Which B&W film

[david_craig1]

Returning to B&W photography. With Kodak and Ilford on the way out,

what film should I be going for? Am in the UK. Thanks

[paul hart]

<A HREF="http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=199364">Rollei</A> are apparently producing a new B&W film but I've no idea what it's like.

[max_fun]

Thanks for the article Paul. I'm a bit surprised that Rollei is doing this; didn't think that they had the resources to branch out into a fairly different branch of photography.

 

David, despite all the bad news, Kodak and Ilford aren't going anywhere so soon. For B&W, I love TriX. Very versatile and gorgeous quality.

[steve_unsworth1]

David, I use FP4, Tri-X and Fuji Neopan 1600 depending on the speed I need.

 

The Rollei appears to be a repackaged film made by Tura in Europe.

[socke]

The Rollei R3 is an improved Maco Cube 400. Tura repackages film which is very close to Agfa APX, at least developing is identical :-)

 

I think Ilford and Kodak B&W films as well as Agfa and Fuji will be available for a long time, although more expensive.

[richard s.]

Neither Ilford nor Kodak are going anywhere just yet!

 

Besides, as someone else on this forum pointed out a while ago, why do people start

seeking out alternatives as soon as a company displays signs of weakness? Go out and buy

Ilford or Kodak, whichever, and shoot! If we keep on buying the films maybe the

companies can reach a new profitable equilibrium ...

[ian_everhov]

Tri-X is always fine, in all sizes. Agfa APX 100 is fantastic seems even better in 120 size. Efke 25 and 100 are both very very good films, but with a touch of quality problems (edge fogging in 120) and lotsa curl and scratches (135). T-Max 100 if fine T grain is your cup o tea. Just buy a bunch of different films, try them out and make your own decision... Have fun, that's what it's really about, isn't it?

[__kibbel_zinbitz]

{quality problems (edge fogging in 120) and lotsa curl and scratches (135). } Sounds like the side of my car but I can't blame the factory for handling abuse.

[jason]

i prefer Ilford HP-5 and then Tri-X.Agfa 400 has a terrible curl and appears fragile and eassily damaged. I have used TURA 400.It is a great film.Very old fashioned. LOTS OF SILVER.The Fuji films excellent but pricier here in Toronto..You should't worry about film going!Look at all the small cameras and yet photographers like (the late) Richard Avedon used an 8x10 VIEW camera.Kodak is going for the quick bucks but will remeber about the film users.Digital shooters do NOT make prints. A few do. I spoke to numerous 1-Hour labs here and all business is way down.Also when the digital prints are made the poor quality of the original image a problem!Sure! Have you shot your Leica holding out there at arms length? Place a flashlight(torch) on the top of your camera and see how much the light jumps as you release shutter! I know all the folks here at the forum with digital will try to tell different. My daughter who lives a Continent away has been thinking of digital.So far without any ideas or thoughts from me, has said in latest e-mail, "I am yet to see anything even close to my Spotmatic.

The pro slr with heavy price tags sort of.I am going the scanner way."

[malcolm_rains]

David I think your choice of film is also dependent on how you print your final photograph.

I have my film professionally developed and have a contact sheet made. I then scan the

film into my computer and subsequently work on the images in my digital darkroom,

Photoshop, and then print them on an Epson 2200. The film that I have found to scan the

best is Kodak BW400CN (rated at 320) as it has very good tonal quality and it is when

scanned I can use Digital Ice which virtually eliminates retouching of dust marks and

scratches. All original scans are burned onto 2 CDs and one of the two CDs is kept off of

the premises as a backup.

[lee_shively]

I wouldn't count out the big names just yet. Ilford is still producing film. So is Kodak. There's no reason not to try their film if you're experimenting. All traditional photography companies are now in transition so it's important to be flexible.

[ben z]

"Besides, as someone else on this forum pointed out a while ago, why do people start seeking out alternatives as soon as a company displays signs of weakness?"

 

I think it's more pragmatism than just rats deserting a sinking ship. If we stick with trying to bail out the ship we might find that it still goes down but by then the other ships have sunk too. If the entire demand for b&w film were directed only at Kodak it might represent a 1% increase in their overall film sales, in a market declining more than ten times that each year, not enough to convince the bean counters not to pull the plug. OTOH the same demand directed over to one of those small eastern european manufactures might represent a 100% increase in sales, which is a better bet they'll keep on producing.

[__stu_evans]

You should be going for Ilford til you can't get it. It's an entirely different exercise to predict what economic equilibrium will be achieved.

[kevin m.]

"Also when the digital prints are made the poor quality of the original image a problem!"

 

Well, I guess we can rule out any intelligent discussion on this topic, then....

[Brad_]

<I>Digital shooters do NOT make prints. </I><P>

 

That's pretty funny - and of course not accurate. Might be best to render comments on

topics where you have some experience.

[scott_mcloughlin]

I've been shooting Ilford's HP5+. I bought a whole bunch of it some months ago when Tri-X grey market dried up. Cheaper than Tri-X, and I already had been using FP4+ for a slower film. Neopan 400 is very nice as well, but I like HP5+'s somewhat more "traditional" look better.

 

I soup both HP5 and FP4 in HC110 (B) for around 4.75-5 minutes, which is very convenient. Works for me.

[aizan_sasayama]

he probably meant digital shooters don't make prints at 1hr photo places, or as much

as film shooters. it seems most people do it at home.

[anthony_brookes5]

If you can't get XP2 or PanF then Fuji Neopan 400

[larry_kincaid1]

FWIW (worth) I just noticed that readers of one of the British photo magazines just voted Ilford Delta 100 as the B&W film of the year. I think that's happened before; seems popular in Europe. Fuji Neopan 400 came in third place. I tried Tri-X against HP5+ on a recent trip and liked the results of the HP5+ better, but it might just have been due to the subject matter or processing. Too many variables. Everyone advises trying them yourself before making a decision. Scanning is a big issue though. Has anyone succeeded in scanning Tri-X or Ilford HP5+ to their satisfaction?

[mattalofs]

TriX and HP5 both scan fine. You'll need to spend time spotting if the negs are dusty, but as far as detail and tonal range go, I can get more out of a scanned trix neg than I ever could in the dark room.

[terry_rory]

I thought Tri-X was compulsory with Leicas.

[rick_waldroup3]

I have used every type of B&W film known since around 1970. I have shot it in all formats, from 35mm all the way up to 8x10 and everything in between. I still use Tri-X for most of my 35mm stuff, but I have been playing with Neopan 400 lately. I have also used Tmax a lot. I develop everything in Rodinal. I used to shoot Agfa Pan 100 in 8x10 and that was really great stuff. It's all a matter of taste I suppose.

[jim_mcbride]

I've switched to the C41 process B&W films because they are easier to scan.

[rich815]

Jim, while the C-41 B&W films are certainly easier to scan in that one can use ICE and so forth for dust they generally should not, as a rule, be any easier to scan than traditional B&W emulsions. One thing I have found is that one has to begin a new mindset in their workflow when they are shooting and developing negs for scanning purposes. Often a neg that would have been great for the traditional darkroom and for printing on traditional paper can be a bit too dense and contrasty for scanning. Therefore I often go for a slightly flatter neg (defintiely do NOT over-develop) and while this will usually give a flatter and "greyer" initial scan some quick levels/curves adjustment tightens it right up. Maybe you know all this and I'm sounding pedantic but I often scan Tri-X, HP5+, Neopan 400, etc. and unless the negs are too dense and contrasty they scan just as easily ,and sometimes better, than XP2.

[les_lammers]

I think Jason was referring to P&S digital. Most of those shots get sent via e-mail etc. Nothing wrong with digital. I'm just not ready to go there yet.