Favorite Film

[kimberley_boettcher]

What is everyone's favorite type of film to use for black & white photography? I'm using Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO. I'm wondering if there is a

different film type that gives more contrast.

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Hello Kimberley and everyone else. Contrast is a function of both exposure and developing. Each film has a "base" contrast, but it can be changed, sometimes drastically, with developers.<br>

Presently my "fav" film is UltrafineXtreme 400 in both 120 and 35mm formats. Obsidian Aqua is the principle developer, with an occasional mix of 510-Pyro used.<br>

Aloha, Bill</p><div></div>

[glen_h]

<p>My always favorite film is Panatomic-X in Diafine. Kodak doesn't make it anymore, but it lasts a long time. </p>

<p>Yesterday I got outbid on 65 and 70 year old rolls (one each) of Panatomic-X.<br>

I suspect that they are still fine, though not quite as good as new. Would have been interesting to try them.</p>

<p>Other than that, there are some films that I like, but don't have a special preference for.<br>

TMax 100, Ilford PanF+. For color films, VPS (Vericolor III) and Ektachrome 64 or 100. </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

If you also desire finer grain and smoother tonality,

check out Ilford FP4+.

[vrankin]

<p>Tri-X had a long run as an extremely popular film. Its latitude was excellent, and its rather coarse grain pattern was pleasing, nonetheless. A newspaper photographer shot our afternoon wedding with Tri-X, and brought 8 X 10 prints to the wedding reception. A real hit, in 1971!<br /> My favorite film for many years was Kodak Verichrome Pan 120 for medium format. It had the longest B&W tonal curve for a silver-based film I ever saw. I used Edwal FG7 and Minicol II developers for 400 or 200 ISO respectively, Minicol giving microfine grain. I suspect all of this is old history, not repeatable.<br /> Later on, I liked Ilford's C-41 B&W film (XP?) and being able to drop it off at a one-hour pro lab in town. It had incredible latitude, but as I remember, wasn't terrifically sharp.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Are you developing the film yourself? If so you can rate it at a higher exposure index and increased deeloping time. If

you scan your negatives you can adjust contrast in post processing.

[jaydann_walker]

<p>As an old-timer in the film game, I bought (for a whopping 50 cents, a small fortune then) and shot my first ever roll of Kodak Verichrome Pan (120) in 1959, in the family's Kodak Vollenda which I still have. In the 1960s I had Yashicas and from 1972 a Rolleiflex. Pentaxes, Mamiya and Minolta SLRs in the 1970s. Nikons in the 1980s. Medium format in the 1990s. A mix of 35mm and 120 cameras from 2000, and from 2007, Nikon digitals and Nikon film cameras, the Rollei and the Contax G. For me, film outranks digital by three to one, the latter for color, the former for B&W only. Ignore what the OL consumer mags tell you, film is unbeatable for good monochrome. </p>

<p>In the following decades (1960s-1990s) I used mostly Kodaks - Plus-X, Panatomic-X, Tri-X, now all extinct save one. My next favorites is Ilford FP4+. For faster emulsions, I go to Kodak T-Max 400 and Ilford HP5+. the new Agfa films show some promise, altho I have yet to test them fully. I tried (and hated) the early C41 B&Ws. Ilford's XP2 is better, at least in 120, and shows promise and is a fine film. </p>

<p>In Australia where I now live, Tri-X costs a fortune andso I no longer use it. Ilford's excellent HP5+ and the new(ish) Rollei 400 are equally good. When Eastman discontinued Panatomic-X in 1988 I mostly avoided Kodak films unless I could buy them at heavily discounted prices, but then in 2004 or so the (new and improved) T-Max 100 caused me to rethink my prejudice and I changed my mind. I now shoot it at ISO 25 or 50 and at last I can get the wonderful 'glow' of older Kodak emulsions as I did in the 1960s.</p>

<p>All my films are processed in D-76 1:1 or home-mixed Leica Two Bath developer as reformulated for higher contrast by Ansel Adams. I have written about this in a previous post, so I'll say no more. </p>

<p>Films to my mind are as good now, with the exceptions of Verichrome and Panatomic-X, as they were fifty years ago. For a while we had fewer choices, but that seems to be changing with the influx of (some) good emulsions from Europe, and of course Fuji Acros, which doesn't quite suit my purposes but is a fine film nonetheless. Per Bill Bowe's comment (backed up by a remarkable image!), films all have their unique tones and contrast and this can be varied by testing with different developers and process times. As well shooting film for scanning is a different ball game, and calls for different rules. Again, tests are the way to go.</p>

<p>A brief aside. Kodak's Ektar 120 film and the recent Fujicolors have made me return to C41 negative films after avoiding them since the '70s, when I found I couldn't get a sharp image out of Kodacolor for love or money, even with top dollar Nikkors or Leitz lenses.</p>

<p>Like almost everyone else I know (this is probably universal), I now shoot almost entirely digital for color, and return to B&W 120 films for my serious B&W work. I sometimes wonder what films will be available in the next half century - with luck and continued support from today's young photographers, who seem to be rediscovering film and acquiring many of the wonderful cameras we all paid fortunes for in my time as a high school and university photographer (1960s-1970s), there will be new and improved emulsions on the market from Ilford and other European manufacturers, as well as, well, who knows? China and other Asian countries. Taiwan is a potential supplier to watch for, the Taiwanese are clever and cluey and seem to be quietly looking at current developments in film photography. Keep them in mind for the future.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm not into doing B&W myself for very long, but found a few combinations so far that work well for me:</p>

<ul>

<li>Delta 100 with Rodinal / HC110; I'm using it at ISO100 usually.</li>

<li>Tri-X 400 with Rodinal at ISO 400 to 1600; I haven't managed yet to get results I really like with HC110.</li>

<li>HP5+ with HC110 or ID11; I positively disliked this film in Rodinal but with HC110 it just worked brilliantly for me so far.</li>

</ul>

<p>Others I tried are Agfa APX100 (current emulsion) and FP4, and the C41 B&W films BW400CN and XP2 Super (prefer the latter ouf ot those two). The fridge currently has enough Delta 100 and Tri-X to last me a while; when the Tri-X is done I'll probably switcht to HP5 as it's cheaper here and I've got enough HC110 to last me a serious while. Perceptol to be ordered soon to give a different type of developer a try, mostly to see if Delta 100 can be made to look even nicer.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Hi Kimberly,<br>

What are you developing with? I wasn't a big fan of Tri-x until I developed it in Diafine. Now Tri-x is one of my favourites, exposed at 1250 ISO and developed with Diafine.<br>

I also really like Fuji Acros 100. It has a nice tonality, that reminds me of Kodak BW400CN, which I also loved.<br>

I find the Ilford Delta films and XP2 Super have too much contrast for my liking, so maybe they will be to your taste?</p>

[igord]

<p>For 35 mm Ilford FP-4 or Pan F with Ilfosol S developer was excellent combination for smooth prints.<br>

Also Ilford HP-5 or Delta 400 with Ilford ID-11 developer was perfect and here I could get higher contrast effect.</p>

<p>For prints I remember using Ilford Galerie traditional paper and Multigrade developer.</p>

<p>With 120 (67) format I used any AGFA APX film processed with AGFA Rodinal. Prints were always breathtaking.</p>

<p> </p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p><em>Fuji Acros 100</em> in 135-36 and 120 roll film. I am using it with different developers. It is a very fine grained film, reciproke correction up from 120 seconds, nice clear layer in roll film format, perfect confectioning.<br /> The only question is: How long will <em>Fuji</em> be in the film business. Especially for B&W where they had always a small market only.</p>

<p>Alternative film (for me): <em>Fomapan 100/200</em>. For higher speed in 35mm only: <em>Kodak 5222 Double-X</em> (E.I. 250-400). <em>RPX-400</em> (Rollei) is also not too bad.</p>

<p>If you want a film with a <em>higher contrast</em>: Agfa Gevaert Aviphot 200 E1 sold under <em>Rollei Retro 400(S) and Rollei (S)uperpan 200</em>. Clear layer in 35mm and 120 roll film format.</p>

[igord]

<p>Example of 20 years old print made with Ilford Delta 400 with ID-11 printed on FB paper, camera was Voigtlander SLR with 50 mm Color Ultron. IPhone "scan" got rid of the contrast a bit.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I've been an HP-5 user since it was introduced in 1976. The current HP-5+ is a marvelous film. I develop it it HC-110B and expose it at EI 200.</p>

[igord]

<p>The print.</p><div></div>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Tri-X. I've shot thosuands of rolls over the past 40 years. When I worked for newspapers in the 70s and 80s it was the industry standard for B&W. I've shot everything from news photos to portraits to landscapes on it.</p>

[brian_cannon1]

<p>Hello, I like Kodak Tri-X pushed to 800 or higher for street photography and impromptu portrait work. I like Ilford Delta 100 for more considered portraits where I have some control over the lighting. I develop both with Kodak D-76. I'm relatively new to B&W film photography so I'm enjoying reading everyone's responses and insights.</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>My favorite film was Lawrence of Arabia! Next to that I liked Tri-X professional.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Igor D - that's a nice looking print. Is the paper glossy or matte?</p>

<p>I've always sworn by Fuji Acros and Xtol. If I want great results no matter what I'm shooting, that's my go-to film in both 35mm and 120. Lately though, I've become enamored with Arista EDU Ultra 100 in 120. It's a Czech film, I think closer to Tri-X technology than the tabular grain films like Acros. Here's a shot I really liked - yes, she does get tired of being photographed. :)</p><div></div>

[igord]

<p>Patrick - nice capture, I am familiar with this kind of face ;)<br>

Thanks - this is glossy paper. I think black and white film photos should be printed.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<blockquote>

<p>Arista EDU Ultra 100 in 120. It's a Czech film</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is <em>Fomapan 100</em>, made in the Czech Republic, a classical cubical type film. Different technology then Fuji Acros 100 and in Holland half priced comparing to Fuji Acros 100. FP100 is close to the old <em>Agfa APX-100</em> and is also doing very well in R09/Rodinal. Both films are loosing some speed in R09/Rodinal. Expose on E.I. 64-80.</p>

[kimberley_boettcher]

Thank you all so much for your responses ! They have all been extremely helpful. I started shooting black and white film

about 10 years ago. I am taking a class this semester and am back in the dark room for the first time since 2009, and am

so happy to be back! Thanks again for your contributions to my education :)