Do you choose B&W products based upon ???

Recently I have been doing some testing on different B&W sheet films

and am trying to settle on two or perhaps three as my standard.

(Hp5+, Tri-X and FP4 Plus) Of course like most folks these days I am

attracted by manufactures claims of wonder products as well as I am

susceptible to others opinions. This is where my question comes in.

 

I am now wondering if many LF folks support a certain brand name or

specific film because that is what is readily available in their part

of the world or is it by product performance criteria? Frequently in

both film and paper I read of good support for Kodak from US

photographers, where as the European crowd seem to favor the Ilford

products. Some of the other products I hear about are Fortepan,

Arista, Agfapan Pro just to name a few. Are there other brands

available?

 

So which film (or even B&W paper if you want) do you favor and is

this based upon your availability in your area? (think carefully

about this)

 

I appreciate that the tendency would be to defend your selection

based upon artistic reasoning but in my part of the world I am mostly

restricted to buying either Kodak or Ilford products locally. So far

for me I have yet to decide whether to standardize on HP5+ or Tri-X

as my film of choice. I realize I can use both but at this time but I

would rather just become proficient with just a single 400 (or 320)

ASA film. I am still comparing and learning I guess.

 

Regards,

Several years ago, I narrowed my film choices down to HP5+ or Tri-x also. I chose HP5+ simply because I liked the tonal range a little better...availability didn't have much to do with my choice since most films and papers are available in the U.S. One can spend the rest of their life testing films and papers....just choose one and go take pictures.

Here's a European using Ilford FP4+ - because I'm used to it and know just what I can get it to do. I use the same film in 120roll, 4x5 and 5x7.

 

Regards,

Originally I randomly chose Kodak Plus-X and D-76 based on price and availability and the belief that I could, if I only had the patience, learn to do whatever I wanted with that particular film/developer combination. I have to agree with the previous posts (and with the advice of countless others)...picking a particular film and developer and sticking with them will pay dividends in the long haul. I recently made the jump to HP5+, but only because it is readily avaliable (sense a theme here?) in 11x14.

I have used TMX 100 because of it's nice tonal qualities(at least to me, some do not like it) and it's very favorable long exposure quality; the reciprocity characteristics are quite good if you do a lot of longer exposures over one second. Since the availability of the film in Readyload I have used that exclusively because it sure is a lot easier carrying 60 sheets of film and one holder versus 6 cutfilm holders with only 12 sheets of film in about the same space!

Great question! For me, all LF film is mail order and I've never had a bad experience with any of the reputable dealers in the U.S or Canada. On rare trips to the "Big City" where places like Freestyle or Calumet exist, Kodak, Ilford and Freestlye's Arista are widely available. What should matter most are the results, but for me I think it comes down to how forgiving the stuff is to develop---I've got a very simple darkroom(perhaps I'll upgrade to "primitive"in 2003)---and how the film responds to the developers I'm familiar with has, in my case, more of an effect on the results than who made the film.

Grey Wolf, after using Kodak's 35mm and 120 roll film, in both color and B&W, for more than thirty years, I made the commitment to do B&W LF, exclusively, around 1980. At that time I was following Ansel's recommendation using Tri-X film, developed in HC 110. I was printing on Kodak's FB papers and developing the prints in Dektol. On the recommendation of a trusted photographer friend, I began trying Ilford products. After comparing films and papers over the next few years, and attempting to tame the highlights in the Kodak tabular grained T-Max films, as well as the Ilford Delta films, I finally settled on using Ilford HP-5 plus film, developed in Ilford Microphen 1:1. Ilford's Multigrade IV and Warmtone FB papers, developed in Ilford's Bromophen developer, eventually proved to be the ideal papers for my way of working. That's what I use, today. I try the new Ilford products when they are released, and continue to up-grade my materials. I believe that Ilford is on the cutting edge of B&W photographic material research and development. I still use some Kodak darkroom products (Photo Flo and Selenium Toner), but, for the most part, I'm an Ilford user because I like their products..

Ilford HP5+, because I like it, and it's really about the only choice at 12X20.

Tri-X is increasingly hard to get, Bergger is too slow for portraits, which is

mostly what I do. But if I have to be limited by availability, I feel pretty good

about the only choice being HP5+. I would probably still choose it even if I

had every other emulsion available.

Kodak has a proven track record of deleting/changing products just when you are used to them. 4x5 only available in 50/box or 100/box if I am not mistaken.

Agfapan 100 used to be my favorite, but I don't like the 25/box only option, too many boxes if you travel with 300 sheets.

Ilford films are excellent, readily available in Calgary, and a choice of 25 or 100 sheets/box.

 

Alkso see Chris Johnson's site with his wife's (Iris) comments.

WHatever is available and people can ship it to me the fastest and cheapest possible way. Here in Mexico I cant be choosy. We will see how photo warehouse film does, this might be the find of the year if the film is good.

When I lived in the US TMX and TMY for 8x10 and 4x5. I love this film and if you take just a little bit of time with consistency it is a great film to use.

I use Agfa film. For smaller sizes it's easy to get. 4x5 is a special order but not a great deal of effort. I like the way it looks and works for me. Only thing that really matters to me. It would be easier to use ilford but I like this and not really willing to relearn ilford film.

After field testing HP5+, Tri-X, Plus-X, and TMax 100 and 400, I settled on TMax 100 as my preferred B&W 4x5 film. It's a gorgeous film if you take the time to learn how it works and can make yourself process it consistantly. I chose my film primarily based on its performance but availability is also important. Living in a small town with two camera stores split between the nearest three towns (and none of the shops doing much LF business,) Kodak products are the easiest to get locally. Still, I have to mail order most of my supplies and I use Calumet out of Chicago: fabulous service, I swear their shipping is supersonic!

 

For a faster film I like Tri-X, against based on the lovely negatives I get out of it from HC110. HP5+ is a nice film and I've considered trying to support Ilford more often since they seem to have a deeper committment to large format photography than the Great Yellow Father does, but HP5+ never seems to have quite enough contrast for me and I keep having to print on higher-grade paper. I shot a lot of HP5+ a couple of years ago, when my primary LF was 5x7 (a size Kodak is not well represented in.)

 

Interestingly enough, local stores do sometimes listen to their customers. After years of whining about lack of local sources for 4x5 film and fiber paper, one of the local stores (alas, the more expensive one,) actually had a box of TMX a couple of weeks ago when I asked. Of course, I bought it! And they've started carrying a small quantity of Kodak's Polymax fiber VC paper, too (and I bought some of that as well! Expensive trip...) It took a long time of explaining to them that I could mail order just as easily as they could, and at lower cost, to convince them that there are only two advantages to local shopping: instant service (for which a price premium is reasonable,) and customer service (i.e., someone to talk to.) I think they're finally getting the message. :) There's another effect, too: someone else in my little town is now using LF. The fellow at the store said that he's also begun ordering the occasional box of TMax-400 in 4x5, for someone else who's using it. Hmm.

Choose ONE film/developer and stick with it for at least a year of shooting. Even if you test correctly for EI and development time, it's the experience making photographs and prints that will tell you what works or not. Too many variables lead to confusion and poor seeing. FWIW,I use 4x5 Tri-X Pan 4164, and like it.

I came to LF after years of 35mm shooting, some personal, a lot sports and commercial. B/W was Tri-X in Fg-7, 1:15 sodium sulfite, and EI between 400-2400, depending on the subject and lghting. And don't reason with me, my mind is made up.

 

I had good experience with that combination.

 

With LF I started over, first with Tri-X and HC-110 and then with D-76. Then through a fluke I was introduced to T-Max 100 at a Sexton workshop. I tested it and used it aginst Tri-X, shooting images with each film and liked what I found. So then I had two films. Later I added Technical pan, processed at N-1 in my normal developed, either D-76 1:1 or more likely Tmax RS 1:9, for those scenes that were flat--meter needles barely moves. Ok a third film. I tried Tech pan in other situations, but its ISO is just too slow for windy days landscapes.

I dislike T-Max 400--I just don't get it right no matter how often and however I test it. And thus far I haven't found Hp5+ to work well enough for me to replace Tri-X.

So the films I use happen to be Kodak, but I did not start out with that intention. I just perform the tests and see wehat works for me.

I don't use PMK--too much danger for me, as I am sensitive to some chemistry anyway, and so far I print silver gelatin or quadtone digital, So the "conservative developers", if that's what they are, work for me.

 

On order today is some Bedrrger 200; I would like to see what it will do, but I may be disappointed, given I don't want to start a new developer right now.

Bob

Although a U.S.-based photographer, I prefer to use Ilford B&W products for three reasons. First, I like the tonal rendition of FP4+ and HP5+ better than that of competitive films. Second, I like the fact that Ilford seems to be more sensitive to the desires of the B&W community (at least to the extent it can based on the market share), and I think that is worthy of my (admittedly miniscule) financial support. Third, but also important to me, is the fact that these emulsions are available in all of the formats I shoot. If I want a more "technical" look, I often go with either Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji Neopan Acros - both fine films.

 

While Big Yellow still produces many fine products, I feel the company has become too driven by the whims of the stock market and largely insensitive to the wants of its customers. Their choice, my vote at the cash register.

When I started out in b&w many years ago, Kodak was pretty much the only show in town. I was shooting 35mm and enlarging to 5x7 so of course I went for the very slow fine-grain films, eventually discovering TMax 100, which I liked very much. When I moved up to LF I somewhat uncritically stayed with the TMax, not fully appreciating at the time that I didn't really need that tabular grain structure if all I was going to do was to c-print 5x7's and 8x10's. I also loved the look of TMax100 (and it's still one of my very favorite b&w films in certain applications). But my tray-processing seemed not to be up to dealing with this quirky emulsion (it turned out that my problem was actually rebound off the tray walls causing uneven development), so I started experimenting with other manufacturers, and other Kodak films, now realizing that even if I were to enlarge the sheets I could still get away with considerable graniness. Besides, we all could use the additional speed.

 

I worked through the standard Kodak and Ilford films, trying out new developers along the way, eventually settling on Tri-X in HC110 (B). Tri-X is fast, it was (and still is, I believe) available in *both* my formats (so I don't have to shoot two different films on the same outing), and was reputed to be "forgiving"--important for me as I continue with my primitive hand tray processing routine. My developer to that time had always been D76, but HC110 had the great advantage that the water didn't have to be brought to 125F for the initial dilution--I sometimes develop in motel/hotel rooms where water temperature is bound to be problematic. This film-dev combo has worked very well for me. I wasn't aware at the time that Ansel Adams had used Tri-X with HC110 (B) and even if I had been I wouldn't have assumed that the chemistry etc. had remained the same all those years.

 

Brand loyalty usually assures a reasonably satisfactory performance, which IMO is necessary for those big, expensive trips when you can't afford the risk of blowing everything on a unfamiliar, untried, or touchy product. But I continue to experiment with the four films in my frig and as many developers in my darkroom.