What Black and White film would you like to see revived?

I wish I could by a roll of 35mm Kodak Tri-x TXP. Just because.

I’m fine with what’s available nowadays, however, the only film I really, really miss is Verichrome Pan. It’s the only film that looked absolutely and consistently beautiful as I was unwinding it off the reel right after processing. I’m getting close to opening my last frozen brick of it now.

 

(snip)

 

As I understand it, VP has two different emulsion layers to give better exposure latitude than most black and white films.

Especially as it was popular for simpler cameras, used under a variety of lighting conditions.

 

I did always wonder why no VP in 35mm, especially as 35mm cameras became more popular with less experienced photographers.

 

But I most miss VP in the film sizes where it was the only, or only one left, of film types, such as VP127 and VP122,

and even VP110 and VP126.

I did always wonder why no VP in 35mm, especially as 35mm cameras became more popular with less experienced photographers.

 

In Kodak literature, (I don't have the exact reference in front of me at the moment), Plus-X, which was available in 35mm, was promoted to be similar to VP, thus Kodak never felt the need to make VP in 35mm. Ironically, they did make it in the 828 size, which by all format purposes was the same as or very close to 35mm.

 

In my view, there wasn't a lot in common anyway between PX and VP; to me, PX was harsher and contrastier* as opposed to VP's creamy tonal transitions.

 

*Not to say I don't like PX, because I do. ;)

Edited December 11, 2018 by allancobb

VP126 is also 35mm wide, and I am suspect that they sold a lot more of that than VP828.

 

Well, I started later than the years when 828 might have been popular, but I don't think it did as well as 126.

 

It would be 120 that had both VP and PX, I suppose VP for simpler cameras, and PX for better ones.

Yes of course, 126 was 35mm wide also, it slipped my mind. ;)

 

In the 120 size, Plus-X (PXP, actually the same emulsion as PX in 135) had a retouching surface on the emulsion side, therefore lending itself more toward professional use.

Agfa APX 25 and Agfa APX 100

Kodak 2475 recording film. Fantastic for street photos when pushed a couple stops to enhance the already coarse grain. I still have a few rolls in the freezer...but I am sure after 30 years base fog is nasty.

I'd like to see these return: from Kodak- Super XX in sheet film, Plus-X, Panatomic-X, and Verichrome Pan. From Agfa I'd like to see APX 25.

One other thing I forgot to mention... I’d love to see any B&W film, I don’t care which, current or otherwise, offered in 220. My supply of TXP is completely exhausted and my PXP is starting to dwindle.

Also would like to see HIE (infrared) return and Tech Pan.

And while we're wishing maybe bring back some of the black & white Ansco films.

And while we're wishing maybe bring back some of the black & white Ansco films.

 

And with the Ansco, replay some of those ads where Henry Fonda says, "G A F"

My only experience with Ansco is I shot some in 127 in an Imperial Cubex camera during the late 60's. Whatever Ansco offered in ASA 125 at the time.

Plus-X, and other black and white films in 220. So much nicer to have 24 vs 12 shots in medium format.

Well ok, one more... Kodak’s T400CN, their first B&W C-41 film. It’s paler orange mask compared to its replacements (BW400CN, etc.) lent itself to easy conventional printing while facilitating machine printing at the same time. It’s the only film I felt that ever came closest in tonality to Verichrome Pan.

I'll add another vote for Verichrome Pan. Besides the points mentioned, what I appreciated is that it was available in just about any drug store. Pretty handy when traveling.

What black and white film would you like to see revived and sold again?

FP4+ at 'only' 30 quid for a 100' roll, or 25 quid for a box of 50 sheets of 5x4.

Well, also that VP was available in many sizes that others were not found in.

 

While 116 cameras are pretty old by now, 127, 126, and 110 are not so old, and

now hard to find in any film.

Plus-X, and other black and white films in 220. So much nicer to have 24 vs 12 shots in medium format.

Just curious.....what do You think of FP4.?

I switched to Ilford when Plus-X was discontinued and i have no complaints.

I, kind of, automatically abandoned Tri-X and picked up the HP5 habit at the same time. I like both of them very much.

Then again, i am just a hack "Street Photographer" that shoots 35mm 97% of the time. I have a RB67, but i am too lazy to use it near as often as i would like to.

Anyway.....Thanks.

I appreciate for your input (if you are still listening)

Just curious.....what do You think of FP4.?

 

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'm someone who also switched to FP4+ after Plus-X was discontinued(although I still have a bunch of 2012 ex. 35mm Plus-X in the freezer, and some slightly older 120).

 

I really, really like FP4+ but to me it's not a direct replacement. The grain is a bit finer, and to my eye it has a bit more of a "bite" in contrast than Plus-X. The difference is subtle, but I find it difficult to get exactly the same smooth, creamy tonality that I love and easily get from Plus-X.

 

I've learned to "tame" FP4+ some and make it look a bit more like Plus-X, but it's still a different film.

 

At the same time, though, I don't know when Kodak last made 4x5 Plus-X, but all that I ever find for sale is quite old(1980s or earlier). FP4+ is of course readily available in all reasonably common sheet sizes(2x3, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10) and you can get it in just about any size you want through the ULF program. I've never been wild about HP5+ as compared to Tri-X, but this is another distinct advantage to using it-TX400 is not available in sheet film, and TXP320 is no longer available in roll film(there again, I have some in 220, but my stash is getting a bit thin).

Hey Ben -

No problem my friend. :)

Was just, kind of, a general question for any of us that have made the switch.

I appreciate your insight

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'm someone who also switched to FP4+ after Plus-X was discontinued(although I still have a bunch of 2012 ex. 35mm Plus-X in the freezer, and some slightly older 120).

 

I really, really like FP4+ but to me it's not a direct replacement. The grain is a bit finer, and to my eye it has a bit more of a "bite" in contrast than Plus-X. The difference is subtle, but I find it difficult to get exactly the same smooth, creamy tonality that I love and easily get from Plus-X.

 

I've learned to "tame" FP4+ some and make it look a bit more like Plus-X, but it's still a different film.

 

At the same time, though, I don't know when Kodak last made 4x5 Plus-X, but all that I ever find for sale is quite old(1980s or earlier). FP4+ is of course readily available in all reasonably common sheet sizes(2x3, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10) and you can get it in just about any size you want through the ULF program. I've never been wild about HP5+ as compared to Tri-X, but this is another distinct advantage to using it-TX400 is not available in sheet film, and TXP320 is no longer available in roll film(there again, I have some in 220, but my stash is getting a bit thin).

 

You now what Ben - I agree with your observations about Plus-X versus FP4. Plus X was to my mind like the B&W films I grew up looking at (I'm 54 now) . It was very smooth and old fashioned looking and none the worse for that. FP4 is definitely a more modern film - great - but different - but I also agree with the other observation that FP4 really shines on medium format cameras. FP4 does not like being over exposed either - it's a more exacting material and Plus X could take a lot more abuse and come shining through. I would buy Plus X instead of FP4 if it were still available.

 

As for HP5 - I have never got on with it. It is too contrasty in mixed light conditions. Tri-X 400 just works for me - it is a film that you can get more consistent, first time results out of straight out of the camera in my experience. But, if the world ended up with just HP5, I could live with it because when you get a good result it is really good.

 

My real favourite Ilford film is XP2 if I'm honest. It's bomb proof unless you insist on being a purist B&W photographer.

FP4 is definitely a more modern film - great - but different - but I also agree with the other observation that FP4 really shines on medium format cameras.

 

I have to admit that I've actually shot very little 35mm FP4+-probably under a half dozen rolls total.

 

I buy it by the brick in MF, though, and it's the only LF film where I've ever finished the box. So, in that respect, it's definitely a "larger format" film for me. My main B&W film in 35mm these days is Tri-X, although I do still shoot some of my ever-diminishing stash of Plus-X.

 

It seems to me that HP5+ is either a love it or hate it film. "Hate" might be strong word, but I know folks who will shoot nothing else and folks who don't care to touch it. I've been shooting a fair bit of it lately because a local shop gave me a complete bulk roll that had already been spun down into cans, along with a Watson loader that had ~3/4 of a roll in it. You can't beat free film, especially with the number of 35mm cameras I have from unknown sources where I often just want to run SOMETHING through them to see if they're working. The shop wouldn't have given that film to just anyone, especially since it wasn't even labeled as to what it was :) (I clipped a few rolls along with the bulk roll to develop the edge markings and figure out what it was-75% of the customers coming in that shop would even know how to determine an unknown, unexposed emulsion, and the vast majority of the ones who would know how to do it wouldn't be set up TO do it, nor would they have any desire to).

What black and white film would you like to see revived and sold again? Extra credit if you can make an argument that the revived film would actually be profitable!

 

At the risk of showing my age: Adox KB14 and R14. Sadly it would not be profitable, the failure of EFKE showed that.

Smoke 'em while you've got 'em. Buying and shooting fresh film is what keeps it on the shelves and reduces those b&w film obits. Scrounging outdated film or chipping frozen peas off that last brick of Plus X in the freezer doesn't help surviving b&w materials.

Watson, how much film have you bought this year?

 

I've bought around 50 rolls in 35mm and 120 of various in date emulsions-both B&W and transparency.

 

If I want to shoot Plus-X, what's it to you I'm doing my part to buy(and shoot) new stuff-I just like my Plus-X for when the situation calls for it.

 

If you have a problem with that-too bad.

 

This film has been going on for months now, and all of us are only stating what we'd like.

Edited April 8, 2019 by William Michael