Best B&W for contrasty images.

[Visions]

Hello All.

I am interested in shooting film that will give me a contrasty image similar to what I can produce on my Leica Digilux 3.

I realize this is a LF film site & forum, so apologize about the digital reference, but in this case I have no other reference point.

The Leica's programing allows for three different B&W types of image capture, perhaps similar to B&W films? Don't know for sure, except I really like the more contrasty one.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

[Bruce Watson]

I am interested in shooting film that will give me a contrasty image similar to what I can produce on my Leica Digilux 3.

Don't have a clue about a Leica and don't want one.

Analog ain't digital. It's not about zero or one. It's about what happens between zero and one.

In this case it's not the film, it's how you develop it. You can make any given B&W film give you a huge range of contrasts, from completely flat to extremely contrasty. How much contrast you develop for depends on what you want to do with the film when you get done. Thus the oft repeated directive: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

So to answer your question directly, any B&W film will give you the contrasty image you seem to desire. If you treat it correctly.

[Brian C. Miller]

This would probably be better covered in a book, with more depth.
Contrast is controlled by a film's development time. The more development, the higher the contrast. If you underexpose film, then develop it longer, you will get higher contrast. If you overexpose film (a bit) and develop it shorter, you will get lower contrast. Even with a "correctly" exposed negative, you can still make the print into a contrasty image, but certain shadow detail or highlights will be lost.

The thing is, it's not just snapping the image, it's a chain of exposure and development. The film is exposed in the camera. It's developed to produce the negative. The negative is exposed onto the paper, and then the paper is developed. At each step the contrast can be controlled, and there's a lot of control that can be done. So, yeah, there's lots of books on the subject.

If you filled out your profile and let us know where you are, there's probably someone near you that could fill you in on this. Or at least chat on Skype or something.

[ic-racer]

I'd use any continuous tone film and paper then process the prints to completion in Lith developer.

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't want to seem rude, but you've not given this enough thought to compose a meaningful question, and so a meaningful answer is not possible without resorting to a comprehensive explanation of image contrast, in all its varied forms. The most appropriate answer to your question, I think, is the following:

Any film you can find.

[D. Bryant]

I don't want to seem rude, but you've not given this enough thought to compose a meaningful question, and so a meaningful answer is not possible without resorting to a comprehensive explanation of image contrast, in all its varied forms. The most appropriate answer to your question, I think, is the following:

Any film you can find.

As Jay said. You might try the Rangefinder Forum more apropos.

[MDR]

I don't know how contrasty the contrasty setting on the Leica is but most ortho films (maco Geniusprint film, Ilford Ortho 25, Efke/Adox PL25 ort) developed in normal filmdevelopers as opposed to special developers for high contrast film will give very contrasty results.

Dominik

[Lachlan 717]

Surely it would be easier to do this post-capture?

Even basic digital editing software has contrast control.

Shoot using its RAW colour setting and post-process. You'll get the best tone range shooting RAW and you'll get the best (for you) result when YOU control the outcome.

Doing anything else is using someone else's vision.

[Tom J McDonald]

Surely it would be easier to do this post-capture?

Even basic digital editing software has contrast control.

Shoot using its RAW colour setting and post-process. You'll get the best tone range shooting RAW and you'll get the best (for you) result when YOU control the outcome.

Doing anything else is using someone else's vision.

Film cameras have raw these days?

[Lachlan 717]

Film cameras have raw these days?

I feel so dirty just knowing these terms, Tom.

Please leave me alone to wallow in my own filth...

[Tom J McDonald]

I feel so dirty just knowing these terms, Tom.

Please leave me alone to wallow in my own filth...

:) I'll do a bit of wallowing myself.

[WayneStevenson]

Welcome to the world of film photography. Care to share some examples that suit your taste from your current camera? It would be a lot easier to understand the aesthetics / qualities that you seek. Especially being that it is unlikely any of us are familiar with the output of your particular camera.

And as Bruce points out, there are workflows that can bring you there with any film. Though some might be better suited for you than others.

[Brian Ellis]

If you could find some old Kodak Tech Pan film (it's no longer made by Kodak) and expose it at a film speed of maybe 50 or 100 you'd have all the contrast you could stand. But as among films commonly available today Kodak TMax films are generally very sensitive to increases in development time (i.e. the longer the developing time the greater the density and hence the contrast, unlike some other films which level off after a certain point in the development time so that more time in the developer doesn't result in increased density and hence contrast). If I wanted a higher contrast film that still would produce a more or less normal looking negative I'd buy one of the TMax films, 100 or 400 speed (there isn't the same difference between them as there used to be in terms of contrast but I'd probably get 400 rather than 100).

[ki6mf]

If you want contrast as stated above you usually would work with a longer development time. You may want to follow the threads on this link which has the best step by step methodology, in my opinion, for some one who does not have much experience with film development. The testing procedure is not difficult however it is a bit lengthy. If you start with a film and developer combination do not change anything, or the tests will not give optimum results, till you complete your testing and then retest any new combinations and repeat the tests completely. Pick the test that does have equipment for measuring film density

http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

[Visions]

Well I appreciate most of your responses & opinions, and there certainly are many!

I should have known better to mention, G_d forbid, some other method of capture or camera save LF. A bit snobbish, IMHO.

Most photographers had their start in smaller format film. Not all, but quite a few. And then, to hear all the negativity regarding digital. I wonder how many of you scan your film for further "tweaking"? Hypocrites.

I just asked a simple, honest question, and I got grief.

[Visions]

Thank you for the link.

[Brian Ellis]

Well I appreciate most of your responses & opinions, and there certainly are many!

I should have known better to mention, G_d forbid, some other method of capture or camera save LF. A bit snobbish, IMHO.

Most photographers had their start in smaller format film. Not all, but quite a few. And then, to hear all the negativity regarding digital. I wonder how many of you scan your film for further "tweaking"? Hypocrites.

I just asked a simple, honest question, and I got grief.

There are a relatively few people in this forum who for some reason feel compelled to gratuitously slam anything "digital" every time they see the word. As you've noted, they seem to think they're superior because they can stick a sheet of film in a holder and trip a shutter. You had the misfortune of attracting some of the worst offenders in a single thread. Please don't take them as being typical of this forum because they're not.

[Jan Pedersen]

It does not happen very often that i disagree with Brian Ellis but in this case i do.
I don't know how often other LF photographers are confronted with fellow photographers using digital cameras but i have had my share of ohh you are still shooting film coments. As far as i am concerned the snobbish coments are not from the film crowd.

If someone ask how to get more contrast in an image captured on film it is pretty obvious that there is no past experience with any film format whether 35mm or MF anyone who spent some time in the darkroom would know how to make an image more contrasty.
If you feel that the response you got was not to your liking it could be because there has been a lot of similar questions like yours in the past and for many on this forum it just seems a bit dull to continue to respond with the same answer.

[Brian Ellis]

It does not happen very often that i disagree with Brian Ellis but in this case i do.
I don't know how often other LF photographers are confronted with fellow photographers using digital cameras but i have had my share of ohh you are still shooting film coments. As far as i am concerned the snobbish coments are not from the film crowd.

If someone ask how to get more contrast in an image captured on film it is pretty obvious that there is no past experience with any film format whether 35mm or MF anyone who spent some time in the darkroom would know how to make an image more contrasty.
If you feel that the response you got was not to your liking it could be because there has been a lot of similar questions like yours in the past and for many on this forum it just seems a bit dull to continue to respond with the same answer.

Jan, I don't see that comments made to you somewhere some time by some people using digital cameras are any justification for, or even relevant to, anything said in this thread. And I certainly wasn't saying that film users in general are more rude than digital camera users in general, which seems like one of the more pointless arguments one could get into.

As for "a lot of similar questions like yours in the past," I did a quick search here using the term "film contrast." There were eleven hits. As far as I could tell in a quick look none involved someone asking about finding a high contrast film. Then I did another search using the terms "film high contrast." There were four hits, none asking about finding a high contrast film. In each case the questions seemed to generally go in the opposite direction, i.e. people seeking to reduce contrast.

I wouldn't swear that the question asked by the OP has never been asked here before, possibly even in one or two of the threads that popped up when I did my quick search. But if it has it certainly isn't something asked so routinely that it would be "a bit dull to respond with the same answer" unless my search terms are way off.

[Eric Woodbury]

Tech pan. Hope you stocked up.

[John NYC]

Hello All.

I am interested in shooting film that will give me a contrasty image similar to what I can produce on my Leica Digilux 3.

I realize this is a LF film site & forum, so apologize about the digital reference, but in this case I have no other reference point.

The Leica's programing allows for three different B&W types of image capture, perhaps similar to B&W films? Don't know for sure, except I really like the more contrasty one.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

I have no idea, nor would anyone here probably, what the Digilux 3 settings produce.

However, if you want some contrasty images, try shooting Tri-X 400 or HP5+ at 1600 and telling your lab to push it two stops. It would be very odd for a large format person to shoot like this. This is more for 35mm and MF, which many of us shoot as well.

[Visions]

Forget I asked the question.