An unrelenting crush on B&W 16mm

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I know I'm not the only one here. I've shot 35mm color negative, and I thought I'd never go back. But after having done a short film on 16mm black and white negative just now, it's like falling in love all over again. I just LOVE the stuff. That gritty look and feel is just unbeatable!

 

Okay, so that this is not a totally useless posting, I'll say my favorite B&W stock is Double X negative, followed by Plus X reversal (two totally different looks)...your turn?

[Nate Downes]

Hey, my one piece in a festival to-date was on Super8 Tri-X, so I fully understand the love of the B&W gritty look. I just shot a roll of 16mm PXR and am loving it. Flying out to Seattle friday for it's processing.

[Michael LaVoie]

I've always loved the look of Plus-X. I've recently shot Vision3 500T for a black and white transfer. Our tests looked great. The stuff actually looks better in black and white. You just have to be willing to push the contrast ratios a bit but it has a gritty texture that you might like. The speed is definitely an advantage over 50asa plusx. Outside though, I'd be willing to shoot PlusX. That was the very first 16mm film I'd ever shot my first year in film school. PlusX and TriX. I preferred the PlusX.

[Will Montgomery]

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

 

I just finished a shoot with 7231 Plus-X negative and was disappointed. Low contrast but also low grain. I'm sure Kodak spent many dollars researching how to minimize grain in their stocks, but this Plus-X negative didn't have the character I was used to from Double-X; Plus-X negative was almost too smooth for my tastes. I probably need to filter more for more contrast.

 

I've also found Fomapan to be a really interesting retro look although it's hard to find someone to process it properly these days.

[Richardson Leao]

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

 

I just finished a shoot with 7231 Plus-X negative and was disappointed. Low contrast but also low grain. I'm sure Kodak spent many dollars researching how to minimize grain in their stocks, but this Plus-X negative didn't have the character I was used to from Double-X; Plus-X negative was almost too smooth for my tastes. I probably need to filter more for more contrast.

 

I've also found Fomapan to be a really interesting retro look although it's hard to find someone to process it properly these days.

 

fomapan is No.1!

 

then ORWO NP4 and Plus X are drawn in 2nd place.

[Nate Downes]

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

Um... Tri-X?

[Chance Shirley]

I actually wrote a short black and white segment into my currently-filming feature just so I'd have an excuse to shoot some 16 mm Double-X.

[Will Montgomery]

Um... Tri-X?

Good point, I stand an idiot. Although it doesn't quite have the same ring as "triple-X".

[Will Montgomery]

I must say that I also have a slight crush on Ektachrome 100D in 16mm. It almost looks like someone painted each frame rather than an accurate representation of reality. Of course this was more pronounced with Kodachrome.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

 

I just finished a shoot with 7231 Plus-X negative and was disappointed. Low contrast but also low grain. I'm sure Kodak spent many dollars researching how to minimize grain in their stocks, but this Plus-X negative didn't have the character I was used to from Double-X; Plus-X negative was almost too smooth for my tastes. I probably need to filter more for more contrast.

 

Those emulsions are all old, we're talking late fifties technology here.

 

I actually like the low con look of unfiltered B&W. For negative it's an interesting look. For reversal you really don't need to filter for contrast because the stuff is so darn contrasty to begin with! The one stock I'm not too crazy about is Tri-X (at least the old stuff I used to shoot). The high con thick black charcoal grain look just doesn't do it for me, I prefer the gray sandy Double X instead.

[Will Montgomery]

So is the consensus that B&W stocks are still useful in a world were losing color in post is so easy? (rhetorical question perhaps)

 

I have to say that I really loved the look of "Good Night and Good Luck" even though it was V2 500T with color removed in post. It could however have benefited from more grain in my opinion but perhaps theatre goers aren't quite ready for that.

 

The opening of the last James Bond movie was shot on Double-X from what I understand; I was secretly smiling when I saw it in the theatre because I was hoping that's what it was.

 

Those emulsions are all old, we're talking late fifties technology here.

All the flaws that Kodak tried to fix over the years is what makes Double-X so great... it still retains that 50's look.

[Sam Wells]

Plus-X negative was almost too smooth for my tastes. I probably need to filter more for more contrast.

 

Push for more grain & contrast.

 

-Sam

[Robert Houllahan]

I have a short i just (finally??) finished cutting from workprint on a steenbeck, mostly 7222, some 7231 and Hi-Con and 7266 X-Processed to neg (for one 370fps shot) I am actually stupid enough to be cutting my own negative right now. Soundtracks 50% done and 16mm prints to follow..no really..

 

I guess it's more than a crush..?

 

 

-Rob-

[Charles MacDonald]

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

 

At one time there was a 4X negative, but it was extermely grainy and so only was used for documentaries and the like.

 

I've also found Fomapan to be a really interesting retro look although it's hard to find someone to process it properly these days.

 

 

I belive that Foma pan is optomised for teh "old" reversal process. The only place I have had it done was Black and White Film Factory in Toronto, where it has a real 1930's feel. especialy if I use the lens from my old DeVry.

[Will Montgomery]

I am actually stupid enough to be cutting my own negative right now.

Stupid, no... brave, yes.

 

I'm sure you have access to some great editing equipment, that's a big plus. I've considered renting time (maybe for some beer or something) at my local lab to use their editing setup, but I know my lack of experience in actual film cutting would be a problem.

[Robert Houllahan]

Stupid, no... brave, yes.

 

I'm sure you have access to some great editing equipment, that's a big plus. I've considered renting time (maybe for some beer or something) at my local lab to use their editing setup, but I know my lack of experience in actual film cutting would be a problem.

 

 

I probably have a slight advantage because I handle film all the time working at the lab here, however I cut the short on my friends broke down steenbeck (even though we have a nice S16 8 plate at Cinelab) and all it takes to cut negative is a Maier&Hancock hot splicer, a clean setup and mucho patience. As much as I like beer, I do not recommend mixing it and negative cutting.

 

-Rob-

[Leo Anthony Vale]

At one time there was a 4X negative, but it was extermely grainy and so only was used for documentaries and the like.

 

It replaced Tri-X cine-negative. Supposedly the same grain, but a tad faster, 320=>500.

 

'Mirage' 1965 with Gr.Peck was shot on 4XN on NYC locations.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I actually like the low con look of unfiltered B&W. For negative it's an interesting look. For reversal you really don't need to filter for contrast because the stuff is so darn contrasty to begin with! The one stock I'm not too crazy about is Tri-X (at least the old stuff I used to shoot). The high con thick black charcoal grain look just doesn't do it for me, I prefer the gray sandy Double X instead.

 

Using color filters for contrast is a different look than increasing the gamma in processing.

 

The soft edge of 16mm DXN grain gives it a mushy look, whereas TXR's hard edged grain gives it a very snappy look. It's the perfect film for black leather jackets.

[K Borowski]

It is really unfortunate that Kodak and Fuji continue to resist making their B&W T-grain films available with MP perfs.

 

Not that T-Max, Delta and Acros films are new. T-Max (except T-Max 400-2, just introduced last year) will be old enough to drink in the States this year :blink:

 

But anyway, there are about 5 generations of improval that aren't being showcased with cine stocks and should. All they have to do is punch the stuff with different perfs and rate it a third of a stop less. . .

[Bill DiPietra]

I know I'm not the only one here. I've shot 35mm color negative, and I thought I'd never go back. But after having done a short film on 16mm black and white negative just now, it's like falling in love all over again. I just LOVE the stuff. That gritty look and feel is just unbeatable!

 

Okay, so that this is not a totally useless posting, I'll say my favorite B&W stock is Double X negative, followed by Plus X reversal (two totally different looks)...your turn?

 

I hear ya, George! I've shot plenty of color 16mm film, but it just doesn't have the same effect on me. My personal favorite is Plus-X (especially since I'm shooting something on it now!) I look at the prints and I feel like I'm back in the 60s...

[Will Montgomery]

It is really unfortunate that Kodak and Fuji continue to resist making their B&W T-grain films available with MP perfs.

 

Is it the sharpness and lack of grain that you're looking for? I might be wrong but maybe they're balancing a need for a "retro" look in B&W since much of that speed, sharpness and tight grain could be found with their Vision stocks with color removed.

 

Seems as though when actual B&W film is used it's for that slightly dirty look and those T-grain stocks might just be too clean.

 

I wonder how many commercially released films recently have been actually shot on B&W negative?

 

If you really wanted it, I bet Kodak would make you a run as long as you by 100,000 feet or so.

[David Leugers]

It is really unfortunate that Kodak and Fuji continue to resist making their B&W T-grain films available with MP perfs.

 

I wish I still had an article about this quite a few years ago about how Kodak had done a lot of experimenting with T-Max to see if they could release it as a movie film. As I recall the results were very disappointing. Plus-X looked better and there was no advantage to using T-Max emulsions according to Kodak.

 

I am a huge, huge fan of all B+W film stocks. Each has its own look and use. I am disappointed with Fomapan. It can look great, but there have been so many problems I just can't bring myself to shoot with it anymore for anything other than a basic camera test. 4-X gets a bad rap, but I still have some in my freezer and a few 100ft rolls of 16mm I shot this year came out looking great. Great available light film. It looks surprisingly good transferred. I have not had any printed and I feel that making a print would increase the contrast enough to give it more snap when projected. Plus-X and the old Agfa 25 ASA B+W reversal in R-8mm produced some of the sharpest looking 8mm film I ever shot. Just beautiful projected.

 

I often think the general film going public really misses out on not seeing true B+W films shown on the big screen. For thirty years all we hear is how B+W is not "commercial". I go out of my way to see any B+W film. A true junkie.

 

Robert I envy you doing it "old school"! I love cutting on film, but can't afford work printing and making prints.

[Sam Wells]

I wish I still had an article about this quite a few years ago about how Kodak had done a lot of experimenting with T-Max to see if they could release it as a movie film. As I recall the results were very disappointing. Plus-X looked better and there was no advantage to using T-Max emulsions according to Kodak.

 

I remember this also, I sort of got the feeling Kodak had pre-determined the results to some extent. Plus X OK, but T-Max 400 vs Double X is a different equation. I was always thinking T-Max 3200 would be interesting as a MP stock (I recall a thread on CML where it was suggested TMax 3200 might be too susceptible to pressure fogging.

 

I read Kodak claims the new T-Max 400 is pushable to 3200, anyone tried it ?

 

I'm getting a very nice "T-Max like" look by digital means currently, and at EI 1600 - 3200 I know this is heresy :rolleyes: but I'm quite happy and then some......

 

-Sam

[K Borowski]

I remember this also, I sort of got the feeling Kodak had pre-determined the results to some extent. Plus X OK, but T-Max 400 vs Double X is a different equation. I was always thinking T-Max 3200 would be interesting as a MP stock (I recall a thread on CML where it was suggested TMax 3200 might be too susceptible to pressure fogging.

 

I read Kodak claims the new T-Max 400 is pushable to 3200, anyone tried it ?

 

I'm getting a very nice "T-Max like" look by digital means currently, and at EI 1600 - 3200 I know this is heresy :rolleyes: but I'm quite happy and then some......

 

-Sam

 

To quote "Office Space": "I get that feeling too Peter."

 

The company really is a master of corporate double-speak. They put a positive spin on everything and come up with facts to support business decisions!

 

There's no way in hell that T-Max 100 wouldn't have considerable improvements over Plus-X, although the Plus-X Neg I've used in still photography certainly is fine-grained.

 

My biggest problem with Plus-X is that they have sort of achieved this fine-grainedness through making the film less punchy.

 

There's a reason why Ansel Adams hated Plus-X. Now, I'm referring to the neg stock, of course. I would think that, due to the inherent greater contrast of reversal stocks, that Plus-X reversal would be better. Isn't that what they used for all of the outdoor shots in "Pi"?

 

~KB

[David Leugers]

How about someone with a 35mm camera, even an Eyemo, shoot a 100ft roll of T-Max as an independent test so we could see if it would indeed make a great B+W movie stock?