scott_tavitian Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Anyone have any opinions about which is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_leest1 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 New Ilford Delta 400in XTOL 1:1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle denny Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I like tri-x and UFG for high school basketball.have a nice dayDenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photojim Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 As almost always: it depends. Kodak Tri-X - if you like its beautiful and gritty tonality, and need to be able to push the film Ilford HP5 Plus - if you like slightly sharper results than Tri-X and don't need to push Kodak T-Max 400 - if you want the finest grain possible with a conventional black and white film of this speed Ilford Delta 400 - if you like tonality at the expense of a tiny bit of grain Foma 400 - if you don't care how grainy the film is but want beautiful, rich tonality Those are only the five I've used! There are more. Try each and ask yourself which you like better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 There is no such thing. I use 4 or 5 high-speed films depending on the situation: Tri-X (not too much recently) Ilford HP5 Plus (a lot recently) Ilford Delta 400 (a lot recently) Fuji Neopan 400 (starting to play with this one, so far so good) Fuji Neopan 1600 (this one is about a stop faster than Tri-X with very similar grain) Agfapan 400 (not too much recently) Of course, developers make a big difference in the results you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straydog Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I've been using Kodak 400TCN or it's Ilford equivalent (XP1/XP2) for about 18 years. This is the C41 film that many complain about. You can shoot ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800 on the same roll of film and get a good print. The reason people hate it is, if processed in a color lab the prints are harsh, contrasty, and frequently a weird color(sepia or purple). Make prints on B/W paper and you'll be sold! If you rate it at 100 or 200 (overexposure) it is nearly grainless. I use it for actor headshots rated at 100 and I doubt that anyone could tell it from medium format! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_porter1 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The current (February 2004) issue of Shutterbug has a couple of good articles about this: http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0204sb_iso/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_davis2 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 What format and what are you using it for? Different needs for different uses. No real need to worry about grain with sheet film. Some of the B&W films have different ISO depending on sunlight versus tungsten. What is best depends on what you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Tri-X. Vary the EI and developer for various looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I will put my vote for TriX in HC110. I still prefere it to HP5 in HC110 but HP5 is starting to grow on me a little. I used over the summer Tmax400 in D76 1:0 it has very sharp grain and it ain't really a bad film but TriX is still the film for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Dear Scott, Yes, everyone has an opinion -- and none of them is worth much, including mine. There are over 20 ISO 400 films on the market (the Shutterbug article someone referred to was mine) and they wouldn't stay on the market unless people bought them. One may reasonably infer, therefore, that there are few films so awful that someone, somewhere, doesn't love them. I use HP5, XP2, Tri-X and Maco Cube 400 regularly, and Forte more rarely. I could live with any of them as my only film if I had to. But I don't have to. Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j._raabe Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Just a note - Foma 400 is lovely indeed, BUT, as with all Foma films, it is prone to factory defects. These may be minor, but they keep me from printing 35mm negatives; I shoot Foma T200 (in 135) for the DR5 process, and use Foma 400 in 120 for darkroom stuff. Perhaps I'm being overly picky, but the little scratches, spots, etc. are always around, even if only near the beginning of the roll.. I do love the Foma film - it's basically what I use if I can't figure out what to use.. So I guess this is a qualified recommendation for Foma. Fuji Neopan 400 is a very high quality film, and I like that one too. No complaints about factory defects there, or on any Fuji film, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photojim Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Roger, I wondered if you were THE Roger Hicks. :) I enjoy your articles and have read a couple of your books and enjoyed them too. I haven't tried too many films that I didn't like at least a little, so it really is important, Scott, to try a few. Get a taste of what they are like, then concentrate on one or two for awhile. Learn what the films are good at. I was shocked at the tonality of Foma 400. I bought some on a lark when I ordered some Efke film, and I was really impressed. No problems with quality yet, but I'll keep an eye on the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverhalide1949 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 In the last 5 years I have been trying out the following iso 400 35mm films: Tri-X (New) in D76 1:1; T-Max 400 in T-Max Dev & Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1. I started with T-max-400 very fine grain but to my eyes more "mushy" than fine, very sharp, cropped 11X14 prints are no problem. After about 40 rolls or so I tried 400 Delta in Xtol 1:1. This is a relly nice combination. Excellent tonality,fine sharp looking grain, very sharp overall. Cropped 11X14 prints have more noticable grain but to my eyes have a more pleasant look than T-Max prints. These comments go for the improved version called Delta 400 as well. Frankly the only perceptable difference to me is the blurb "New" on the package. I have exposed & printed well over 100 rolls of both versions and Delta 400 is presently my standard film. I have also tried New Tri-X (about 20 rolls), it is very nice as well, very good for portraits. I believe, however, that Delta 400 is (for me) the best film overall. This is a very personal & subjective opinion. You really need to try things out for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The latest (3rd) generation of Delta 400 uses the fast layer from Delta 100 as its slow later, and the slow layer of Delta 3200 as its fast layer. The film seems a little faster than the previous version, but sharpness and grain seem to me to be roughly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Dear Jim, Yup, that's me. Glad you enjoy the articles. I take your point about liking almost all films just a little, but (for example) I don't get on with FP4 in 35mm (despite liking pretty much everything else Ilford makes, and using FP4 in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10) and I've had precisely two good negs from half a dozen rolls of Acros. It's all alchemy! Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Alchemy, yup, ditto. I didn't care for FP4+ 'til I tried rerating it at EI 64 and souping in ID-11 for 9 minutes. Lovely tonal qualities for portraiture. A little dappled late winter sunlight couldn't hurt, either. And a 4 year old grandson playing happily under that dappled sunlight, oblivious to the camera. As Roger said, alchemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Denny, you mean that combo's no good for college ball? Pro ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon evans. Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I don't think "best" is an appropriate term when choosing a film. Equally, no-one else can answer it for you. You haven't mentioned what qualities you prefer (grain/sharpness/contrast etc), film format, whether you want to push-process, your likely subject matter or the lighting conditions in which you would use it. <p> I use Ilford HP5 Plus mostly - not because it is 'better' than any other film, but because I am comfortable with it. I have used Fuji Neopan 400 and like that too. XP2 and T400CN are great for portraits, and will produce suprisingly good prints at a local minilab (on b&w paper). <p> I'm sure other films are great, but I don't have the desire to experiment with them. I just can't be bothered, life's too short. I've given up worrying about grain at 400 (I'll use a slower film) and I'm sure it's sharp enough in a suitable developer. <p> An apt quote from another thread (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007BUh): <p> <i>"My experience has been that whenever I've had a problem in my system, it's NEVER the film. Think of the WORST film that you know of, and there's somebody shooting it who swears by it, and has excellent work to back it up."</i> <p> There sometimes appear to be too many choices in photography - in black & white in particular. I'd pick two or three films based on their supposed qualities and compare the prints. Some films might suit your vision better than others (or even just some subjects) but it is an entirely personal decision. <p> Previous similar threads:<br> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000nbX<br> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Ly1<br> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005uQC<br> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004cJM<br> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005vQb<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rothelle Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Tri-X Rules and the rest is second! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie_jan_bons2 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Also try the new agfa apx 400. I compaired this one with the ilford delta 400 and found out that the new afga apx 400 has the same grain and film characteristics as the ilford. (developed in id-11) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy_h. Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Personal favorite is Fuji Neopan 400. The only thing is, a lot of the smaller camera shops don't bother to stock Fuji B&W films, period. When I do find this stuff at better-stocked stores, it's always very affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now