If you could shoot only one Black & White film, what would it be?

[Samu]

Ilford FP-4

 

[drpsilver]

Plus-X when I could, now HP5+ in all formats (35mm, 120, and 4x5).

 

[fs999]

Rollei R3

 

[Rayt]

I have used a lot of different films and for the past 15 years or so have settled on TMax 400. For large format I shoot HP5+ and it’s a really nice film so one or the other will do. I am shooting much much less film now so price differences don’t matter much.

 

[albireo]

In 120, and when the light is good, I keep going back to a humble but marvellous combo: Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1+50. It just never disappoints me.

 

[GregY]

In 120, and when the light is good, I keep going back to a humble but marvellous combo: Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1+50. It just never disappoints me.

Have you ever had any quality control related issues with Foma in 120?

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Kodak Tri-X That is the film I learned on. Getting expensive Now shooting FOMA See what happens

 

[abruzzi]

Have you ever had any quality control related issues with Foma 120?

I can say that I've shot quite a lot of Foma/Arista 100 in 120 and never encountered any QC problems. No experience with the 200 and 400 though. I think 200 is the one with issues.

 

[GregY]

I can say that I've shot quite a lot of Foma/Arista 100 in 120 and never encountered any QC problems. No experience with the 200 and 400 though. I think 200 is the one with issues.

Thanks I've shot a bit of 200 (@1000) & process in Pyrocat HD. The character is nice, but I don't shoot wild amounts so I'll likely stick with my Kodak & Ilford favourites.

 

[albireo]

Have you ever had any quality control related issues with Foma 120?

Zero issues with Foma 400, Retropan 320, and the above mentioned Foma 100.

 

[Mr Flibble]

I wouldn't mind just shooting Rollei Retro 80s for the rest of my life.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Back right where I started many years ago, Tri-X.

if there was only one film I would shoot people with Tri-X using a mid century optic like a Summicron or Minolta 58/1.2. Need more sharpness than go up in format.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Long time ago (in 1974), when I was 16 (OMG...), the very first film I developed was an AGFA-Gevaert Pan 400, developed in Rodinal 1+25 and was exposed in my then new Praktica.
I shot on AGFA films till I went to the Royal Academy For Fine Arts in the hope to become a 'real' photographer (what a disaster!), where I was forced to work on Tri-X, in D-76 1+1 (an other disaster but for a completely different reason)...

Once I managed to become a professional photographer, I returned to the AGFA-Gevaert products, mainly in the 120 & 4"x5" formats (Hasselblad and Linhof), till AGFA demised in 2005.
Then a quest began to find a film that leaned close to my beloved duo AGFAPAN 400 (in Rodinal 1+50 or Refinal (to push)) combined with AGFA's MCC Baryta paper in Neutol Plus. I am convinced that a film (and developer) should be assessed in combination with a particular paper (and developer)...

Then the revue began: Tr-X (Plus-X ceased to exist then), FOMPAN 400 & 100, Rollei's Retro 400 & 200, Bergger Panchro 400, Lomography Earl Grey & Lady Grey and all the Ilford's classic grain films. Tabular emulsion never could convince me and I don't know why.
I tried so many film developers too, even home brewed, but finally liked D-76 (E-76) and choose XTOL because it is good, its ease (ready made) and being little more human friendly than the Metol-Hydrochinon developers.

The same quest for a Baryta paper and matching developer began too!

My final choice was Tri-X in XTOL 1+1 on Fomabrom FB III in home brewed E-72 (a Dektol clone).
Then Tri-X became rather to costly so I switched to Hp5+ in XTOL (ADOX XT-3) 1+1 too, still printed on Fomabrom Baryta (in E-72), a combo which I still use extensively.
At the end, I prefer 400ASA film because of its tonality, flexibility (among others pull and push), ease of use and handheld shooting ability, I always shoot medium format anyway. And a bit of grain is absolutely not bad at all as it is so analogue...

So the one and only film would be Hp5+/120, right now.

 

[Mondo1]

HP5 indeed!

 

[john_s]

HP5+ in both 35 and 120, two developers, Pyrocat-HD most of the time, ID-68 for low light. I base my choice on availability here, price to an extent, and my view of Ilford as a reliable supplier for the long term (I should say longish term, I'm not young)

 

[miha]

@Philippe-Georges it's my understanding that AGFAPAN 400 and BERGGER PANCHRO 400 are closely related. And since you shot both, you might be able to comment on their similarity?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

@Philippe-Georges it's my understanding that AGFAPAN 400 and BERGGER PANCHRO 400 are closely related. And since you shot both, you might be able to comment on their similarity?

It is a rather long time ago I shot (original-) AGFAPAN 400, not since 2005 the demise of AGFA.
And the Bregger film, to my humble opinion, has nothing to do with AGFAPAN, if it ware only to tell by its base fog which is, again to my opinion, strangely dense...

 

[George Mann]

With the demise of Pan-X and the original superior Tri-X, I find only one emulsion that I am consistently happy with using today, Ilford Delta.

I do like to play around with Kentmere Pan 100 as a cost-cutting measure however.

 

[GLS]

Probably FP4+

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I dig Infrared: Scala 50/HR-50
I really dig the look of old IR films, like Kodak HIE. I can remove the AH layers prior shooting and replicate this effect natively: Scala 50/HR-50
I love clear PET base for my slide film that doesn't bulge that much or at all when projected - less or no focus hunting: Scala 50/HR-50
I love a film with rather strong character. Flat won't cut it: Scala 50/HR-50
It's nice to have a really resolving film in your arsenal that can penetrate some haze innately and impress some friends, making it superb for landscapes: Scala 50/HR-50

 

[tokam]

I wouldn't mind just shooting Rollei Retro 80s for the rest of my life.

@Mr Flibble, I have quite a bit of Retro 80s from a bulk roll sitting in the fridge, about 6 years expired now and I'm optimistic that it is still usable.

My earlier experiments with this film were a bit hit and miss. Developed in either HC-110 1+63 or Adox Adonal 1+25 I don't think that it was achieving it's rated speed - at least 1 stop or more underexposed.

Can you give me some guidelines for exposure / processing. I think that I have read elsewhere that the same film was marketed as RPX 25 by Rollei. The implications there are enormous with regards to the genuine film speed of this emulsion. One thing I did notice though was that no contrast filter, yellow or orange was required to get nice looking skies at the expense of slightly darkened foliage.

 

[Pioneer]

If it HAD to be just one I would shoot Adox CMS 20.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ilford FP4, because it isthe only one consistently available where I live.

 

[jk0592]

T-MAX 400, because I can use it in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 formats, all with the same developer.

 

[Mr Flibble]

@Mr Flibble
My earlier experiments with this film were a bit hit and miss. Developed in either HC-110 1+63 or Adox Adonal 1+25 I don't think that it was achieving it's rated speed - at least 1 stop or more underexposed.

Can you give me some guidelines for exposure / processing. I think that I have read elsewhere that the same film was marketed as RPX 25 by Rollei. The implications there are enormous with regards to the genuine film speed of this emulsion. One thing I did notice though was that no contrast filter, yellow or orange was required to get nice looking skies at the expense of slightly darkened foliage.

I've exposed it at box speed, 80 ASA, and developed in HC-110, using Dilution E (1:47) and developing it for 10 minutes at 20C. (which is twice the suggested time from the Massive Dev Chart as I recall).