favorite b&w film for 120/220?

<p>Ilford FP4+ I'm not old enough to have used any of the "classic" emulsions that many people talk about, but for my money, this is the best. It has a nice amount contrast without loosing shadow and highlight detail and has a nice grain that lets you know it's still film. TMAX just always seems washed-out looking to me... too much like a color image converted to B&W. I have not tried the new emulsion that is supposed to be higher resolution yet, so maybe I would like it better than what was available 10 years ago.</p>

<p>I really like the TMax films (100 and 400) and am finishing off some I have, but I am trying to standardize with Tri-x for all cameras. I do like Tri-x just fine. I mostly develop in D76 1:1. </p>

<p>Remi, Agfa APX 100 still exist and is called new Rollei.<br />If you are from Europe, you can find it at a good price at macodirect.de.<br />Tmax 400, Ilford HP5+ 400, Agfa APX 100.<br>

Mircea</p>

<p>Pushed TMAX 400:</p>

<div></div>

Thanks, again!<br>

<br>

I purchased five 120 rolls each of Tri-X and TX400. Although I use a tripod, I like shooting at 400 ASA for the depth of field.

Just for fun, maybe I'll post a photo from each roll for comparison purposes.<br>

<br>

The lab which processes my film does standard developing in Xtol (I think), what they call "dip and dunk" but can arrange for

custom, hand processing at a considerably higher cost. I know b&w is easy and cheap to do at home but I don't have time

and please don't remind me how much I enjoyed darkroom work all those years ago.

<p>Sally- I'm a big fan of TRI-X Pro (ASA 320) for <a href="../photo/8494599&size=lg">studio</a> or landscapes. Generous latitude (TRI-X) and handles expanded or contracted development times nicely. I've been recently using Ilford's PAN-F rated at ASA 50. It's not Panatomic-X (that might be a good thing as Panatomic-X was really contrasty) but it definitely has very fine grain. Still a fan of TRI-X with D76 1:1.</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jul 07, 2009; 04:16 p.m.<br>

Michael, you will get much smoother grain and sharper negs from TMX 100 on Xtol 1:1 than on TMAX dev. If you already like the results from TMAX dev your are in for a treat with XTOL.<br>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Mauro,<br>

I believe part of the perceived sharpness improvement with XTOL in your posted comparison is due to increased contrast you obtained vs. the TMX developer image. Any further insights based on other comparisons you've made or examination of the original negatives would be useful to me as I currently use TMAX Developer and the Zone System.<br>

Regardless of the differences in sharpness/contrast the smoother XTOL developer grain is motivating me to consider switching. That's a big deal for me because I would have to re-calibrate my EI and Zone System development times and temperatures. If you use the Zone System do you have any suggestions for times, temperatures, dilutions, and agitation method for development for N-1, N, N+1, N+2?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Ken</p>

 

 

<p>Tri-X 320.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

You are right on the increased in the mistones (at the expense of maybe a stop on the shadows) when using XTOL vs TMAX Dev.<br>

Xtol 1:1 gives sharper, higher resolving and finer grain results than TMX dev. Consistently and by a wide margin.<br>

TMAX Dev's only advantage is to dig a bit more detail in the shadows when pushing. Xtol mainly affects the highlights only when pushing.<br>

TMAX 100 I do in general N or N+1 since it has plenty small grain already (shot at normal speed).</p>

<p>TMX 400 I do in general N or N-1 (shot at 400 or 800) since it has a bit of a tendency to block the highlights when compared to TMAX 100.</p>

<p>I also do TMAX 400 N+2 or N+3 (shot at 1600, 3200 or 6400) - more for fun than anything else.</p>

 

<p>Here is another example of TMAX 400 in Xtol:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-X3-LB</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Frank. Plus-X 125 is better now that Kodak re-engineered it with the technology from T-Max. It's no longer "mushy", and I use it for portraits with D76 1:1. Outstanding tones for portraits.</p>

<p>However, I still miss the old Tri-X, specifically from the late 1980's and early 1990's (Type 6049). Not much dye, with a lot of silver. Outstanding tones with HC-110 dilution B without blown highlights. Now, I use the current version of Tri-X 320, with ACU-1 developer, not too diluted. This combination generates nice mackie lines between high and low values, and gives me some of my sharpest images from 120 film. It also brings back some of the look and atmosphere of the old Tri-X mentioned above in my post, without too much "grayness" that X-tol many times gives me.</p>

<p>I've found that Ilford FP4 developed in Rodinal 1:50 is superb, as well as Ilford FP4 in Diafine.</p>

<p>Ilford Pan, FP-4 or good old Tri-X. Dependable, good and consistent. This also gives you a range of grain. For the price, now that I have found it again (used to use it in the '80s in Africa) I am happily surprised with the saturation and midtones of the Ilford Pans and am switching to that for my slower film.<br>

I have also had very good results with the T-max films but have found them inconsistent, even within the same batch and in the same developer tank, and much more finicky in development overall. (There's a good reason most photojournalists used tri-x till they switched to digital.) Other people have had better luck and may be better at being consistent.<br>

There are literally dozens of small run companies in various countries that make (or label) traditional B&W emulsions, usually "pan" variations: Negrapan, Perupan etc.<br>

Of course, within the great middle of the bell curve, more will depend on your own skill and technique.</p>

<p>Wow, there is some great work here. The Pan F looks excellent. TKS.</p>

<p>My favorite was Agfa APX 25, now I'm working with Fuji Neopan 100, 400 and efke films.<br>

But I'm unsatisfied with their poor sensitivity to red light, they're tricky to use with red filter...<br>

Any sugestion...?</p>

<p>Try to find old TMAX 100. Awesome.</p>