Hey 'guys', I tried my hand on some b&w shots, but I can't say I'm very happy with them.....in fact, I think there's only shot in 2x 36 rolls that I'm happy with...grain and exposure wise. (this one) Well, I've tried T-Max 3200 and normal Kodak 100 b&w (the one that can be developed in c41 color machines), and especially the kodak wasn't very impressive. Shame cause I already bought 3 rolls of Kodak T400CN film :) But someone told me he always used the T-Max 3200 as a 1600 film, and I have to admit that it does look a bit overexposed as a 3200 film.... Does anyone have any advice on shooting b&w ? Also I'm curious to see what film you all use.... Thanks =)

3200!!! Gee guy to think you own a tripod! Why bother with 3200! Seriously I always had a problem with the grain size with faster film. Plus 3200 gotta be expensive! Is 3200 nescessary? Can't you be happy with 800? also have you experimented with paper yet? i admitt I haven't. In fact I havent printed much either. So what am I saying? Never mind. My two cent's is that higher speed film although usefull has a visual cost. Which is the grain. Bsteph

Can you shed some light on what you like? Size of prints, your process for getting image on neg to final print. What you like in b&w. anything else that you deem relevant. I used to shoot nothing but tri-x (35mm) I loved the grain, curve and sharpness. But this is when I was shooting very traditionally. Now I experiment with everything. My next phase is going to be shooting color tranny with the intent of creating black and white scans. Visitor

Alright! Now we're talkin' some interesting stuff! First, let me say Tmax 3200 has its place. It's a terrific film if you need some serious, serious speed. I've had good results pushing it all the way to iso 12800. Now That's speed! That's about the only thing you'll need it for though. My film of choice is Tri-x and I'll tell you why. Perhaps most importantly, tri-x will give you about 2 stops more latitude than tmax. That's quite significant when doing a wide range of tones. It helps to keep from having to blow out highlights and losing detail in those shadow areas. I've also gotten a lot better contrast out of tri-x than tmax, especially tmax 3200, simply because the general rule is the slower the film, the more contrast you get. But even when you use similar speeds of both films, you will find tri-x gives you more contrast. Tri-x used to be the "grainy film" but Kodak has since changed their formula so you don't have to worry about that anymore. The majority of photographers loved tri-x before the change and even more love it since the change. It is very popular and for good reason. If you want finer grain than that, I would recommend Ilford's Pan F iso 50. This is a great film but it is very slow. That may be what you want though. Keep in mind that unlike the previous two films, this is a "professional" film however, and it should be refridgerated. Don't throw out your Kodak B&W c-41 just yet! It definitely has it's place as well. Some of the absolute finest grain you can get in a B&W print, is from c-41 monochrome film. And that's surprising considering it is somewhat fast at up to iso 400. Even at that speed, you will get terrific grain even in huge enlargements. Don't forget how much less expensive it is to process. So what do you give up with this film? If you take to your everyday, 1-hour lab, your prints may come out a bit bluish. Some people like that. Some people don't even notice that. There is an alternative. You can get your prints done at a custom lab on black and white paper and not have to worry about the coloration at all. So this film definitely has it's place. I hope that's been helpful. I could go on for a long time about films like these, but I'll save everyone the torture! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I would love to help. For example, you may want me to explain that whole latitude thing and how you can meter to get detail out of everything in a high contrast situation. Wow, I just can't shut up! Anyway, I hope that helps... Andrew

What I like most in b&w shooting is sharp, fine grain film with a lot of contrast....but not with it's lightest and darkest spots too exhaggerated like I've seen on both film. Don't laugh :) I know 3200 isn't sharp, fine grain film, but I tried it before in low light conditions and I didn't really liked the results (too dark, whites are too grey-ish, etc) so I just wanted to try it again...so the 3200 isn't something I was expecting great sharp shots with :) Well, I had the same problem with the 400 film (not the T400CN, but just kodak's normal consumer 400 film). Anyway, like I said, I like sharp and contrasty stuff....but not too much that you get more a black & white shot without much grey's in between if you know what I mean. I saw a shot with Tmax 100 somewhere, either in a magazine or on photo.net, and it looked exactly like I wanted it. But 100 would be a bit slow.... Any suggestions ? :) Btw, thanks for all the great info!

Are you doing your own printing or are using a lab?

T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 for B&W......but I admit I've never used anything else, and I've never done my own processing, I take it to a custom lab. I've been very happy with the results. But now that Andrew has spoken so highly of the Tri-X being so great.....I'll have to try it.

I pay less than $3 for developing and cutting negatives/slides (36x), and around $7 total for dev and framing. And I haven't done printing myself yet, but that's just because I usually shoot color slides. Btw, Michelle, are all the b&w photos in your gallery T-Max ? They do look very good =)

No.....all the newer B&W are from my digital camera converted into B&W in PS. There are 2 images there, the Windchimes image and Fairyflower are from T-Max film.

twitters silently ...ehem, I do my b&w images with photoshop.

I usually shoot with TMax 400 or 100 (if there's any available). When I had my photo classes years ago, I used Kodak Panchromatic 200. Grainy but cheap LOL... I'd say, it does its job well if you develop the film well, too. All my b/w shots were manually developed and printed in the darkroom. I don't do that often, since I don't have darkroom access anymore. sigh

The best thing you can do for your black and white photography is to learn the Zone System inside and out. If you can get into it and completely understand what Ansel is talking about, you can get the most out of ANY film you choose. And the best part is, It works for digital too......it's just applied a little differently. Oh yeah, don't forget about different developers and development times/temp. These choices make a HUGE, HUGE difference as far as grain and contrast. My preferred choices are: T-MAX 100 and 400(sheet film only) Ilford FP4+ 125 (35mm bw) T-Max 3200 (great for indoor/ stage lighting ie. concerts) Developer of choice is always Kodak HC-110. It has a lot of control to it. Several different CHARTED dilutions for different films/grain/contrast. I Highly reccomend this stuff. D-76 aint bad either.

Just so you know you CAN get some good results by using c-41 monochrome film, here's a panarama I shot using either konica or kodak monochrome. I can't remember which but it doesn't really matter because I've gotten similar results out of both films. I wanted to show you this one so you could see the fine grain with bright highlights, dark shadows, and plenty of midtones. If it were printed on B&W paper, you wouldn't know the difference between this and true B&W films. As I said, I use primarily tri-x and not monochrome c-41 but that is mostly because of the 7-stop latitude it gives me. Tri-x can handle about 2 stops of underexposure and 5 stops of overexposure. If I'm not mistaken, you'll only get about 3 total stops of latitude with monochrome. And tmax, though it is a decent film, will only give you 5 stops of latitude. You'll only capture highlights 5 stops brighter than the darkest detailed area. In English, tri-x is a great film for getting more detail out of extreme highlights and shadows and still maintain all your midtones. Make sense? I know it's a bit confusing. But anyway, this was shot with monochrome film and in this situation, monochrome film had everything I needed to get decent results. Andrew

Bugger - now that I've got f-stops sussed, you guys get even MORE technical!!! Where will it end??? lol (",)