favorite b&w film for 120/220?

Okay, that does it, I'm going back to b&w. This morning while shooting palm trees, light through the fronds, etc., I knew I should be using

b&w film instead of color. Not having shot b&w for over 10 years, I don't know what's available, any more. When I shot 35mm b&w, I used

Tri-X.<br>

<br>

B&W MF shooters: will you please tell me which b&w film(s) you prefer and why? I have both 120 and 220 magazines for my Hasselblad,

mostly I shoot landscapes.<br>

<br>

Looking forward to your answers.

<p>Kodak Plus X ASA 125 use to be my favorite, but is now dicontinued, so its either Tri-X or T-Max for me depending on the look I want. </p>

<p>I am shooting mostly Kodak Portra 160NC now when I shoot 120 film. You get about the same range as a good B&W film, and you can control the filter effects in digital post-processing, except for polarization of course. It really simplifies shooting in the field. I find that I convert about half of what I do into black & white, and you can make the choice after you see the results. When I do convert, I usually simulate the characteristics of the "real" Tri-X. It would still be my first choice if I were to shoot just black & white - I always have some on hand. <em> <br /> </em></p>

<p>Ilford FP4 - Delta 100 or Kodak T-Max depending on availability</p>

<p>The only black and white 220 film left is Kodak Tri-X, rated at 320. Good film.</p>

<p>Fujichrome Acros for the fine grain; Tri-X Pro (available in 220 as well as 120) for the faster film. I develop in Diafine. </p>

<p>I like Tri-x, and Tmax 400...like their tone range. I also like ilford 3200, or Kodak 3200 for low light situation, or at night. Just the past sunday, when I sort out the films I shot 4 -5 years ago, I found out I did Fuji Acros 100 a lots. </p>

<p>Ilford HP5+ for 400, Ilford FP4 for 100. Recently I've been using some Fuji acros for 100 and neopan for 400.<br>

Developper is mostly Rodinal.</p>

 

<p>ilford delta 100 pro... seems smoother, less harsh/contrasty.</p>

<p>Ilford Delta 3200 - allows me to do indoor/low light portraits and informals without a flash. Great combination with my Mamiya 645 and 110mm f2.8 short-tele lens, or Mamiya Universal 6x9 and 100mm f2.8 normal lens [sorry, no Hassy!]. And it also allows me to grab some untracked astrophotos too, although DSLRs have the edge there.</p>

<p>Sally,</p>

<p>I too was recently afflicted with the B&W bug. Many years ago (20-25) I shot nothing but Tech pan and FX with my F2's. I loved the stuff. Many years later, I'm shooting with Hasselblad gear. I've been experimenting with B&W for about two months now. I've tried three films: Plus-x (hated it), Tri-x 320 (Liked it), and T-max 400 (love it)!<br>

I've tried all souped in D-76 straight & 1:1, and Xtol straight & replenished. I now remember why I never shot Plus-x in college; I always seemed to end up with flat, thin negatives. User error I'm sure, but at least I'm consistent.</p>

<p>The T-max 400 (exposed at 320) performed beyond any expectations. Even developed in D-76 1:1, It rendered very fine grain and good snappy negatives. Developed in the Xtol straight, grain was nonexistent.</p>

<p>I just developed a couple of rolls of the T-max 400 last night that I hand-held with the Hasselblad (1/250 sec.) and am thrilled. I'm generally a stickler for tripods but these last rolls have been liberating, to say the least.</p>

<p>Agfa APX 100 but it's dead too....Thankfully I have a freezer full of it :-)<br>

Otherwise, FP4+ is very nice...</p>

<p>For 220, TXP is the only one left, and it's actually quite nice!</p>

<p>My favs have always been FP-4 rated at ISO 80 or Pan-F rated at 25. On occasion Delta 3200 for hand held available light.</p>

<p>Normally:<br>

Fuji Acros: 70%<br>

Ilford Delta 100: 20%<br>

Tmax 100: 10%<br>

But I shoot a lot of other stuff now and then: Pan F, Rollei Tech Pan, Efke Ortho, Fuji Neopan 400 and 1600, Delta 400. The real issue is what you develop it in, and for how long. I think all the images in my portfolio are Fuji Acros, but they are all shot with Hasselblad.</p>

<p>When doing a commercial assignment with my Mamiya 645's I prefer Fuji Acros 100 @ E.I. 80 in HC-110 dil. B. If out, I will use Delta 100. For high speed needs I use Tri-X.<br>

For fun, using my Yashicmat, I use either Tri-X or Plus-X.</p>

<p>I'm struggling on the "why" bit, but what I did was to deliberately experiment widely with films, papers, toners etc during the first year of shooting b&w, and i spent a lot of time looking at negs and a lot of money getting prints made. The conclusions I drew were that i preferred the look of TriX (TXP) above all others and that if I couldn't have that well HP5 would do just fine. Neither is available in 220 sadly. </p>

<p>Fuji Acros for low speed, HP5@800 for high-speed, both in D-76 1:1.</p>

 

<p>Eventually every film will be named. Try the txp since it is the only black and white process film left in 220. Hopefully you will love it. Might be better to ask if there is a film to avoid but, no, every film would be again named. <br>

Acros is good and relatively cheap. Tmax 100, Tri X, Fp4, Hp5, Delta 3200, Delta 100 and 400, Fuji 400, Foma 100 and 200. It's all good kind of depending on your development.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I know it's a 'fake' but I love 400CN. If you ultimately scan your negs, I really believe 400CN is vastly superior to any real B&W film I have used (TMAX, TriX). Of course, wet printing is another matter entirely :-)<br>

If you do scan, give it a try - I really think you'll be impressed. </p>

<p>It depends upon your subject and lighting conditions and restrictions.</p>

<p>For me:</p>

<p>If you can tolerate the low ISO, Ilford PanF+ processed in Rodinal 1+50.</p>

<p>Need a bit more speed, Ilford Delta 100 processed in DDX 1+4.</p>

 

<p>I've been shooting about 50% Fujifilm Acros 100, the rest mostly split between Kodak 125PX and 400TX. I believe the Kodak TXP320 is the only B&W available in 220.<br>

I recently picked up some Ilford PanF but haven't really wrung it out yet.</p>

<p>Check the auctions from time to time. Once in a while some PXP 220 (hopefully frozen) will turn up.</p>

<p>TMax 100, especially for landscapes.</p>

<p>But boy I would love it if Fuji made 1600 in 120 for late night street stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak Plus X ASA 125 use to be my favorite, but is now dicontinued, so its either Tri-X or T-Max for me depending on the look I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plus-X hasn't been discontinued. Both B&H and Freestyle have the 120 Plus-X in stock - Adorama has it on backorder.</p>

<p>Maybe you're thinking of the 'old' Plus-X - there was a reformulation of it several years ago. </p>

<p>Kodak doesn't emphasize Plus-X on it's website - its listed at the bottom of the <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/blackWhiteIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1231">B&W film page</a> almost as an afterthought. While it's not as big a seller as Tri-X or T-Max, Kodak is remiss in not promoting it - it is an excellent fine grain film with great tonal range. </p>

<p>But then again, who knows what goes (or, more likely, doesn't go) through the minds of Kodak execs...</p>

<p>If you shot Tri-X in 35mm and liked it, you are gonna love it in 120. Same great blacks, but a little smoother and less grainy. I shoot Ilford FP4 sometimes, and Fuji Arista is worth a look, but only Tri-X looks just the way that I think B&W should look. If they quit making it I'd probably stop shooting B&W.</p>