A mini-contest: Name That Film Stock!

[Martin_Doudoroff]

I've heard many experienced photographers can visually identify a black and white film just by examining an image. I cannot and never could. I've only become a photographer in the digital age, and while I have shot some film in the past, I never shot anywhere near enough black and white to get that intimately familiar with it. Heck, I've never even set foot in a dark room with the lights off! ( shame! shame!)

Anyway, I thought it would be fun to set up an informal contest here at Pro Photo Home to see if any of you veterans can correctly identify the film stocks for three images. (These aren't my pictures, but I have permission from the photographer.)

IMPORTANT: these are big images, so right-click to download (if you just click these links, the pictures load into your web browser, which you probably don't want)

image 1 (~2MB)
image 2 (~3MB)
image 3 (~3MB)

All I'll say about them is that they're all 35mm, that all three use different film stocks, and that none of the film stocks are obscure (all three film stocks are still available now, or were in recent times).

Go ahead and impress me!

[Jerry Skrocki]

1. Kodak Tmax 3200
2. Kodak Tmax 6400
3. Kodak Tmax 1600

[jlipkin]

Image 2 is definitely Recording film 2475. 3 Could be tri-x, but I'm not sure

[David_Buzzard]

That's a tough one. B&W negs don't like to be scanned, and pick up weird grain paterns with the shift to digital. That said, as a former professional B&W printer, I'll give it a go.

Image 1) I'd say that's T-Max 400 (TMY), but developed in T-Max developer. You can tell because it's very sharp, but also really grainy. The stock developer for TMY was Kodak D-76, mixed 1:1 with water, for 12 minutes at 68 degrees (I'll remember that until I die). With the D-76, you get a smoother, less grainy look, but it's not as crisp as the T-Max developer, which is more designed for push processing.

Image 2) I'd say that's either Koday Tri-X or Ilford HP-5 (almost identical film grains). It has a softer look than the T-Max film, and it's not as crisp either. It seems grainy, so perhaps it's been pushed a couple of stops, but that could be from the scanning.

Image 3) It's pretty grainy, so I'd say that's it's T-Max 400 pushed up to 1600 with the T-max developer. It could be T-Max 1600 (TMZ), developed with T-Max developer, but it seems kind of grainy for that unless it's been pushed up to 3200.

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Well, you guys are totally shattering my expectations!

Actually, it's kind of interesting how diverse the responses have been. I'm not sure what that means, yet.

I'll confirm that two of the three films have been mentioned, although only one in association with correct image, and even then with perhaps a few too many qualifications. I'll also reveal that the three films are indeed from Kodak and Ilford, both of which have been mentioned.

Any further takers or second tries?

Martin

[David_Buzzard]

It's an interesting test, and I'm dying to see how I did. The thing with B&W printing is that it's not just the film stock that gives it it's look, it's the developer and speed in which you develop it.

Tri-X and Ilford HP-5 are good examples. You can get really nice, even silky looking negatives from it with D-76 at 1:1 for 12 minutes, or you could nuke the film in HC-110 for 3 minutes and get a real grain fest. If you look at old news photos from the 70's and 80's, you'll see what I mean.

David Buzzard's TEchnical Blog

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Well, David, you basically nailed image number 3. It isn't really pushed, but it is Kodak T-MAX 400 developed with T-MAX developer.

Image number 1 is Ilford FP4, and image number 2 is Kodak T-MAX P3200.

However, I have to sheepishly come clean, now, because there has been a deception at work. These are actually all DSLR images that have been processed to look like film. You see, the nefarious purpose was to see if people would accept these images as credibly filmic. (Whether you agree that these images are credible simulacrums for the films I claim they represent is subject for debate, although I can assure you the film grain is indeed drawn from those stocks.)

Anyway, here's what the images began life as:

original 1 (~1MB)
original 2 (~1MB)
original 3 (~1MB)

My apologies for being sneaky. I hope you don't feel you've been taken for anything. Here's how the processing was done.

Martin

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying