[Apet-Sure]

My 2 cents. Back in the '70s I was using Tri-X 400 for B&W. Then I tried a roll of Ilford HP5 400. Wow! After that first roll, I never shot Tri-X again. I could push the HP5 to ASA 800 and it still had finer grain than the Tri-X processed at 400. I did my own developing, and used the same chemicals for both brands of film.

[ZombieArmy]

My 2 cents. Back in the '70s I was using Tri-X 400 for B&W. Then I tried a roll of Ilford HP5 400. Wow! After that first roll, I never shot Tri-X again. I could push the HP5 to ASA 800 and it still had finer grain than the Tri-X processed at 400. I did my own developing, and used the same chemicals for both brands of film.

But the grain of tri-x is fun Ilford is nice but sometimes fine grain just isn't the look or "feeling" I'm going for.

[tuco]

...
I haven't decided yet what film I'm going to use because I don't have the camera yet.

I'd just pick a 100 and 400 film that you can easily get and just go with it for starters. No matter what film you start off with again it's all about getting experience with it, trying other films and learning.

In the world of all the combinations and permutations of BW film and developer plus the special things you can do maximize BW results while developing are the things you won't be doing anyway unless you DIY. You can see people are pretty passionate about their favorite film and chemicals which I think is part of the fun of DIY BW film. So advise is going to be all over the map.

[ZombieArmy]

I just wanna say I didn't have a hard time as a person who had only done digital to jump into film. A lot of the rules stay the same, and as long as you research the quirks of your type of film and adjust for it it can be very easy. Even the 'horrors' of slide film were really not bad at all for a film beginner like myself.

Settings that would make a perfectly exposed shot on a digital camera will in almost all cases make a perfectly exposed shot on film.

Just my 2 cents, I wouldn't stress about it too hard and just go shooting with any film that looks good to you.

To me the joy of film is the whole process rather than the end result anyways, it's why I still have rolls of film that still need to be developed lol.

[ChrisPlatt]

A bit OT, but do you know if N74+ is available in 36 shot rolls rather than bulk? I really like the samples I’ve seen so far...

ORWO NA occasionally stocked 36-exposure rolls but currently lists only 100 foot spools.
If you read that RFF thread it appears N74+ is being replaced by N75, a different film.

Chris

[photolady95]

When I lived in MN I used to carry 10 rolls of film with me, some color and some B/W. I loved black and white photos but today it's gotten away from me. I have a couple of places and a couple of things in mind, that I'd like to shoot again after having shot them with my K-30 and K-50. I checked today and the camera is in Vancouver.


Also, I won't be able to shoot the things and places I want until after this lock down is gone away. They're both in a river park and it's closed to the public.


I just don't think converting color to black and white from digital is the same thing. It just doesn't look or feel right.

I forgot to mention, most of my lenses are full frame, except the last three I bought recently.

[Astro-Baby]

“I just don't think converting color to black and white from digital is the same thing. It just doesn't look or feel right“

Yep I agree. It can be persuaded to look right with some post process but it always seems a little fake to me. For myself I just prefer film and enjoy shooting it.

[photolady95]

I checked tracking this morning and expected delivery is to be Saturday.

[Parallax]

I just don't think converting color to black and white from digital is the same thing. It just doesn't look or feel right.

It's much like the difference between vinyl and digital music.
Analog is infinite. Digital isn't.

[Autonerd]

It's much like the difference between vinyl and digital music.
Analog is infinite. Digital isn't.

Well... film is kind of digital at a very, very small level. Once developed, either a little bit of plastic has a speck of silver on it, or it's clear. Blocking light from the enlarger or not. On or off. The density of those silver specs gives you your shades of gray.

It's why I object to the term "analog" for film photography, but I could be wrong.

I still like that grainy look, though. When I was a kid, I was big on T-Max because I wanted less grain. Now I can be grain-free with digital, so I'm happily shooting Ilford traditional grain films (HP5+ and FP4+). I'd use Kodak if I could but Tri-X curls more (making it harder to scan) and there's no Plus-X.

I'm on the B&W digital bandwagon -- looks good but to me it feels like cheating. However, I have my Sony s6000 to thank for getting me back into film -- I shot a few digital B&W photos that I was happy with, and that prompted me to get back to my roots and do the real thing -- a 50mm lens and B&W film. Haven't looked back since.

Aaron

[Alex645]

Well... film is kind of digital at a very, very small level. Once developed, either a little bit of plastic has a speck of silver on it, or it's clear. Blocking light from the enlarger or not. On or off. The density of those silver specs gives you your shades of gray.

It's why I object to the term "analog" for film photography, but I could be wrong.
Aaron

You analogy (no pun intended) of silver grain and pixels makes sense especially if we accept the definition of analog as "relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc."

For me, I started hearing the term digital once those signals or info was coded into bits of binary. The basic units are off or on, zeros or ones, which create a code for variable physical quality and quantity.

The beauty of digital is that copies are equal to the original because it's just a code. In art, the paradigm shift of digital is that everything we perceive is decoded (or corrupted) by a third party and that the art or photo itself, is not special or unique as an object. We can appreciate the photographer and the photography, but because anyone can have a copy as good as the original, there is devaluation.

With analog, even with using one film negative from Ansel Adams, no two Ansel Adams darkroom prints are truly identical as they were made ever so slightly differently affected by Ansel Adams, not an inkjet printer. It makes the object more precious to the creator and the collector.

[kypfer]

With analog, even with using one film negative from Ansel Adams, no two Ansel Adams darkroom prints are truly identical as they were made ever so slightly differently affected by Ansel Adams, not an inkjet printer. It makes the object more precious to the creator and the collector.

This is definitely a point for consideration ... the "artwork" of an analogue photograph doesn't end on the film, but proceeds back into the darkroom through the enlarger and trays of chemicals to the final result.

For me, in this day and age, using conventional film to take the picture, then scanning the negative for "post-processing" and printing in a digital environment, is vey much a compromise, more for the sake of fashion than "true art". That's not to say that the final result can't be every bit as visually impressive, and probably cheaper and easier to produce, but it's not "an original".

Rather like taking a digital picture, then using in-camera or on-computer jiggery-pokery to produce an image that looks like it might have been taken through an appropriate filter on infra-red sensitive film or sensor ... the result only "looks like" it's an infra-red image!


YMMV

Enjoy!

[gofour3]

It's much like the difference between vinyl and digital music.
Analog is infinite. Digital isn't.

This is definitely a point for consideration ... the "artwork" of an analogue photograph doesn't end on the film, but proceeds back into the darkroom through the enlarger and trays of chemicals to the final result.

For me, in this day and age, using conventional film to take the picture, then scanning the negative for "post-processing" and printing in a digital environment, is vey much a compromise, more for the sake of fashion than "true art". That's not to say that the final result can't be every bit as visually impressive, and probably cheaper and easier to produce, but it's not "an original".

Rather like taking a digital picture, then using in-camera or on-computer jiggery-pokery to produce an image that looks like it might have been taken through an appropriate filter on infra-red sensitive film or sensor ... the result only "looks like" it's an infra-red image!

I've been into audio gear as long as I have been into photo gear and for me there has always been many similarities between the two.

Years ago when vinyl was on it's death bed, I did an upgrade to my audio system. Out went the old analog preamp and in went a DAC/Preamp with only digital inputs. This worked fine for CD's but not from my analog sources like a turntable/tuner/cassette deck. I also had to get an analog to digital converter for the analog sources. So the audio from a LP was converted into digital (ADC), massaged (DAC) and converted back in analog.

Years later after vinyl made a come back, I started to buy more LPs than CDs and was not happy with the way my turntable sounded. So I went back an analog preamp and connected my DAC to it. So the audio from a LP is entirely in the analog domain. CD's still sound great, but vinyl even better. (Also bought a new turntable)

So relating to film, it's always best to minimize the conversions as well.

Phil.

[Autonerd]

... no two Ansel Adams darkroom prints are truly identical as they were made ever so slightly differently affected by Ansel Adams, not an inkjet printer. It makes the object more precious to the creator and the collector.

Very well said, Alex. Very well said indeed.

Though I still insist it's called "analog" photography because most people under the age of 30 think anything that isn't digital is analog.

I will continue to stubbornly call it "film" or "chemical" photography and avoid the term "analog" when I can.

Aaron

[Astro-Baby]

Personally I call it ‘real photography’ .......I am off to get my kevlar helmet