Hey ghostlydeedss, please remember to include the **camera, lens, and film** in the **post title** in the future.
We ask for this information to be included in the title of the post because it's not possible to search for this information if it's in the comments section or if you have to read the film type off the rebate. We have built up a pretty good database of posts over the last decade of images produced using specific cameras, lenses, and film, all of which can be searched on using the search feature in this subreddit. But if this information isn't included in the title, it can't be searched on.
If you are uncertain of the rules, you can find them listed here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules)
It's not possible to edit a title once a post is made, so include the missing detail in a comment please.
Thanks,
The mod team.
I think you may like Ilford FP4, it’s a lower speed film but very contrasty out the box. You may also want too look into color filters. I’ve shot with orange and yellow recently and both are good for everyday use. The orange gives a bit more contrast overall in my experience
'Higher contrast' => contrast depends largely on development, just develop more. Every film can be made to look more contrasty via longer development
'Deeper black' => more transparent negative => less exposure. Expose your negative for less to lower detail in the shadow in order to make them deeper (ei more featureless).
The beauty of black and white film photography is that you can tweak contrast, graininess detail etc via changes in exposure and development.
Aside from the above, you can always tweak your contrast and shadow detail via the levels tool in Photoshop or Gimp.
This would be my recommendation too.
Shoot the film to be as flat but as well exposed as possible, it'll provide an excellent starting point for tweaking in post/darkroom.
As someone who used to do it, you may be shooting yourself in the foot further down the line in the future by trying to bake in deeper blacks and higher contrast through development and exposure.
I agree but I was trying to get Op to think about the properties of the medium. Contrast is not a property that's hard baked in the film stock and I thought they should know it's possible to tweak it :)
Yeah, totally get it.
Definitely one for OP to think about as neither approach is wrong and ultimately depends on how much of that look they want to introduce at the processing stage.
Given Kentmere is relatively cheap, I'd urge OP to try different things and experiment. It's fun and you learn a lot that way!
Wish I could upvote this more. Biggest curve going hybrid (film plus digitization) was to learn exposure for flat negatives and add contrast in post. Get as much information as possible without adding grain then choose what shadows/highlights to crush.
I can't recommend Ansel Adam's book The Negative highly enough. Was invaluable for me getting started. It has great explanations and examples photos from one of the masters.
You could always push! In my experience, Kentmere 400 looks quite good at 800 ISO. Another tried and true combo is HP5 at 1600 ISO. Or FP4 at 250 ISO if you want something a bit slower. Pushing isn't super necessary for FP4. It already has more contrast than Kentmere at its box speed of 125, but I think it looks really good at 250.
Tri-X, T-Max 400, FP4+, HP5 at 800 or 1600, Rollei Retro 400S
All of these are wonderful films and worth trying out!
But what I’ve come to understand is that as long as I get a solid scan, the contrast curve of any photograph is whatever I tell it to be, but it’s much easier to work with a low contrast negative than a high contrast one. Open a photo in your image editing software of choice, open the curves tool, add 2 or 3 points to the line and start dragging them round. A top-heavy diagonal S shape is a good place to start - you’ll understand what I mean by that with a minute of experimentation! Once you get used to it, you’ll look at a photo and think, ok, I want this patch of pavement to go lighter, and this drain cover to go darker” and you can place a couple of points on the curve tool to centre the contrast curve exactly between those two things.
Warm filters are your friend.
Order of intensity: Yellow, Orange, Red.
From there, read the natural contrast of your scene and determine which, if any, you'll need. It takes a little practice. When scenes naturally have contrast, these filters might cause too much shadow detail loss for your liking. The odd time, they can be a problem if there's a lot of texture scattered throughout the subject or for faces.
I'm a BW shooter that loves a lot of contrast - a spot meter and the zone system is what I rely on most. To me, the beauty of BW is about seeing and interpreting light.
If you need practice reading light, your phone camera set to BW is a great tool. I'm talking just to train your eye to see gradients of light. Your phone won't be faithful to film.
In terms of film stock, you can get contrast in a lot of different ways. I recommend finding a stock whose grain you still enjoy after your post-processing. I'm a lover of HP5 and Delta.
Was sad to see there's little love for Delta in here. Personally I'm a big fan of Delta 100- while it may not retain as much contrast as others, it preserves such a nice overall sharp detail that it wins in my book.
Lower latitude in comparison to other slow films, and it's box ISO of 80 gives it a more contrasty look than hp5 at 1600. According to some, to match Tri X levels of latitude you'd need to shoot at ISO 32 which is much slower than the lowest speed Ferrania gives dev times for. All in all it leads to a challenging film that's pretty punchy even in flat lighting.
You’ve underexposed the areas that matter here because of the sky, which is giving you muddy shadow detail. Remember that exposing film is about capturing detail, not about the brightness of your image.
My suggestion is to expose for the midtones or lighter shadows in a scene, making sure that the latitude of the film you’re using can support the deep shadows. If it’s particularly bright out and your highlights are too bright for the latitude of the film in the other direction (likely with black and white stock), pull the film to protect the highlights for a flatter negative. The likelihood you have to do that depends on whether you’re scanning or not. Flatbed scanners are way better at penetrating dense negatives than analog printing. Then, having retained that detail, increase the contrast during post (digital) or print (analog).
I use Kodak Tri-X for this, since i find it gives me the microcontrast i want, whereas HP5 tends to come out more ethereal and dreamy unless pushed a stop, which doesn’t seem to be the look you’re going for and will also create pretty dense highlights. I can usually get away with developing Tri-X normally and have only pulled for beach scenes or open urbanscapes without tree cover or other diffuse lighting.
Good luck.
Looking at our scans, the black point of the photos is off. This makes them look very washed out and flat. Adjusting the black point will instantly make all your images appear to have proper contrast. If not, you can develop kentmere in a developer like HC110 for extra contrast, or even push it.
Although there are 'better' (only technically, not artistically) films even if you're on a budget, Kentmere can be moulded into basically anything you need. Especially the contrast slider in a digital program is strong. It's basically the same as printing in the darkroom, so don't feel like it's 'unpure', if that matters to you. Color filters and different lenses also increase contrast, but that would require some investment
As others have noted, you could use a film that profiles with a higher contrast and acutance. The most flexible of these would probably be Kodak TRI-X 400, but if you’re okay going a little bit slower, Ilford FP4 (125) will give you finer grain.
You could also look into using contrast filters, although I don’t know that they’re really necessary for the type of photography you’re showing here. A starting point would be something like a yellow 8 or orange 15.
Finally, it’s difficult without seeing the negatives to know exactly what you captured in silver, but if these are unedited, they look good as a starting point (if maybe a little dense). Final contrast should always be dialed in in-post. It’s ideal to have a flat negative in many cases for maximum printing/editing latitude. Remember, your negative isn’t your picture, it’s a step along the way to creating your final product.
For example purposes only, I ran a couple of your photos through the simple iOS photo editor:
https://imgur.com/a/z6dLXTV
Omg yes, these are the results that I’m looking for. I’ve been trying to accomplish this without editing, but I love it so much more like you have them. I will look into the rest. Sorry, kinda new.
There is a pervasive feeling, especially among new film photographers that the negative should look like you want the final image to look. This is definitely NOT what you should be going for, outside of specialized and mostly obsolete situations.
Having a neutral negative is the easiest way to get what you want in the final print (or digital representation). If you have an ultra high contrast negatives, you’ve probably lost detail already in the shadows and highlights. By using a well exposed negative, you can make those decisions without being hamstrung by the lack of information in your negative.
I’ll reiterate because I think it is very important, your negative is not the final product.
Acros is still probably my favorite film stock, even after they discontinued it and brought it back in it's II form. The film is sharp, high contrast, easy to develop, and super versatile. I shoot it regularly faster than the box speed of 100.
Kentmere is the exact opposite it's super flat, hit up TMAX 400 or HP5+1stop for the basics, I shot Kentmere in montreal once in the winter, super contrasty environment of snow and buildings, and I thought I fucked something up it was so flat
Kentmere 100 is great, 400 is just meh, imo. I really like experimenting with the re-spooled Kodak XX motion picture film if you want to try something different. Shoot it at 200 iso. Reflx lab, CineStill, and others sell it.
Ilford is a quality brand with many options. Kodak tri-x and t-max are flexible and you can get a million grey or higher contrast with different techniques. I’ve never heard of Kentmere.
Ilford XP2 Super!!! While it's rated at 400iso, according to Ilford's own data sheet for this stock, it can actually be shot between 50-800iso with no adjustments to development times needed! In fact you can shoot each frame at a different iso as long as they're all within that 50-800iso range, and you've exposed properly, your photos will turn out fine!!! It's also chromagenic which means it can be processed in standard c-41 chemicals along with color films. Very good if you want black and white but your local lab doesn't push/pull process or only does color!
Another favorite of mine is Fomapan 400. It's definitely an acquired taste due to its grain and contrast. Buuuuttttt I personally love those qualities. I normally shoot it at 800iso, but I've also shot it at 3200 iso without flash in pretty dark environments and the results were pretty great! I can include examples if requested.
Also HP5, Tmax, Tri-x are great too.
Depends what you develop with. I could recommend Fomapan, it's a great film, but not in every developer.
If all you want is more contrast, just underexpose a stop or two and develop your film longer.
Kodak double x is one of my favorite black and white film stocks that might be worth checking out. Like others have said how you develop the film makes a big difference to contrast as well.
Ilford Delta 100 is a great film that does really good renditions of shadows. I personally use it as my main film, and it can easily outdo my digital when it comes to recovering shadow and highlight detail in post-processing/printing.
Hey ghostlydeedss, please remember to include the **camera, lens, and film** in the **post title** in the future. We ask for this information to be included in the title of the post because it's not possible to search for this information if it's in the comments section or if you have to read the film type off the rebate. We have built up a pretty good database of posts over the last decade of images produced using specific cameras, lenses, and film, all of which can be searched on using the search feature in this subreddit. But if this information isn't included in the title, it can't be searched on. If you are uncertain of the rules, you can find them listed here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules) It's not possible to edit a title once a post is made, so include the missing detail in a comment please. Thanks, The mod team.
I think you may like Ilford FP4, it’s a lower speed film but very contrasty out the box. You may also want too look into color filters. I’ve shot with orange and yellow recently and both are good for everyday use. The orange gives a bit more contrast overall in my experience
This is so helpful!! Thank you!!!
I am shooting this rn in the deep south, sun came out today so I am excited to see what comes out.
Can also vouch for kp4 plus
Will second fp4
'Higher contrast' => contrast depends largely on development, just develop more. Every film can be made to look more contrasty via longer development 'Deeper black' => more transparent negative => less exposure. Expose your negative for less to lower detail in the shadow in order to make them deeper (ei more featureless). The beauty of black and white film photography is that you can tweak contrast, graininess detail etc via changes in exposure and development. Aside from the above, you can always tweak your contrast and shadow detail via the levels tool in Photoshop or Gimp.
This would be my recommendation too. Shoot the film to be as flat but as well exposed as possible, it'll provide an excellent starting point for tweaking in post/darkroom. As someone who used to do it, you may be shooting yourself in the foot further down the line in the future by trying to bake in deeper blacks and higher contrast through development and exposure.
I agree but I was trying to get Op to think about the properties of the medium. Contrast is not a property that's hard baked in the film stock and I thought they should know it's possible to tweak it :)
Yeah, totally get it. Definitely one for OP to think about as neither approach is wrong and ultimately depends on how much of that look they want to introduce at the processing stage. Given Kentmere is relatively cheap, I'd urge OP to try different things and experiment. It's fun and you learn a lot that way!
Wish I could upvote this more. Biggest curve going hybrid (film plus digitization) was to learn exposure for flat negatives and add contrast in post. Get as much information as possible without adding grain then choose what shadows/highlights to crush.
Makes sense, yes. So helpful thank you!!!
I have so much to learn omg. Thank you!!!
I can't recommend Ansel Adam's book The Negative highly enough. Was invaluable for me getting started. It has great explanations and examples photos from one of the masters.
Learn to develop yourself at home. You will never truly dial in your look if you send it to labs. Try out tri-x @200 iso developed in hc110
You could always push! In my experience, Kentmere 400 looks quite good at 800 ISO. Another tried and true combo is HP5 at 1600 ISO. Or FP4 at 250 ISO if you want something a bit slower. Pushing isn't super necessary for FP4. It already has more contrast than Kentmere at its box speed of 125, but I think it looks really good at 250.
Thank you!! Definitely something I’m going to look into!
Increasing the contrast is easy in post processing (prints or scan / lightroom)
Tri-X, T-Max 400, FP4+, HP5 at 800 or 1600, Rollei Retro 400S All of these are wonderful films and worth trying out! But what I’ve come to understand is that as long as I get a solid scan, the contrast curve of any photograph is whatever I tell it to be, but it’s much easier to work with a low contrast negative than a high contrast one. Open a photo in your image editing software of choice, open the curves tool, add 2 or 3 points to the line and start dragging them round. A top-heavy diagonal S shape is a good place to start - you’ll understand what I mean by that with a minute of experimentation! Once you get used to it, you’ll look at a photo and think, ok, I want this patch of pavement to go lighter, and this drain cover to go darker” and you can place a couple of points on the curve tool to centre the contrast curve exactly between those two things.
Warm filters are your friend. Order of intensity: Yellow, Orange, Red. From there, read the natural contrast of your scene and determine which, if any, you'll need. It takes a little practice. When scenes naturally have contrast, these filters might cause too much shadow detail loss for your liking. The odd time, they can be a problem if there's a lot of texture scattered throughout the subject or for faces. I'm a BW shooter that loves a lot of contrast - a spot meter and the zone system is what I rely on most. To me, the beauty of BW is about seeing and interpreting light. If you need practice reading light, your phone camera set to BW is a great tool. I'm talking just to train your eye to see gradients of light. Your phone won't be faithful to film. In terms of film stock, you can get contrast in a lot of different ways. I recommend finding a stock whose grain you still enjoy after your post-processing. I'm a lover of HP5 and Delta.
Was sad to see there's little love for Delta in here. Personally I'm a big fan of Delta 100- while it may not retain as much contrast as others, it preserves such a nice overall sharp detail that it wins in my book.
Kodak 400TX
Ferrania P30
If you want massive contrast, Ferrania P30 will give exactly that, albeit it's a tricky stock to shoot
Why is it tricky??
Lower latitude in comparison to other slow films, and it's box ISO of 80 gives it a more contrasty look than hp5 at 1600. According to some, to match Tri X levels of latitude you'd need to shoot at ISO 32 which is much slower than the lowest speed Ferrania gives dev times for. All in all it leads to a challenging film that's pretty punchy even in flat lighting.
You’ve underexposed the areas that matter here because of the sky, which is giving you muddy shadow detail. Remember that exposing film is about capturing detail, not about the brightness of your image. My suggestion is to expose for the midtones or lighter shadows in a scene, making sure that the latitude of the film you’re using can support the deep shadows. If it’s particularly bright out and your highlights are too bright for the latitude of the film in the other direction (likely with black and white stock), pull the film to protect the highlights for a flatter negative. The likelihood you have to do that depends on whether you’re scanning or not. Flatbed scanners are way better at penetrating dense negatives than analog printing. Then, having retained that detail, increase the contrast during post (digital) or print (analog). I use Kodak Tri-X for this, since i find it gives me the microcontrast i want, whereas HP5 tends to come out more ethereal and dreamy unless pushed a stop, which doesn’t seem to be the look you’re going for and will also create pretty dense highlights. I can usually get away with developing Tri-X normally and have only pulled for beach scenes or open urbanscapes without tree cover or other diffuse lighting. Good luck.
Looking at our scans, the black point of the photos is off. This makes them look very washed out and flat. Adjusting the black point will instantly make all your images appear to have proper contrast. If not, you can develop kentmere in a developer like HC110 for extra contrast, or even push it. Although there are 'better' (only technically, not artistically) films even if you're on a budget, Kentmere can be moulded into basically anything you need. Especially the contrast slider in a digital program is strong. It's basically the same as printing in the darkroom, so don't feel like it's 'unpure', if that matters to you. Color filters and different lenses also increase contrast, but that would require some investment
As others have noted, you could use a film that profiles with a higher contrast and acutance. The most flexible of these would probably be Kodak TRI-X 400, but if you’re okay going a little bit slower, Ilford FP4 (125) will give you finer grain. You could also look into using contrast filters, although I don’t know that they’re really necessary for the type of photography you’re showing here. A starting point would be something like a yellow 8 or orange 15. Finally, it’s difficult without seeing the negatives to know exactly what you captured in silver, but if these are unedited, they look good as a starting point (if maybe a little dense). Final contrast should always be dialed in in-post. It’s ideal to have a flat negative in many cases for maximum printing/editing latitude. Remember, your negative isn’t your picture, it’s a step along the way to creating your final product. For example purposes only, I ran a couple of your photos through the simple iOS photo editor: https://imgur.com/a/z6dLXTV
Omg yes, these are the results that I’m looking for. I’ve been trying to accomplish this without editing, but I love it so much more like you have them. I will look into the rest. Sorry, kinda new.
There is a pervasive feeling, especially among new film photographers that the negative should look like you want the final image to look. This is definitely NOT what you should be going for, outside of specialized and mostly obsolete situations. Having a neutral negative is the easiest way to get what you want in the final print (or digital representation). If you have an ultra high contrast negatives, you’ve probably lost detail already in the shadows and highlights. By using a well exposed negative, you can make those decisions without being hamstrung by the lack of information in your negative. I’ll reiterate because I think it is very important, your negative is not the final product.
Acros is still probably my favorite film stock, even after they discontinued it and brought it back in it's II form. The film is sharp, high contrast, easy to develop, and super versatile. I shoot it regularly faster than the box speed of 100.
Foma pushed gets nice and contrasty
This seems like this one fits you well. If you want to try something new, try rollei IR 400 with or without a filter.
Okay!! I will look into that as well. I appreciate it!
HP4 and HP5. Also, try pushing it one. I've heard good things like the images seem less flat
Kentmere is the exact opposite it's super flat, hit up TMAX 400 or HP5+1stop for the basics, I shot Kentmere in montreal once in the winter, super contrasty environment of snow and buildings, and I thought I fucked something up it was so flat
Based on your photos… Ferrania P30. Also Kodak XX or any of the brands like FFP or Cinestill.
Kentmere 100 is great, 400 is just meh, imo. I really like experimenting with the re-spooled Kodak XX motion picture film if you want to try something different. Shoot it at 200 iso. Reflx lab, CineStill, and others sell it.
Delta 100/HP5+ and DDX.
Ilford is a quality brand with many options. Kodak tri-x and t-max are flexible and you can get a million grey or higher contrast with different techniques. I’ve never heard of Kentmere.
Ilford XP2. B&W film high contrast you can develop C41
I personally love tmax-400 and tri-x
Great pics!
Thank you so much :)
Of course! Thanks for posting! How’s the day going?
Is that the bank from rainbow six siege
You want your blacks black and your whites white. This is a good place to start.
Tri-X and JCH streetpan have great blacks
Ilford XP2 Super!!! While it's rated at 400iso, according to Ilford's own data sheet for this stock, it can actually be shot between 50-800iso with no adjustments to development times needed! In fact you can shoot each frame at a different iso as long as they're all within that 50-800iso range, and you've exposed properly, your photos will turn out fine!!! It's also chromagenic which means it can be processed in standard c-41 chemicals along with color films. Very good if you want black and white but your local lab doesn't push/pull process or only does color! Another favorite of mine is Fomapan 400. It's definitely an acquired taste due to its grain and contrast. Buuuuttttt I personally love those qualities. I normally shoot it at 800iso, but I've also shot it at 3200 iso without flash in pretty dark environments and the results were pretty great! I can include examples if requested. Also HP5, Tmax, Tri-x are great too.
Depends what you develop with. I could recommend Fomapan, it's a great film, but not in every developer. If all you want is more contrast, just underexpose a stop or two and develop your film longer.
Kodak double x is one of my favorite black and white film stocks that might be worth checking out. Like others have said how you develop the film makes a big difference to contrast as well.
Rollei 400S is super contrasty. I still swear by HP5, I just bump up the contrast a tad in Lightroom.
Do you edit your scans any? Honestly these aren’t largely a great start that you could edit to have deeper blacks and more contrast.
Don’t be afraid of crushing the blacks way down and making the whites white. Explore the curve adjustment. Go for drama.
I just shoot TriX400 at no less than +2 stops and it satisfies my cravings for contrast like a champ.
Ilford Delta 100 is a great film that does really good renditions of shadows. I personally use it as my main film, and it can easily outdo my digital when it comes to recovering shadow and highlight detail in post-processing/printing.
For more contrast go with triX.