[skipshady]

I just got my fully manual Nikon FM10 out of storage and I'm ready to start taking some pictures.

What are good B&W films for taking outdoor pictures in well-lit settings? I want good looking photos but I also don't want to pay too much either.

Thanks.

[zpjohnstone]

Well, I don't know what you're tastes are but I prefer Ilford or Agfa for my B&W stuff but I tend to shoot a lot of low light stuff, so I wouldn't necesarily recommend it for your needs.

This site might help you out- http://www.dr5.com/filmprintout.html

[skipshady]

Thanks.

I've actually used Ilford before for low light setting. I believe it was Ilford 3200, though I didn't know that it was really a 1600 and the pictures came out pretty grainy.

I still haven't decided how much money I want to drop on film and just trying to see what's out there. I think I'll make a visit to a photo shop this weekend.

[LifeOfBrian]

I use Ilford and, surprisingly, Kodak.

I shoot landscapes and need specific contrast. Ilford is consistently reliable but Kodak gives the better light / dark balance.

[metrocorazon]

My suggestion to you is, ALWAYS shoot in color. You can always make it B&W by different means later. But its alot harder the other way, its better to have those once in a lifetime shots be flexible cause you never know how better/worse something looks when its color is changed.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by metrocorazon
My suggestion to you is, ALWAYS shoot in color. You can always make it B&W by different means later. But its alot harder the other way, its better to have those once in a lifetime shots be flexible cause you never know how better/worse something looks when its color is changed.

This makes sense and I may end up shoting in color like you say, but I do like the sharp contrast you can get with good b&w film.

I guess I'll just mess around with different films over the next few weeks.

[zpjohnstone]

Hey, I thought I was a master lab monkey (I ran UK's photo lab my senior year), but if you can process color film and make it behave exactly like B&W film, more power to you, because I can't. Sure there are ways to make it look pretty close, but it messes up contrast (that is, if you had a plan about contrast when you shot) and tonal quality, and the actual film image is so much more stable over time. We're talking 25 years compared to 250, which will also manifest in picture quality.

It's a matter of the difference between silver and organic pigmentation.

That being said, there are effects you can only get by printing B&W photos with color negatives.

I guess it depends on how picky you are and your intended uses, as well.

[skipshady]

I was actually thinking about cheating and converting B&W to color on Photoshop.

[zpjohnstone]

Yeah, on that note, if you're planning on doing a lot of digital post-production then your shooting & printing choices are a lot less important.

[metrocorazon]

Originally posted by zpjohnstone
Hey, I thought I was a master lab monkey (I ran UK's photo lab my senior year), but if you can process color film and make it behave exactly like B&W film, more power to you, because I can't. Sure there are ways to make it look pretty close, but it messes up contrast (that is, if you had a plan about contrast when you shot) and tonal quality, and the actual film image is so much more stable over time. We're talking 25 years compared to 250, which will also manifest in picture quality.

I can tell you that many top photographers that Ive met through the years have told me both things. Some say plan ahead, some say they always shoot color and gotten great results with it.

But they always said that if you're not planning to be the next guy on National Geographic, then little crap like that doesnt matter and wont be noticable to anyone. Specially if youre just doing this as a hobby and sharing it with friends.