[ShutterPro]

Hi,
winter is slowly coming and I am planning to shoot some black and white film. I am looking for a contrasty, somewhat grainy look for snow-covered landscapes and architecture. I have FP4+ and HP5+ by Ilford, and foma 100, 200 and 400. I liked the look the 200 and 400 gave me, the 200 being nice contrasty in summer, however the last roll turned out really flat and dull. (Might be given the fact I shot it in another camera). The 400 seemed fine, but could use a little boost. What do you recommend? Is shooting the 200 at box speed and pushing a way, or shooting the 400 at 200 and pushing +1 an option or the FP4 at box speed and pushed at 400? Or will the negatives be too overexposed? I'd like them just a bit denser.
Thanks a lot in advance,
JS

[Cerebum]

Rollei retro 400s is lovely. It can be pushed to 1600 and pulled to 200

Box, developed in id-11


@1600 developed in HC110



Agent Shadow/Kentmere 400 is also nice. Here it is pushed to 800 and stand developed in Rodinal

[UncleVanya]

Hi,
winter is slowly coming and I am planning to shoot some black and white film. I am looking for a contrasty, somewhat grainy look for snow-covered landscapes and architecture. I have FP4+ and HP5+ by Ilford, and foma 100, 200 and 400. I liked the look the 200 and 400 gave me, the 200 being nice contrasty in summer, however the last roll turned out really flat and dull. (Might be given the fact I shot it in another camera). The 400 seemed fine, but could use a little boost. What do you recommend? Is shooting the 200 at box speed and pushing a way, or shooting the 400 at 200 and pushing +1 an option or the FP4 at box speed and pushed at 400? Or will the negatives be too overexposed? I'd like them just a bit denser.
Thanks a lot in advance,
JS

Did you add any filters? The effect of colored filters on b&w can be a little different on snow scenes. Here’s an old thread from 2012 discussing possibilities. Orange or dark yellow is what I would try or maybe red. I have an old variable purple filter (red and blue) that I might try personally. Also exposure will likely need tinkering given the bright white scene.

Filters For Snow scenes? - Black and White - Photo.net

[DeKay]

(Might be given the fact I shot it in another camera)

Are you sure the light meter in the second camera is accurate? This could explain the poor results.

[Kobayashi.K]

Grainy and contrasty is sort of a contradiction (see HP5+) unless you have plenty of contrast in your subject as a result of the light. I shoot FP4+ at box speed and develop in ID-11 with the standard recipe from Ilford, and it's OK. The HP5+ though is with Ilfords advise too thin and I always shoot it at EI 250 with the advised developing times in ID-11 or Perceptol (the latter to reduce the grain a bit).

Generally B&W needs more contrast compared to color to look attractive. Ways to increase contrast are extending the developing time, which also enhances the grain, to mount a mild yellow filter (with factor 1x), and/or enhance contrast in post when you scan, but the latter tends to degrade tonality.

Over the years that I'm shooting B&W I have come to the conclusion that the best way to get contrast is to wait for sunny weather! Or in other words, it's not the film or the developer or how you process it, it's mainly the light. So, once I discovered that, it has reduced my output considerably, but the results are 100% better.

BTW in these times of the year, with a low standing sun, it's an extra argument to shoot with sunny weather to get pictures with atmosphere:








Camera: Nikon F-801, Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 AI
Film: HP5+, Ilford ID-11, 1+1.5
Post process: DSLR scan, Neat Image (to reduce the grain), PSP.
X-posted

[titrisol]

Fomapan400 exposed as 200 and developed normally in D76 1+1 seems what you look for

Remember to expose for the shadows, not for the average as the snow tends to fool lightmeters

Hi,
winter is slowly coming and I am planning to shoot some black and white film. I am looking for a contrasty, somewhat grainy look for snow-covered landscapes and architecture. I have FP4+ and HP5+ by Ilford, and foma 100, 200 and 400. I liked the look the 200 and 400 gave me, the 200 being nice contrasty in summer, however the last roll turned out really flat and dull. (Might be given the fact I shot it in another camera). The 400 seemed fine, but could use a little boost. What do you recommend? Is shooting the 200 at box speed and pushing a way, or shooting the 400 at 200 and pushing +1 an option or the FP4 at box speed and pushed at 400? Or will the negatives be too overexposed? I'd like them just a bit denser.
Thanks a lot in advance,
JS

[Kobayashi.K]

Fomapan400 exposed as 200 and developed normally in D76 1+1 seems what you look for
Remember to expose for the shadows, not for the average as the snow tends to fool lightmeters

When you shoot a scene with an overcast sky on Fomapan 400 exposed as 200 you still have no contrast because the scene has no contrast. The only thing that has changed by shooting at EI 200 is an increased density of the film. You get exactly the same result with HP5+ at EI 200.

[35mmfilmfan]

My favoured 400 ASA (sorry - ISO) mono film has been TRI-X since 1971, in all its minor variants, in D67 or ID11 (allegedly the same). Choosing just one film / dev combination and learning all the quirks inherent on this will probably give you more satisfactory and repeatable results, although nowadays I take the developed film to be scanned to a CD - I can load a tank in a blacked out 'bathroom', but have no room anymore for a darkroom, unfortunately - and at our age, even briefly monopolising the bathroom can be, let us say, 'unpopular' !!

[Cerebum]

My favoured 400 ASA (sorry - ISO) mono film has been TRI-X since 1971, in all its minor variants, in D67 or ID11 (allegedly the same). Choosing just one film / dev combination and learning all the quirks inherent on this will probably give you more satisfactory and repeatable results, although nowadays I take the developed film to be scanned to a CD - I can load a tank in a blacked out 'bathroom', but have no room anymore for a darkroom, unfortunately - and at our age, even briefly monopolising the bathroom can be, let us say, 'unpopular' !!

You need a dark bag. I load my tanks while I watch TV re. Tri-x, I have never used it because it isn't cheap. I bulk load foma200, slightly expired XP2 and Rollei retro 400s and never worry about shooting just for the pleasure of using my cameras. Expensive film though takes me forever to shoot because I don't want to waste it. I am not a big fan of HP5+ as I find it doesn't really move me. It is great and reliable but I am generally drawn to contrasty extremes.

Re the OP, I agree about the metering on camera #2. Maybe download a light meter to your phone and check with that to see if it is metering properly. I am not sure if you home develop, if you do, try Rodinal. It is a sharp developer that also enhances the grain

[Michail_P]

My favoured 400 ASA (sorry - ISO) mono film has been TRI-X since 1971, in all its minor variants, in D67 or ID11 (allegedly the same). Choosing just one film / dev combination and learning all the quirks inherent on this will probably give you more satisfactory and repeatable results, although nowadays I take the developed film to be scanned to a CD - I can load a tank in a blacked out 'bathroom', but have no room anymore for a darkroom, unfortunately - and at our age, even briefly monopolising the bathroom can be, let us say, 'unpopular' !!

TRI-X 400 would be my choice too. Very nice contrast.

[kypfer]

Hi,
winter is slowly coming and I am planning to shoot some black and white film. I am looking for a contrasty, somewhat grainy look for snow-covered landscapes and architecture. I have FP4+ and HP5+ by Ilford, … will the negatives be too overexposed? I'd like them just a bit denser.
Thanks a lot in advance,
JS

FP4+ rated at 250ASA and dev'd for an extended period should give you all the contrast and grain you want … you'll need to make a few clip tests to establish how much under exposure or over development will give you the results you desire.
If you're unfamiliar with the term "clip test" this involves making just a few test exposures, then, without rewinding the film, open the camera in the darkroom/changing bag, cutting off the exposed length of film and processing it to check the results … it can get a little long winded, but once you've established the parameters you need for the results you want it'll be repeatable.
Having two or three tanks available, so a series of test shots can be made in fairly short order to give a good comparison of subject matter can help … as in take a few shots, load a tank with the exposed film, repeat as required, then do all the processing later. Don't forget to label the tanks
Enjoy … it's work like this I really miss since I gave up analogue photography!

[Papa_Joe]

Please remember, in winter with lots of snow or fog please one should not rely onto the internal lightmeter only. Scenes with a lot of white will be underexposed and thus the negatives will have low density. A light meter and incident metering or a grey card will help one.