Anyone have any recommendations for 120 B&W film? Some shots will be portraits, others will be landscapes. Which film (or films) will give the most accurate overall tonal reproductions, less grain? The objective will be to make large prints (11"x14") from 645 and 6x7 negatives suitable for display.
B&W Film Recommendations for 120?
-
A
- Thread starter snegron
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon AI 28 f/3.5
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Nikon 28mm 2.8 ais and 20mm 2.8 ais
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 lamp housing and partial neg carrier
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Nagaoka 4x5 Pinhole Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Sinar Grip & Cable Release for Sinar Handy 4x5 - Hard to Find - EX++++
- Started by pdccamerqs
Forum statistics
Find a 100 ISO film you like by shooting various manufacturer's film, testing it with various developers, and making prints to your likeness.
No one can tell you this, you've got to do the heavy lifting yourself.
No one can tell you this, you've got to do the heavy lifting yourself.
pinholemaster has the answer....if your not printing yourself, ask your lab what they want you to use.
I have been using Efke film for a while and really like it. It is available in 120 size 100 50 and 25 iso. The 25 speed is really sharp. and it has a hight tonal range overall.
Personally I prefer Fuji Acros 100 and Ilford Pan-F 50
It's like asking "how big is a rock"
Having said that, it sounds like you are looking for a fine grained slow speed film, 100 ASA or less, so the Ilford 50 would be a good choice. The Efke films are an older style of emulsion, if you like that look and give good results. The 25 speed is a bit of its own animal, and if you are interested in using it you should search up some of the older threads that discuss its peculiarities.
I can't comment on the Fuji, but it seems to have a faithful following as well.
It needs to be mentioned that developer choice will be as important as what film you choose, in regard to the grain.
Having said that, it sounds like you are looking for a fine grained slow speed film, 100 ASA or less, so the Ilford 50 would be a good choice. The Efke films are an older style of emulsion, if you like that look and give good results. The 25 speed is a bit of its own animal, and if you are interested in using it you should search up some of the older threads that discuss its peculiarities.
I can't comment on the Fuji, but it seems to have a faithful following as well.
It needs to be mentioned that developer choice will be as important as what film you choose, in regard to the grain.
I would highly recommend Ilford FP4 or Delta 100 for a medium speed film and Delta 400 as a faster film. Both will easily enlarge up to 11x14 from medium format.
Everybody has a favorite. Pan F/Rodinal is almost foolproof for me in MF, I'm just starting to play with Fuji Acros. Tmax 100 gave me great results my first roll but I've never been able to repeat it. You've got a lot of sun and UV there in Florida, experiment!
As has been said, everyone has their own preference.
I really like Fuji Neopan Acros as a slower film, it gives really consistent and predictable results for me, it has low grain, high sharpness and a beautiful tone. I also really like the look of Ilford Pan-F but struggle to develop it consistently. The couple of times I've had it processed by my local mini-lab I've had great results.
Fuji Neopan Acros and Neopan 400 are my standard 'medium format' films and I use them for both 645 and 6x6 and have almost never had a bad shot.
For a while I was using the older emulsions from Efke and Maco, and while I liked them a lot, I couldn't quite get the same consistency as with the Fuji films -- possibly due to my own poor technique -- and if I buy from the right retailer there isn't really a price difference.
I really like Fuji Neopan Acros as a slower film, it gives really consistent and predictable results for me, it has low grain, high sharpness and a beautiful tone. I also really like the look of Ilford Pan-F but struggle to develop it consistently. The couple of times I've had it processed by my local mini-lab I've had great results.
Fuji Neopan Acros and Neopan 400 are my standard 'medium format' films and I use them for both 645 and 6x6 and have almost never had a bad shot.
For a while I was using the older emulsions from Efke and Maco, and while I liked them a lot, I couldn't quite get the same consistency as with the Fuji films -- possibly due to my own poor technique -- and if I buy from the right retailer there isn't really a price difference.
Fuji Acros.
Dear Dietmar,
Which only goes to show how intensely personal it is. I'd say, 'anything EXCEPT Fuji Acros', with Ilford Delta 100 the front runner for my money. That doesn't make either of us right (or wrong), but it does rather call into question the value of asking for others' advice on the best film.
Cheers,
R.
I wonder why some people always assume that there is an absolute best of everything? You often read questions such as: What is the best Camera, lens, film, developer etc. The best way to find out which film(s) are the best (which comes down to each individuals own personal preference), is to buy some Kodak, Ilford, Fuji or what ever takes your fancy and then see for your self which films you like that suits you best. Asking what is the absolute best of everything will vary widely depending on who you ask.
I used a fair amount of Acros and it was OK but curls badly. I agree with Roger, Delta 100 or Tmax 100 but I like to buy Ilford..EC
I agree with Keith's last sentance by saying my Acros does not curl at all.
Grab 2 rolls of everything and just experiment. One roll to shoot around, another roll to learn from the first roll.
As has been pointed out, it's a really personal thing. It's like picking out underwear, honestly.
As has been pointed out, it's a really personal thing. It's like picking out underwear, honestly.
I used Agfapan100 / APX100 until the demise of Agfa. I found Fuji Acros to be a good replacement for APX.
-- MW
-- MW
Basically you are absolutely right.
But it is often not so easy. You have to test the film, developer and all that under different light. So this needs time with all available films.
Personally I would only buy stuff you can rely on for the next years. So Ilford or Fuji.
I had the Acros in 6X6 in ID11 1+1. Perfect if you want a sharp, finegrain film, it does not curl, very flat and is easy to scan, if you want to work hybrid.
So I can recommend it.
But if you use a Delta, I am sure, the difference will be small.
If you use something else, I am sure, your results will not suffer that much.
But basically, this is my opinion, you need some grain in b&w. This search for grainless pics is often guided through what you see in the internet. But in reality, a b/w silverprint needs to show more or less grain to look good.
So if you come to the same conclusion, take a more traditional film from Ilford, FP4.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I use Acros and Ilford Pan-F most of the time in 120 for fine grain prints. With FP4 and Neopan 400 also being used from time to time. Acros 120 is great in Rodinal semistand, the tones are incredible.
Pan-F is a little bit tricky and it build contrast quickly. Though rating it at EI25 and developing in Perceptol 1:3, I get virtually grainless prints up to 11x14 that are very sharp.
Hope it helps.
Gary
Pan-F is a little bit tricky and it build contrast quickly. Though rating it at EI25 and developing in Perceptol 1:3, I get virtually grainless prints up to 11x14 that are very sharp.
Hope it helps.
Gary
Anything from Ilford will look amazing and are very easy to live with. Kodak ditto, except the TMax is finicky to develop. Fuji's monochrome films are outstanding too. Those are from the big guns, you can get exotic and experiment with Foma, Efke/Adox, Rollei, Lucky, ERA, Shanghai, there are all sorts of films out there.
If you're looking for fine grain, how you develop your negatives will also have a large impact. It also depends on the subject matter how sensitive to large grain the final print will be. I have 35mm Tri-X negs printed to 11x14 that look almost grain-less because the subject matter is very detailed. If I had a large expansive sky in the scene, the grain would be very readily apparent. If you're shooting medium format, FP4 from Ilford is about as versatile a film as they come in medium speed. Check it out. Looks great in a plethora of developers.
For what it's worth, I don't think grain should be the deciding factor to whether your prints are suitable for display or not. Subject matter, message, texture and contrast control, as well as tone and mood are much more important factors. That's my opinion, by the way.
Good luck, and have fun.
- Thomas
If you're looking for fine grain, how you develop your negatives will also have a large impact. It also depends on the subject matter how sensitive to large grain the final print will be. I have 35mm Tri-X negs printed to 11x14 that look almost grain-less because the subject matter is very detailed. If I had a large expansive sky in the scene, the grain would be very readily apparent. If you're shooting medium format, FP4 from Ilford is about as versatile a film as they come in medium speed. Check it out. Looks great in a plethora of developers.
For what it's worth, I don't think grain should be the deciding factor to whether your prints are suitable for display or not. Subject matter, message, texture and contrast control, as well as tone and mood are much more important factors. That's my opinion, by the way.
Good luck, and have fun.- Thomas
One consideration is if you are planning on using a tripod. For the size you are saying hand held you might want to go with a higher speed film like tmax 400 or delta 400. For myself I shoot ACROS mostly except when I want to process in a high acutance devleoper then I use Tmax 100. ACROS in a studio with strobe and processed in XTOL is beautiful and I don't know why one person has a curling problem. Lays flat for me.
YES!
And ignore the 'pick one film' rule, until you've played with a fair few. One (or more) will stand out for you. THAT'S the time to stick with one film.
Cheers,
R.
MattKing
Moderator
Kodak Plus-X for me.
Each film has its own character and inherent contrast. If you are shooting multiple formats, you may even find that the differing contrast and other characteristics of the various cameras (and lenses) may lead you to prefer different films for different cameras (and lenses).
Alternatively, your development regime may vary from camera to camera.
Try one of the suggestions here, and see if you like it. If not, post your impressions, and we may be able to give further guidance.
Matt
Each film has its own character and inherent contrast. If you are shooting multiple formats, you may even find that the differing contrast and other characteristics of the various cameras (and lenses) may lead you to prefer different films for different cameras (and lenses).
Alternatively, your development regime may vary from camera to camera.
Try one of the suggestions here, and see if you like it. If not, post your impressions, and we may be able to give further guidance.
Matt
Last edited by a moderator:
Have they stopped making Tri-X? 
Mike
Mike
Sacre bleu!No!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |