Which film do you prefer? About to buy another 100 ft bulk roll

<p>As I have used up my stock of Legacy Pro ISO 100, I am about to purchase another 100 foot bulk roll of film. Freestyle's Legacy Pro was not bad, but I am going to try another kind.<br>

I am debating between Ilford HP5, Ilford Delta 100, Tri-x, and Plus-X. Although I have used these many times in the past, I cannot decide which one will be worth investing in.<br>

I shoot everything from landscapes to landmarks, and everything in between (night, indoor, portrait, etc.). I enlarge up to 11x14, and would like minimal grain, but want it to still possess the classic film appearance so the 11x14's don't appear to be a digital image converted to grayscale.<br>

If there are any films that you recommend, please inform me of them. As it comes down, my main decision is based on buying ISO 100 or 400 film.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Chase, Consider buying more bulk loaders. They go for reasonable prices, and I was buying them when I found NOS. I don't even have all of them loaded with film, but I keep Delta 100, Rollei Legacy 100, and Tri-X in mine. I have a roll of Pan-F ordered from my supplier as well. I haven't looked into it yet, but I'm really growing fond of Tmax.</p>

<p>For everything that has enough light, I like Plus-X. It's like the finer-grained brother of Tri-X, and enlarges to 11x14 superbly.</p>

<p>ASA 400 emulsions are today as good as ASA 125 emulsions were thirty years ago. The gain of two stops is invaluable.</p>

<p>Michael is right on this. I work out of 3; Foma 100, Neopan 400, and Portra 160NC. I have something ready for what ever I want to shoot. The logic of using bulk is sound, so why limit yourself.</p>

<p>I shoot every type of film and want to try ones I have not. Ilford I always go for when black and white, even their c-41 black and white. The negatives from that look like traditional black and white, while Kodaks negatives from their c-41 look like color negatives. I always liked Ilford when using black and white. I used the lomography film in c-41. I liked the way it came out, a different look if you will. I have yet to try rollei films that everyone here mentions. I like Kodaks specialty films. I never cared for their generic everyday film. I was reading in Shutter bug someone is bringing back Agfa 400 Black and white film. So I hope to try that.</p>

<p>For "everything in between", general photography, I would select either Ilford Delta 100 or Kodak TMAX 100. Since you have used Legacy Pro 100, and were not limited by the ISO 100 speed, continue using ISO 100 film with its fine grain. HP5 definately has more grain as does FP4, which is a Plus-X equivalent.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, more than one. This way if you want to try a new film that's just come out in 100' roll you don't have to finish the first roll. I use five: I have my late father's old Watson 66' from the early 60's (still works great) and 4 Aldens. Look for the Aldens if yoy can find them. They were the last high quality loader made IIRC. The Waton's aren't too bad if that's all you can find. I keep Tri-X in one, Plus-X in another, Legacy Pro (AKA Acros 100) in one, Rolleipan 25 in one, and the last is for experimenting. Currently it has a 50's dated bulk load of Kodak Super XX.<br>

If you pick up a loader or two from an auction you might even get lucky and get one that still has film inside. Often it's not usuable, but sometimes you may get perfectly good film, even a hard to find one like Panatomic-X.<br>

If you're not interested in picking up another loader or two, why not order some single rolls of the prospective films first before investing a load of money.</p>

<p>I might add to Mike's comment: The Alden is the best one I own, followed by an old Watson. I bought a new Watson and was astonished at how cheaply they were made. A part broke on it, right after I got it. I am surprised they are even light tight.</p>

<p>I have about 80 feet of Tri-X in a bulk loader, but I think it's been in there (at room temp) since the mid-1990s. Probably fogged!!</p>

<p>Dave, I had rolls of Tri-X at room temperature for at least that long, and it all turned out fine. Spool off a short roll and try it out. Except for my Tso-100 from the USSR, most of my old film has worked out from great to "my, isn't that interesting" results. ;)</p>

<p>If it's still good, sell it on eBay. Some people, like UFO conspiracy folks, need old film for their pictures of 'government' documents.</p>

<p>Tri-X, no contest. The current version is a big improvement over the 90s.</p>

<p>I shoot PanF and FP4, and my 400 ISO of choice is TMax. While I prefer Tri-X to TMax, I'll shoot the Ilford films anytime I have the light, and TMax can be pushed much better than Tri-X.</p>

<p>Use the Ilford Delta 100 whenever you can. Some find it too technical/clinically looking but if you get it right it's the best film there is. Whenever that is not possible Bruce is right, there is no contest, Tri-X. It's not only a great film but also one of the most forgiving ones around.</p>

<p>Tri-x in D76 or Xtol. It is a classic look that holds up well to 16x20 if you don't mind some grain. It won't be grainless, but wonderful. I don't use anything else in 35mm. It will give you a look clearly distinct from digital.</p>

<p>Bruce, I wasn't aware that Tri-X had been updated since the 1990s. Where did you read this?</p>

<p>TriX and get two rolls :)</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

Do you really think TRI-X can work that long? I think the roll of TRI-X in my Watson is from the Mid 80's...I was going to toss it and buy a new roll. Well, it will give me a chance to relearn how to process film. I am trying to decide between XT0l and TMAX developers. <br>

Different question (are we allowed that?) I am on a septic system, and that is one of the reasons I was looking as XTOL. I have read that XTOL and almost any fixer are essentially harmless to a septic system. I can't get a clear answer about TMAX, D-76, or Diafine.</p>

I have been using Ilford Delta Pro 400 (100 ft rolls) for about 10 years. I consistently get outstanding negatives with minimal grain and it seems to have a wide latitude on exposure. I got tired of Tr-X and trying to find it. Plus, Ilford seems like t will be around for a long while.

Hello everyone. The thread was started a bit ago, but the data inputs are still valid. I shoot in 35mm & 120mm primarily. Several years ago I started working with the Kentmere 100 & 400 materials (a product of Harmann/Ilford) and then "discovered" that the Ultrafine Xtreme 100 & 400 materials "are the same". Kentmere is not available (presently) in 120 format, but now that I can have both formats with the same films, life is a bit ez'r. All processing is now with Obsidian Aqua (DIY pyro developer). The Xtreme materials are on the net, with cost equal too, or a bit below the Kentmere. 100 ft rolls are used for the 35mm reloads, the 120 is fresh. Prints to 11x14 (and sometimes beyond !) are possible with the 35mm 400 material. Print here is 400 material in my Fed-2/Jupiter-8 combo. Bill

Yes, still a relevant thread today, maybe even more with the wide range of pricing ranging (in 100' rolls) the inexpensive but good quality Kentmere/and or Ultrafine Xreme all the way up to the premium priced Tri-X and TMAX 400. And lots of choices in between, all good, and just waiting for the user to find the developer that works to deliver the desired results.

This is entirely old fart opinion and you should just ignore it. I've never liked t-grain films. They have a look I can spot a mile away. Kodak films in general have a "too polished" look for me. My favorite film is probably FP4+, developed in one of the Crawley formulas like FX-2 or FX-37.

I think FP-4 is a good choice. I sometimes like Pan F+, though it might be best for well lit subjects.

TWO bulk loaders

#1 with a mid speed film about ISO 100, for shooting in daylight.

#2 with a higher speed film about ISO 400, for shooting in dimmer light.

 

Then shoot with TWO bodies, #1 with ISO 100 film, #2 with ISO 400 film.

 

I generally prefer mid speed ISO 100 film for daylight shooting, as it gives me 2 stops more exposure control than 400 speed film.

ISO 400 film exposure is 1/500 sec @ f/16, or 1/1000 @ f/11 if your camera has 1/1000 speed. Not much exposure freedom.

This might be heresy, but I mostly gave up on bulk film a while ago.

 

The reason for that is that most of 35mm B&W shooting these days is done with Tri-X, and when you factor in the inherent waste that comes with bulk film it ends up being more expensive than buying pre-loaded canisters.

 

Admittedly that's not universally true, though, especially with some of the smaller brand films.

 

I do also have some older bulk rolls kicking around. Lately I've been using some HP5+ that came in a loader and I've been loading it into the proprietary cassettes for my Nikon Fs.