Current state of BW films

[thomas_t]

If you want smooth tonality and non-perceivable grain, then try Neopan 400 and Acros, both exceptional tonality and grain for their speed. Additionally, TMX and TMY are quite good as well, though a bit more finicky in development times. I use Xtol 1+1 for all the above, and really like the results. good luck

[terry_rory]

<p> Another vote for T400CN & XP2 and all those nice C41 films... </p>

 

<a href=" title="Trevor Hare"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/46/147555902_58d28cc1d0_o.jpg" width="750" height="520" alt="Chrome" /></a>

[runkel]

I've been shooting a lot of Neopan 400 recently. Compared to Delta 400, which it largely displaced in my usage, it seems to give a little more drama in the tonal range and a creamy but somehow more "modern" feel, although I believe it has a (comparatively fine) traditional grain structure. I think Neopan 400 is supposed to be more "forgiving" than Delta 400, but Delta 400 always seemed forgiving enough to me.<br><br>

 

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4393256-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4393256-md.jpg"></center><center><i>M5, 35/1.4 ASPH @1.4, Neopan 400</i></center></a><br>

 

Have you ruled out Pan F Plus 50 as too slow? It's become my default for medium format shooting from a tripod, although I doubt Acros gives up much to it in the way of grainlessness. I believe Acros has no reciprocity law failure for the first two minutes, which can be handy every now and then even with a Leica.<br><br>

 

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3891966-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3891966-md.jpg"></center><center><i>M5, 35/1.4 ASPH @1.4, Acros, 4-6 minute exposure (?) swept by lighthouse beacon</i></a></center><br>

 

With Pan F Plus, the reciprocity breaks down beginning at 1/2 second and the graph of the exposure-time adjustment vs. measured exposure slopes steeply upward (<i>e.g.</i>, measure 30 seconds, expose 150 seconds), so I never would have had the time (patience, really) to reach the frame above, which was late in a series of guessed-and-bracketed long exposures and the only one that worked out.

[kent_tolley2]

<i>I always wondered why TMX400 was so tricky to nail?</i><BR>

I have a brick of TMY (TMX400) unused in my fridge. I got terrible muddy negs with it and didn't hang with it long enough to get better results. I recall seeing prints from TMY negs that looked good so I believe the potential is there. I think quality of the light is more important than the brand of film. But I do like the nuance in the shadows of TMX. <BR><BR>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2578566-lg.jpg"></center><BR>

[EricM]

I just felt the distance between the toe and the shoulder was too little with the 400. Terrible film, imo.

[simonpg]

This has become an excellent thread. I've just gone out to get some 35mm Acros 100, Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600. I'll let you know what I hink in the next couple of weeks.

 

By the way - what percentage of you all are developing B&W yourselves?

 

I've not done it for about 20 years and there seems to be a couple of great posts here on "cocktails" that should deliver great results.

 

Are there DIY die-hards who have given it up recently for good quality high street labs?

[lutz]

Simon, I haven't and won't ever give up developing b&w myself. Try Neopan 400 in TMax, 6' at 24 degree C.<p><center>

<img src="http://konermann.net/imprevues/images/32.jpg"></center>