Everyone always says "pick a film, pick a developer, and stick with them", but no one ever says (at least in my generalized observations) HOW they came to the decision that they themselves chose.
Personally, I've shot more Tri-X than anything, and I cannot pin-point why. I believe its because somewhere or somehow I have developed a perception that it's more "traditional" than anything else. It probably has less to do with the scientific aspect of things, and more about the "feeling" that I'm using "original" B&W film. Much like when I decide to read something, I prefer a real book over an e-reader, and I prefer reading first editions, instead of later printings. It's as if the information contained in later versions of a book isn't the original text, or its been changed to an unrecognizable form, so I always seek the first versions out. It's the same with film. I guess I shoot Tri-X because "it's the first version". Which is ludicrous, I know, because other films existed before Tri-X, but that's probably what it all boils down to.
I recently watched the short video on youtube of the walkthrough of the Ilford plant, and it got me to thinking about why I chose Kodak over Ilford. And after the video, I felt the need to change to HP5 simply because it's manufactured in the small village, at a single plant, with the same workers who have been there for decades, and I'd rather support them than a corporation like Kodak. Is that a viable reason to choose one over the other?
So how did you choose your film? Do you shoot what's most readily available in your area? Did you perform extensive tests to compare things? Is it a certain belief, opinion, or perception that you hold? Have you just used the same film all these years, that you were exposed to in your high school photography class? Does one film simply instill a "feeling" in you that another one doesn't?
Personally, I've shot more Tri-X than anything, and I cannot pin-point why. I believe its because somewhere or somehow I have developed a perception that it's more "traditional" than anything else. It probably has less to do with the scientific aspect of things, and more about the "feeling" that I'm using "original" B&W film. Much like when I decide to read something, I prefer a real book over an e-reader, and I prefer reading first editions, instead of later printings. It's as if the information contained in later versions of a book isn't the original text, or its been changed to an unrecognizable form, so I always seek the first versions out. It's the same with film. I guess I shoot Tri-X because "it's the first version". Which is ludicrous, I know, because other films existed before Tri-X, but that's probably what it all boils down to.
I recently watched the short video on youtube of the walkthrough of the Ilford plant, and it got me to thinking about why I chose Kodak over Ilford. And after the video, I felt the need to change to HP5 simply because it's manufactured in the small village, at a single plant, with the same workers who have been there for decades, and I'd rather support them than a corporation like Kodak. Is that a viable reason to choose one over the other?
So how did you choose your film? Do you shoot what's most readily available in your area? Did you perform extensive tests to compare things? Is it a certain belief, opinion, or perception that you hold? Have you just used the same film all these years, that you were exposed to in your high school photography class? Does one film simply instill a "feeling" in you that another one doesn't?
