I have not used B&W film for several years. [Part of this thread is to answer the question: "Should I?"] I mainly shoot color (negative), and convert to monochrome in Photoshop using the channel mixer. However, dedicated B&W films are still manufactured, and may offer benefits in grain, sharpness, dynamic range, low-light capability, etc. Do folks here have any opinions?  [Silly question...] I know I can read the manufacturer's Marketing sheets, but somehow that is not as comforting as hearing from actual experience.

Film	Speed	Dynamic Range	Grain	Sharpness	Developer
Agfa APX  400                   100
Ilford PAN 400          PAN 100
Ilford HP5  400           FP4  125           PAN F 50
Ilford Delta  400                    100                   3200
Kodak PX125
Kodak T-Max 400                        100                       3200
Kodak TX-400

Film	Speed	Dynamic Range	Grain	Sharpness
Konica VX 400
Ilford XP2 Super
Kodak T400 CN
Kodak Portra 400BW

Hmm... so much for checking the HTML box...

dude, u just gave me a seizure

Attached Link: mikepanic.com v3.0

well what are you shooting??? honestly, it makes NO sense to me to shoot in color if your converting to grayscale anyway in photoshop.. not to mention your limiting your filter selection... i shoot a LOT of ilford hp5+ 400iso film, b&h sells it for $2.74/roll for 36exp - its a great film, lots of versatilty and at that price, it can't be beat, period... what exactly are you shooting, and if your scanning all your work to convert it to grayscale, u may as well shoot b&w, or if your work all ends up in a digital medium such as websites u might look into a digital slr camera

Mike- Saying it makes NO sense seems rather harsh... Two or three reasons come to mind. Then again, we're all somewhat crazy here: a) I may not know up front if I want the final result in color or in B&W. I guess I could carry another 35mm body, or another back for the medium format. But I'm getting old, and I have more important things to lug around. However, if dedicated B&W film performed better than converted color the extra weight would be worth it. Still, for capturing the "fleeting moment" it is problematic juggling two bodies. b) To adjust image tone up front using B&W film, I'd need to carry around several colors and densities of B&W filters, and I'd have to get the filtration correct in the camera. With color film, as long as I'm not asking for anything too outlandish that would cause blocking in the negative, I can experiment with infinitely variable filtration in the comfort of my computer room. c) Conventional B&W processing costs a fortune, if you can find someone who can do it without screwing up. This is totally the reverse of thirty years ago. Since B&W is done in such low volumes one can never really be sure of the quality control. For the C-41 chromatogenic films this is not an issue, which is why I included some of them in the above list. Even so, if folks would show me that conventional B&W actually performs better than converted color or the chromatogenics, I still have a tank and reel somewhere down in the basement. So, today I shoot color negative, (mostly Fuji Superia Realia), and if I want B&W I convert in Photoshop. I'm not saying this is the best way to go, and I'd hope this thread uncovers some good information. [I still need to find a way to display the hypertext properly... Star?] In some Extreme cases, like needing deep red filtration, my method does not work well. But I seldom use my really deep red filter... A couple things I'd specifically like to know. In what cases are the C-41 B&W materials valuable? For conventional B&W, what are folks preferred developers and processes? What has replaced my old favorite, Panatomic-X ISO32?

Misha - For developing, look for a good photo lab in your area, preferrably one that caters to pros as well as amateurs. I go to Ivey's here in and the cost of b&w processing is exactly the same as color. Pro-labs see a large amount of b&w and they don't stare at you with a blank look on their face when you tell them you've shot some ISO 1600 at EI 6400 and you want it not only pushed 2 but cross-processed. As for recommendations, under what conditions do you want to shoot. I think for high-speed/low light it would be hard to find a color film that works as well as an Ilford or Kodak 3200. While I can't give you 100% proof, from what I've shot it looks to me that the lower speed b&W films (like Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji ACROS 100) have a much finer grain than color of the same speed (this does not go for slide film or the naturally grainy b&w films out there). -=>Donald

Thank's Don- Push processing is a good point for B&W. You've used the term "cross-processed" now a couple times: could you explain? It could be that with the improvements over the years the new ISO 100 flavors have as good (or better) grain and sharpness as the old ISO 32 brands?

Attached Link: mikepanic.com v3.0

misha - you never answered my question - what do you shoot? dont get me wrong, reala is great film... also, im not sure how large of a city you live in, im an hour nw of philly and we have several high high quality local family owned labs who process b&w by hand, and its the same price or cheaper then having color done, and they do it twice a week. it all boils down to - what do you shoot and what do u want the final outcome to be

I have only used Ilford B&W films like FP4+ and Pan F+ but their Delta 100 has relly inpressed me, I am going to shoot a lot more of that film.I have no pro lab in the backwater town I live in, so to get B&W film prints its a wait of ten days and the cost is twice as much as colour so I process my own negs, 2 at a time using a twin reel, to keep cem costs down and then scan them, plus if I want to print (in the tradition way) ones that I like, I can set up a wet darkroom for evening.

Misha's message in format (let's see if my theory is correct, I'm just testing to make sure):

I have not used B&W film for several years. [Part of this thread is to answer the question: "Should I?"] I mainly shoot color (negative), and convert to monochrome in Photoshop using the channel mixer. However, dedicated B&W films are still manufactured, and may offer benefits in grain, sharpness, dynamic range, low-light capability, etc. Do folks here have any opinions? [Silly question...] I know I can read the manufacturer's Marketing sheets, but somehow that is not as comforting as hearing from actual experience.

Film Speed Dynamic Range Grain Sharpness Developer Agfa APX 400
100 Ilford PAN 400
PAN 100 Ilford HP5 400
FP4 125
PAN F 50 Ilford Delta 400
100
3200 Kodak PX125 Kodak T-Max 400
100
3200 Kodak TX-400 Film Speed Dynamic Range Grain Sharpness Konica VX 400 Ilford XP2 Super Kodak T400 CN Kodak Portra 400BW

Misha, when typing the code don't include the [HTML], [HEAD] and [BODY] tags anymore. Just put in what goes in between the [BODY] tags. No more seizure for Slynky! Sorry for the intrusion. Okay, now back to the topic! Hehe (*

Attached Link: Web Monkey Cross Processing

Misha - For once, it's as easy as the name sounds. :) Cross processing is when you process the film in the "wrong" chemistry. If you shoot slide film, processing it as C41. Shoot print film, process it as E6. All film brands, types and speeds react slightly different to the processing. When done correctly you get these really weird colors. There is probably far less of it today being done because you could create the same type of effect in Photoshop. Also, unless you want a really high contrast effect, don't push the film when you do it. Cross processing kicks the contrast up, so you normally don't want to push (if I'm remembering correctly, you want to overexpose a stop or so to give you a bit more detail in your shadows and give a little bit more saturation). It's a really neat effect when it works. And I'll bet you've seen photos done that way (especially in advertising) without knowing what the process was. Check the link out. Webmonkey has some examples on that page. -=>Donald

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Y&Artist=Misha883

Don --Thanks. Cross processing; strange shyte as Slynkie would say. Star --Great. Thanks. Now folks could "View->Source" and cut and paste (and add to) the table... Azy --Looks like that Delta 100 is getting a couple votes. Mike --what do I shoot? Oh, I thought you meant what film do I shoot! Sorry. Used to shoot a Browning 12 Guage at clay quite a bit. Haven't for many years. Do get out with the bow quite often; old recurve, can't stand those compound things. Truthfully, don't do much of that any more either. Spend most of my time adding photos and things to my Gallery. [See, we ARE mostly crazy here...]

OK.....I really haven't the time to read this whole thread thouroughly at the mo', but I do have one thing to add to this that I don't think has been mentioned.... The fact Misha that you have a film scanner that uses the digital ice technology is something you may want to consider in all of this. This technology does not work with B&W film so you will be possibly doing some major clean-up work on dust and scratches in PS if you shoot with B&W film. This has been my experience with scanning B&W using the Canon scanner which uses FARE technology....different names, basically same process.

Ya, thank's 'Chelle. That was a major bummer, as I do have many old B&W negatives in the sock drawer. Do you know if the C-41 process stuff (Portra or XP2) work?

I've never used the C-41 stuff....and to be honest I'm not all that anxious to try it...I've heard good and bad, but I'd rather stick to the real stuff...if there is such a thing as real in photography anymore....

Damn....and I was trying to find the POP Photography article that I read in one of the issues from 2002 It was a comparison of the C41 process B&W -vs- the real thing....of course try going thru a years worth of magazines quickly....if I can find it.....

I have used the c-41 process B&W a few times to and personally I am not all that impressed with it. I have had it developed at 2 different labs and the consistency of the print is never the same. Generally speaking, sometimes it does come back in B&W sometimes it has this very irritating purple tinge to it. Granted I didn't use my regular lab, due to cost of developing 35mm. I recently had the lab monotone a roll of porta 160vc and was rather impressed with the prints that came back. Nice tones and no purps to be found anywhere. Here is one that I had monotoned, porta 160vc.

Guess I could share one more with ya'll. This is my youngest boy Cody. He had had a bad day at school, so I took him into the back of the studio and had him tell me all about it while I shot a roll of him. He seems to like relaxing that way. Makes his mood 100% better.

Didg --Seems to have a really nice range of tones and sharpness (though that's hard to judge with a jpeg on a monitor). Bet that hair highlighting on the first is really sharp in the print? Looks like a medium format? When you say the lab "monotoned" the portra 160vc, what are they really doing? Printing on B&W paper in a conventional wet darkroom?

You know, when I first started scanning with my film scanner, I had to do some major clean up, but now I make sure my negs are pretty much clean before scanning and it works great. I always have cotton gloves on when I handle the negs, I give it a blast of compressed gas before I put it into the film holder and then when it's there, I give it a couple more blasts. Then I angle the holder so that I get some light reflected across the negs and move it up and down so the light travels across the surface. That way I can see any dust spots on the surface. If I see any, a small blast of air helps. If a neg is really bad and won't come clean (dust and/or fingerprints) I clean it first with some Edwal Anti-Stat film cleaner. -=>Donald

Sorry Misha, I probably should have explained that better. Yeah, they are just printing it onto B&W paper instead. For me that was something new. I am just now learning about the magic that happens in there. The hairlight is very sharp in the print and scan. You can even see each individual eyelash on the far eye. I lost alot when I shrunk it down. I am on the wife's machine and don't PS installed on it. Give the man a cigar, medium format was the correct answer. I use the contax at the studio. Really love that camera, sharp damn lenses. As for the film scanning. I was hesitant to post those as I know the scan has fingerprints and dust on it. But sadly, I am stuck having my boss scan my prints (only I and the lab get to fondle my negs). And heaven forbid I mention cleaning the glass on the scanner. Sucks being an assistant sometimes. But hey, I do get free use of the studio whenever I want and the cameras I can't afford myself. L

Thanks Didg and Don, So, that looks like another option I hadn't considered; shoot in color, but print on B&W paper. [That paper must be sort of special... wonder if it has to be handled in total darkness, or if you can still use the orange safelight?] One of my recent e-bay "wins" was an airbrush and compressor. Should work great to blast the film with air.

I did a short investigation on the manufacturers' web sites. Came up with some surprises. Here, from Ilford is a spectral sensitivity chart for their three ISO 400 B&W films. The surprise is that HP5 and XP2 cut off a good portion of the Red spectrum, almost like old orthochromatic films. The data sheets actually warn about this, saying more exposure may be needed at sunset, or when using deep red filters. Delta 400 seems to cover the entire reds well. The Kodak Portra and T-MAX films seem to perform similarly to HP5 and XP2.

The question which really started off this whole thread came from the Slynkster: "What B&W film has the greatest exposure latitude?" Again, looking at the curves, I was very surprised. I expected to see the chromogenics, like XP2 and Portra perform a lot better than conventional single layer films. Indeed this was one of the Marketing stories when they first came out; you could shoot a single roll over very wide variations. Comparing the Ilford products, this is just not the case. XP2 starts to block about a half stop before Delta400, and almost a full stop before HP5. This was unexpected. With the Kodak emulsions, the Portra maybe can have a slightly greater range than T-MAX, at the expense of being overall less contrasty. It is VERY dangerous comparing curves from different manufacturers, (I tried to normalize as best I could). But if these curves are accurate, T-MAX has a wider dynamic range than any of the Ilford films, by about one-half to one stop. And this can be increased farther, without appreciably raising the fog, by increasing development times. Again, it is very hard to know if this is really a valid comparison, and I'm sure other characteristics are being traded off. But I'd be interested in hearing any practical experience indicating that T-MAX has such a nice exposure latitude. [I'm tired, and as yet have not found the curves for TRI-X.]

And I have not found the article yet either....I must have been very tired last night because I feel asleep before even picking up a magazine. Today I was rather busy too...I promise I will find it for you...and find a way for you to read it...