How did you choose your film?

[cerber0s]

I mostly use Fomapan 400. It's the cheapest I can find...

 

[Bill Burk]

I've enjoyed reading the range of ideas on this topic. For me, as a more or less serious hobbyist for 48 years, I've used what was available or struck my fancy. In my beginning years it was Kodak materials because they were readily available. When the army sent me to Germany I started using Agfa products, especially their papers. Today it's mostly Ilford.

While I understand the importance of knowing one's film/developer/printing materials to get the desired result, I am also in favor of serendipity. I recently acquired an Epson V500 scanner (given to me for free) and have started scanning everything I've shot since 1973. I've even surprised myself with the range of films I used over the years. Heck, I just scanned a roll of medium format Ektachrome I shot in 1975 that I'd developed in Neofin's C-22 developer. Talk about some weird looking images.

I loved Agfa Brovira BN-112

 

[Fred V]

Currently, I use FomaPan 100, cheap and available, just a little bit grainer. I wil try adox products and others, and stick to the one satisfied when I shoot less.
If shoot a lot, no doubt, foma and expired Lucky film -- unless I become rich....

 

[Craig]

I mainly use Ilford products. Part of the reason is that they are available at the local camera store ( ironically, which is The Camera Store) and it's a better price than Kodak products. Over time, the price delta has been widening, with Kodak getting more and more expensive. I can also easily get Ilford in all the speeds and formats I want easily, I can't in Kodak.

My second reason is that Ilford's quality control is excellent. I've been using Ilford films and papers for over 30 years and have never suffered a QC failure. I can't say that for Kodak, where I have had major failures in both B&W and colour products. Ilford also has a full line of products and is committed to B&W in a way that the Kodak of today isn't. I'll support a company that supports me.

For specific films, I use Delta 100 and HP5. Delta in smaller formats; I have been able to achieve some of the nicest tones I have ever achieved in B&W from Delta 100. For large format I use HP5 because I usually need the speed.

 

[mawz]

The point of such an exercise is not some sort of magical expertise, but simply reducing the complexity you are dealing with so you can concentrate on other matters. It's the film selection equivalent of minimalism. And it's very definitely not for everyone.

I do recommend everyone try it, if only so you can evaluate other things. If you want to dabble in developers, test everything with the same film. If you want to dabble in films, test everything with the same developer. Even though some combinations may not be optimal, it will for the most part give you a level playing field.

I fell into this by accident myself. When I started shooting B&W seriously, APX400 was dirt cheap at my local shop, and so was Rodinal. Rodinal was easy to work with and the cheapest option. So I shot a lot of APX-400 and developed it all in Rodinal. When APX400 became unobtanium, I moved to Tri-X and shot a lot of that, still using Rodinal. Then I tripped over 4 100' rolls of HP5+ in water-damaged packaging for next to nothing, I bought them and have been shooting HP5+ primarily ever since.

I've dabbled in all sorts of other stuff, both film and developer, but I keep coming back to the same basic combo of HP5+ and Rodinal. It works well for me and I know what I'm getting in advance.

I do much the same thing with low ISO film, although I always waffled between PanF+ and Acros once APX100 became unobtainable, stand developed in Rodinal. These days it's purely PanF+, but I never shot as much low ISO film as I do high speed film.

I never really got into the mid-speed films. Tried them, but I always found myself preferring either a slower or faster option.

 

[Ti_Pierrot]

I wanted to achieve the point with HP5+, meaning find the right development time and agitation to get the contrast I wanted. I also really love fomapan and tri-X those 2 have really great looks.
The reason I went for HP5+ is the versatility of ISO rating and possibilities with the film (price point too). The film is kind of flat but you can make It more contrasty (or not). When you have that film in your fridge you know that you can pretty much shoot in any conditions possible.
It takes time to get It to look the way you want specially if you like high contrast like me but It's possible and worth the effort.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Price, grain structure, tonality.

I used to shoot a lot of Neopan 400 (mostly 35mm) and 1600 (only 35mm). Then that was discontinued without me realising (i would have stocked up if i knew). Since then i've been floundering to find something I equally like. Fomapan 400 and Delta 400 are ok (quite like in 120, undecided in 35mm). Don't like HP5+ at all. Liked Tri-X somewhat but is expensive here. Similar with TMY although I did come across a weird issue with this film and scanning - my coolscan just spits TMY negatives out. No idea why.

I may try HP5 again because it is relatively inexpensive but only pushed and with XTOL.

For slower speed FP4+ has always been just fine. I always come back to it.