What do you folks think is the best 35MM 400 ISO B&W film with the most latitude. Flash inside, rooms with dark walls, will be shooting B&W wedding. Any developer thoughts, my lab uses Ilford Unv machine prossesing. Thanks

-- henry friedman (friedman@texas.net), March 14, 2000

Answers

Pretty hard to go wrong with good old Tri-X!

-- Michael Goldfarb (mgoldfar@mobius-inc.com), March 14, 2000.

I'll second that. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), March 14, 2000.

XP-2 Super, hands down.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 14, 2000.

And I'll second the XP-2, especially if you are getting it lab processed!

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), March 15, 2000.

Greetings,

If you're looking for the most latitude and finest grain, then the previous two posters hit it right on the mark - XP2 super. Kodak's 400CN should produce similar results, but I don't have as much experience with it to say for sure. With XP2 super you should get at least an 8 stop range. Both of these films are chromogenic and are processed using C-41 chemistry, not the standard B&W chemistry. Any 1 hour lab can process them.

Regards,

-- Pete Caluori (pcaluori@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

XP-2 is the closest roll film ever gets to the Zone system. Adams probably would have loved the film for this reason...however am only guessing. The film has a beautiful quality.

-- kirk kennelly (kirk@ioa.com), March 15, 2000.

If you want a traditional emulsion, Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP-5 Plus would be excellent choices. I've heard Fuji Neopan is good, too, but I don't know about its latitude. If you don't mind C-41 films, Ilford XP-2 or Kodak T400CN are both excellent.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Remember when you are talking about film and the zone system, film can record about 15 stiops of light but paper can only record about 5 stops. So when using a film, it is not the contrast range of the film but the contrast range of the paper you are going to put it on. I think any film will produce beautiful images if all conditions remain the same for all the films. Yes the chromagenic films are nice but My money would be on the Tri-X for the smooth tonality. But each to their own devices. Just remember that if you are going to use roll film, when you change contrast ranges(indoors for part of the shots, outdoors for others) change the roll of film even if that means losing half a roll of film. Stay within the contrast range of each set of scenes. That is what will help you more than anything else. Don't be cheap and shoot half your shots indoors where the lighting is about 3 stops difference and then move outdoors where the lighting ratios are in the 6-8 stop range. Change rolls and then take the outdoor film and have it pulled a stop or two. It doesn't matter what film you use if the lighting ratios are too great for the paper you are going to put it on. Tame those ratios and you will get nice images. This is why you see the pros with flashes and reflectors. They are taming those ratios. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

I've been using Ilford Delta 400 developed in Kodak XTOL(1:3) with excellent results. I underexpose by 20% and overdevelop by 20%.Most of my prints are made through either a 2 1/2 or 3 Polymax filter The resulting prints have a luminescence and an almost 3 dimensional quality that I don't get with Tri-X (my 2nd choice just a bit grainer) or T-Max (which I don't care for). Never tried Fuji. I agree that the zone system is less than optimum with 35MM.I try to keep similar conditions throughout the roll, and use 24 exp rolls in lieu of 36 exp. I'm printing with a 1968 vintage Omega B8XL condenser enlarger with minimal print manipulation.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), March 26, 2000.

XP2 again. I shoot it at 100 but I ahve heard of people shooting it as low as 60!.

-- Martin Reis (mreis@tafelmusik.org), March 27, 2000.