# B&W film 100 ISO. Which is the best?



## Axel (Aug 27, 2005)

I am looking at Adorama's site and see that there are two different Fuju Films. One is the Fujifilm Neopan 100 Black & White Film ISO 100 and another one is Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros Black & White Film ISO 100. The price is quite different, but what is the difference between the films?

Are there any better films out there (better=price/quality of pictures)?

Thank you


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 27, 2005)

I think Acros is finer grain. Whether it's "better" than any other film depends on what you want it for. There are loads of b&w films out there that can give you great picture quality; if you tell us what sort of photography you want to do then we can probably recommend something specific.

For a general-purpose film at a good price, as long as you don't want to do massive enlargements, I'd personally recommend Ilford Pan 100 if you can get it; I'm not so familiar with Kojak and Fuji b&w but others who are can probably recommend a good one.


----------



## Happy Medium (Aug 27, 2005)

My personal favorite B&W film is Kodak Plus-X pan 125.


----------



## montresor (Aug 27, 2005)

Have had good results from Ilford Delta 100, provides good contrast in mediocre-light conditions; Plus-X is nice too, softer and a little less contrasty than the Ilford. T-Max at any speed I've not liked much. Fuji Acros has a good tonal range, but here in Cleveland, where there's often heavy cloud cover, much of that wide range is wasted. Or maybe it's just my lens (Canon 28-80 for EOS) doesn't like the Fuji as much? Come to think of it, I have a 45mm Schneider that doesn't much like Plus-X at all. Lens-film interactions, hmmm....


----------



## wharrison (Aug 27, 2005)

Axel:

I'd second the motion for Plus-X with Microdol-X 1:3.

For additional information, you might link to this site.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html

Hope this helps!

Bill


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 28, 2005)

I got the cheapest in canada - agfa

Works good so far. Film choice doesn't matter much.


----------



## Smith2688 (Aug 28, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Film choice doesn't matter much.



Huhhh?


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 29, 2005)

I second the "Huhhh?". Plenty of films work good in terms of capturing a properly exposed image, but if you want your photos to have a specific look then film choice does matter, as does the method of developing, enlarging and the kind of paper used.


----------



## KevinR (Aug 29, 2005)

I would say for me Delta 100 has been the film of choice for 100 speed films.

What doc probably means is that the variables with B&W film makes just the film choice not that big a decision. The developer is huge and how it is developed is a big part too, as in the amount of agitation, temps, etc.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 29, 2005)

True, they're all inter-related but the choice of film does matter. I mean, otherwise why choose Delta over a cheaper film?


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 29, 2005)

I would agree with DocFrakenstein that film choice between similar BW films (with roughly the same ISO and spectral sensitivity) is not critical.  Agfa, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc... are all much more alike than they are different.  With some very cheap films I have found an annoyingly curly film base which makes it difficult to handle, but the prints I make from them are fine.

There are so many variables that go into how a BW photo looks.  ZaphodB mentioned developing technique, enlarger type, and paper choice.  To these I would also add: the lighting of the scene, lens aspects, filters, metering type/style, exposure, film chemical choices, print chemical choices (or a non chemical printing method), print size, and print contrast.  Including film choice we now have 12+ variables, and there are more.  A change in any one of these can affect how the photo is going to look, and in many cases the differences will be much more pronounced than just a change in film brand.  

In my opinion, choosing a film, and sticking with it long enough to really learn how it works is much more important than what film you choose.  I have found that once I really know a film, I can manipulate it's look to have similar aspects that other folks may attribute to a particular brand.


----------



## Smith2688 (Aug 29, 2005)

Right, I imagine that any of the films listed here would yield better results than Kodak's consumer Black and White film, which requires color C-41 developing.  (I don't know much about b&w film, but I imagine that the good ones need special developing.)


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 29, 2005)

Smith2688 said:
			
		

> Right, I imagine that any of the films listed here would yield better results than Kodak's consumer Black and White film, which requires color C-41 developing.  (I don't know much about b&w film, but I imagine that the good ones need special developing.)



There are many professional photographers using C41 BW film.  It has it's own pros and cons, and in some situations may be a better choice than traditional process BW film.  I have used it quite successfully. 

Gear is fun, but remember to take the sales pitch with a grain of salt (or silver)  .


----------



## santino (Aug 29, 2005)

what are the major pros of C-41 B&W film? (except for the fact that EVERY lab will process them)

I don't no nothing about C-41 B&W stuff so any explanation is welcome


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 29, 2005)

santino said:
			
		

> what are the major pros of C-41 B&W film?



Well, one photog's pro is another photog's con.  

C41 can be developed almost anywhere; this is a huge benefit to someone without a darkroom, or a local pro lab.  

Another aspect is that C41 BW has a large exposure latitude; you can expose from ISO 100 to 800 on the same roll with no change in development.  This is a pro if you are going to be experiencing big lighting changes (like moving from outdoors to indoors) on the same roll of film.  This is a con if you need to use exposure and development to control tones and contrast.

EDIT:  Another pro would be that you can usually get one-hour service on it, while you may have to wait for a day or more to get regular BW processing.


----------



## santino (Aug 29, 2005)

ahh thanks a lot


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 29, 2005)

What is comes down to is that while every photog is likely to have a *favorite* BW film, there is no single best BW film for all photograpers and situations.

If Ilford Delta 100 were cheaper than Ilford FP4 125, I would still use the FP4, because that's the film I've spent the last 5 years studying.  That doesn't mean that FP4 is better than Delta, it's just my preference.  I think that price is an important consideration because photography is expensive, but how much a certain BW film costs doesn't have much to do with how well the photographs will turn out.


----------



## Dave_D (Aug 29, 2005)

Axel,
For a more direct answer to your question, here is a link to the fujifilm website. In reading it for myself, the only thing I see that is of interest is when the describe Neopan 100 it is only associated with the Acros name. The case may be that the acros name is a more up to date version of the film with finer grain.
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductsNeopan.jsp
Dave


----------



## Smith2688 (Aug 29, 2005)

Hmm...very interesting, thank you Matt.


----------



## Patrick (Aug 29, 2005)

I'm going to be an oddball but goto Freestyle's site and look for their Arista line of films.  I tried it on a whem and found that hey...I like it... and it's cheap enough.  The EDU stuff is like 1.69 a roll. For me, just really getting back into B&W again, it allows for alot of experimenting at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 30, 2005)

Smith2688 said:
			
		

> Huhhh?


Matt has explained it better than I ever could.


----------



## montresor (Aug 30, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> There are many professional photographers using C41 BW film.  It has it's own pros and cons, and in some situations may be a better choice than traditional process BW film.  I have used it quite successfully.



Sometimes I like to take out the crappiest camera I can find -- like the pink and yellow Barbie Queen of the Prom 35mm camera I got at a thrift store for a dollar and load it with C-41 B&W. That way I can drop it off at Walgreen's and not spend an arm and a leg processing what was exposed just for the fun of it anyway. Scary thing is, I've gotten some rather good shots with that plastic toy!


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 30, 2005)

With regard to C41, doesn't the result also depend on whether colour or black & white paper is used? I would imagine a lot of shops would use colour by default unless you ask them for b&w.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 30, 2005)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> With regard to C41, doesn't the result also depend on whether colour or black & white paper is used? I would imagine a lot of shops would use colour by default unless you ask them for b&w.



Well, it's very rare for any regular lab to be using actual gelatin silver BW paper these days.  Color paper creates the image using dyes with very little silver.  There are BW papers available that only have monochrome dyes, and only produce neutral tones; not all labs use this stuff though..  

Some of the C41 BW is designed for printing on color paper; that film will have the orange base that color film has, and should be easy to get neutral tones *if* the person at the machine knows what they are doing.  C41 BW that has a clear base is designed for printing on regular gelatin silver BW papers.

If anyone is having problems getting color neutral BW from C41 BW film one of two things is going on:  1)  They are using the wrong C41 BW film, or 2) Their lab doesn't really know what they are doing.

I don't use a lot of C41 BW film, but over the years I have used at least a few dozen rolls.  None of the four pro labs I use have any problem printing it without a color cast (or they can print it with a color cast if I request it).


----------

