 75ASA…….I even saw a 25ASA in some book. That way the grain was smaller. Its the one thing that I noticed when changing to digital……..the grain or noise as its now know as, is much less. In the 90’s I just used colour film and just printed in B&W. For some particular jobs (very few…as I hated the darkroom and hated hand developing and printing B&W film) I would use
Ilford FP4 and either push or pull it to magnify the grain and “upset” the contrast. I loved using Kodak Infra Red film also as it was a great challange to use it ………… found a pack of 12 unused rolls in the clearout ……. 14 years out of date !Interesting reading Gerry.
I like the grain, but I wasn’t really prepared for it. Now that I know what to expect, I guess I can tailor my shots for it. I think this would make great film for street photography – give a real gritty emotional feel to it. Kind of like the shot that Simon has of the guy on the streets in Cambridge with his head in his hands. But I’d be reluctant to use it on more polished photos (i.e. weddings etc.) Still though, all in all an interesting experiment. I’ll shoot one more roll and see how that turns out and if all goes well I may splash out on a cheap second hand Nikon film SLR and maybe even my own darkroom equipment :shock:
Ciaran,
you are so right. the grain suits the pics and especially the pics you have above. If they were too clean they would be too modern. They have a 60’s feel and its very nice………there’s still a lot to be said for it. Its only a matter of time until some digital camera will come on to the market with the proud boast that you can reproduce the “B&W type grain”. Its happened with sound equipment. The valve was replaced by the transistor. Then the transistor was integrated into the IC. Each improvement “cleaned” the sound. IC’s became CMOS & MOSFETS, later FM synthisis and now in the most modern sound equipment they have added circutary to give the “valve” sound. We do go roung in circles sometimes.Anyway Ciaran, if you have not done it before, it worth the effort and you are really going back to basics and you will, no doubt, be the better for doing it………..enjoy the experience.
Love the pics Ciaran,
the grain really suits them. If you want to try a smoother film give Fuji neopan 400 ASA a shot, it has a lot less grain, and, although not a traditional B&W film (it uses process C41) I have found the results are usually great. If shooting B&W film at a wedding this is what I use.
You should also play around with filters if you have access to them. I shoot most of my B&W with a yellow filter which brings out the contrast. As you move up through orange, red etc. the contrast becomes greater.
For ultra fine grain you can try Ilford pan f50, which is 50 asa and can be blown up to A1 with ease and virtually no visible grain.
Regards
Kevin
Ciaran,
Two good images, the second close up portrait is very dramatic and the film treatment suits it. The first will make a nice toned print. Great photography regardless of medium. I dont think you can judge the grain based on the film scans alone, you should get a good 16*12 out of a 400asa film without any noticable grain. Next step is to print them.
On exposure side there is good latitude on HP5, you can get away with over a stop each way.
Thanks for the comments :)
I definitely noticed much larger lattitude to exposure than that in digital. What did surprise me however was exposing for shadow detail. From the research I did, apparently one of the differences between film and digital is that in diigtal you expose for the highlights and bring detail out of the shadows if necessary, whilst for film it’s the exact opposite. So basically digital, you should “underxpose” where as film you overexpose. As alien as it felt at the time, on some of the shots I tried the methodology of over exposing. Yes… film does seem to have a higher dynamic range, but my guess is that to achieve the true dynamic range you have to put the effort in at the development stage, because for the shots I purposely pushed one stop over, they showed “blown highlights”
Now this could be due to a number of reasons. Firstly and probably primarily, the meter is evaluative/matrix so it’s difficult to truly control exposure in a scene. I’m more of a spot meter fan and use that to determine the highlights and exposure in a scene. But secondly its probably due to the development. Like photoshop, I’m guessing development is a part of the “work flow” and to end up with the print you want, YOU need to be able to control the process so as to drag detail out of the highlights and the shadows.
As for the grain, whilst it’s probably mostly due to the film, my guess is that its also due to the scanning process. The problem with this film lark is that there is so much control handed over to other people. Where as for my digital flow, I am in total control from capture all the way to printing, framing and hanging it on my wall. It makes me want to set up my own dark room and take you up on those lessons Eddie :)
Hi Ciaran,
You’ve been bitten!
Don’t expect anything like the clean shots the D2x produces. I would rate the D2x as probably better than medium format.
Films I like are the fuji, Across (iso100) and neopan 400. If in doubt overexpose half a stop, there is loads of latitude.
The original “Zone system” was all about understanding the contrast in a scene and exposing/developing accordingly, this is where the fun of B&W processing comes in. You can ask the lab to push/pull the development if you want. If you want a 1940’s style hollywood film, try the Efke 50, it’s a single layer emulsion and has big lumps of black grain (the grain is really the gaps between the silver).
The “Grain” is emphasised when using a scanner, if you were to print those shots in a darkroom, a lot of the grain would “Soften” and still leave good sharp edges to your subject. You can pick up film cameras very cheaply on ebay, even medium format and large format. 35mm neg scanners are pretty cheap too, also darkroom processing kits (it’s easy to do this yourself and can be very rewarding).
There is a certain rawness that B&W film gives that I still love and something about seeing the picture in your mind and following it all the way through to print is fab. Someone aboved mentioned filters, an orange or red filter will lift skin tones and darken skies, the effects are as you’d expect, similar to using channel mixer on your digital shots.
Have fun mate and welcome to the dark side. You thought the arguments about ccd v cmos were bad, wait until the guys start discussing developers and films, hehe.
All best
Si
Eddie wrote:
Clean negative are the key to success. Producing clean well exposed negatives is quite difficult. You can get water marks , dust can stick to your negatives, small scratches from film transport on your camera.
Ciaran,
Be very careful with this monochrome photography lark – you could end up being addicted to it!!! Much as I love the convenience of digital, there are times when I really do miss working with film and I haven’t abandoned it altogether.
Eddie makes a very important point regarding negatives. I’ve often come across photographers that will hand their film in to a lab to be processed and then print the negatives themselves. I’ve always worked the other way around, processing my own negatives and leaving the printing up to a lab, with detailed written directions on how to print the image. I’ve had to do this out of necessity as I don’t have room to set up a darkroom at home. Developing negatives, however, does not require a darkroom and by doing it yourself, you have total control over how the negative is developed. Remember that the negative is the original – get a print wrong and you can re-print it; get a negative wrong and you’re up the creek. To get the best out of a negative you’ve got to move away from the standard developing that a lab will carry out. This will require testing of the particluar emulsion in your chosen developer to determine both the optimum film speed and required development time. And that’s just the first step. Once you’ve done that you can compress or expand the tonal range of the film,simply by making corresponding adjustments to exposure and development. Even the dilution of the developer and the time/temperature balance can play a significant part in the final outcome.
Admitedly, for someone that’s shooting their first roll of black and white film this is overkill and a bog-standard development will do just fine – but it’s so easy to do yourself that I wonder why anyone would bother with a lab!
The other alternative is to use a C41 black and white film which most 1-hour labs will process and print for you. I’ve had a reasonable amount of success with C-41 black and white films but you lose a lot of the control you have with regular black and white film. I suppose it’s a bit like JPEG -v- RAW file formats, with the C41 being the equivalent of JPEG!
Have fun!
ecp wrote:
Be very careful with this monochrome photography lark – you could end up being addicted to it!!!
Are you suggesting you’re starting to see a pattern in my photography? :D Don’t worry Thorsten, one of these days I will eventually get around to shooting colour. Personally I blame Simon on my demise. When he started telling me that my meter turns everything grey, I couldn’t figure out how on earth I could shoot colour shots :shock:
ecp wrote:
To get the best out of a negative you’ve got to move away from the standard developing that a lab will carry out. This will require testing of the particluar emulsion in your chosen developer to determine both the optimum film speed and required development time. And that’s just the first step. Once you’ve done that you can compress or expand the tonal range of the film,simply by making corresponding adjustments to exposure and development. Even the dilution of the developer and the time/temperature balance can play a significant part in the final outcome.
Admitedly, for someone that’s shooting their first roll of black and white film this is overkill and a bog-standard development will do just fine – but it’s so easy to do yourself that I wonder why anyone would bother with a lab!
My first roll was very much an experiment and I learned quite a bit, but there are still so many unknowns. My biggest gripe with the whole process is the handing over of control to someone to develop the negs. I’m guessing, if they had the same “love” for the shots as me, they would have spent longer in the development to get less noise, really bring out the detail in the shadows etc. But realistically for my first roll, I was always going to give over that control. It depends on how much of this film lark I’m going to undertake, as to whether or not I go down the self development route. But before that, if I am going to shoot a lot more, I’m probably going to go out and buy a good second hand Nikon film SLR because I really didn’t enjoy the battle I had with the borrowed Canon. Although, I have some people trying to convince me to go down the road of a RF instead of an SLR. Choices! choice!
Ciaran
You have a great understanding of your photography and have researched the B&W process well.
Even taking control yourself of the processing side has limitations as the exposure on say a 36 role can have variations of different subject lighting. Increasing development can increase contrast and reducing development has the opposite effect. The printing process does however give back lots of control as the modern papers have good contrast control through the use of multigrade filters. Toners also give you control over the final image. Something tells me you will be giving me the lessons shortly.
hehe, All of the above. Also, the lab will scan the negative for you, that’s where your blown highlights probably come from. I bet there’s detail on the negative. I used to shoot Neopan400, rated at 200 (1 stop overexpose) and then underdevelop to give a negative that scanned well. Then Photoshop time. On DUll days, Fuji Across rated at ISO 200 (1 stop underexpose) and then overdevelop, boosts contrast. You’re gonna have sooo much fun.
Check ebay for a basic developing kit. B&W can be done at room temperature and is really easy (as long as your tap water is clean).
Si
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
