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

[removedacct3]

Just stick with 135. It's still a hot mess in 120, though there are rumors of improvements...

If it was not for the 120 mess, Foma 200 could easily be my favorite film. I really like the sharpness and tonality it gives. I often wondered whether or not Foma would be inclineded to improve the 120 version. Never heard or read anything about it so I guess Foma is either not dissatisfied with the 120 version or not capable of improving it. Be it for technical, financial or marketing reasons.

 

[removedacct3]

Fomapan films make people faces look strangely 3-dimensional. Very distinct look. I only wish their 120 films didn't suffer from periodic QC issues. I am currently finishing the 10-pack of Arista EDU Ultra 100 in 120 format which suffers from tiny pink dots on the emulsion, right after I threw out a bunch of Fomapan 200 with horizontal emulsion cracks all over.

The emulsion cracks of Foma 200 in 120 are legendary in their own right. Too bad ....

 

[destroya]

I really like Foma 200 as well, but don't shoot it in 120. 35mm bulk rolls are a great inexpensive everyday film and in 4x5 I love the tonality it gives. and at the cost of it (I get it from germany and half the price of getting it in the US) I dont feel bad shooting a few extra sheets to experiment with or a mistake does not drive me crazy. one of these days I'm hoping the 120 issues get worked out.

john

 

[Craig]

If I could only choose one it would be Delta 100 in sheet film sizes, Delta 400 in rollfilm.

 

[Dusty Negative]

If it was not for the 120 mess, Foma 200 could easily be my favorite film. I really like the sharpness and tonality it gives. I often wondered whether or not Foma would be inclineded to improve the 120 version. Never heard or read anything about it so I guess Foma is either not dissatisfied with the 120 version or not capable of improving it. Be it for technical, financial or marketing reasons.

Somewhere…probably here…someone translated an article from Czech in which Foma basically said it wasn’t worth their time to fix the emulsion issues in 120. So, well, take that salacious unsubstantiated claim for whatever it might be worth.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I'll go with Kodak HIE in 5x7, please.

 

[Helge]

If I could only choose one it would be Delta 100 in sheet film sizes, Delta 400 in rollfilm.

I’m warming up to Delta 400 120.
What is it you like about it?

 

[runswithsizzers]

After 3 years of trying out various b&w films, more-or-less at random, I am now trying to answer the OPs question for myself. I want to pick one 35mm b&w film, and limit myself to shooting only that for a year or two. For my typical shooting conditions, I have decided I prefer to shoot at an EI no lower than EI 125, and no higher than EI 250.

But I am having a hard time trying to decide which film I like the best. Looking at previous results, it is hard for me to say how much of what I like about a particular shot is due to the subject matter, composition, and lighting - and how much is due to the film stock.

Recently, I have been loading two cameras with similar films and capturing each scene with both films, using the same lens. I have limited myself to one developer, so both rolls get processed in EcoPro at 1+1. Hopefully, this process will lead me to making a decision, but it is a slow process.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you don't do C-41, and given your preferred EI, I'd have to suggest a tossup between XP2 Super and 5222 Double-X. XP2 will work in your Eco-Pro, though you may need a couple test rolls to nail down the time. Both are available in bulk rolls, so cost control is in play.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you don't do C-41, and given your preferred EI, I'd have to suggest a tossup between XP2 Super and 5222 Double-X. XP2 will work in your Eco-Pro, though you may need a couple test rolls to nail down the time. Both are available in bulk rolls, so cost control is in play.

Thanks for your reply. Ilford XP2 Super is definitely still on my list, but if I go that route, I will probably want to try d.i.y. C-41 processing. I wouldn't mind trying XP2 Super in EcoPro, but not sure I have the patience to do a lot of testing for development times - or the experience to critically evaluate test negatives by eye.

Funny, but I had a roll of CineStill Film BwXX Double-X in my B&H shopping cart, but I removed it before my last order. I felt like I have been too long trying out too many different films - and like I should be focusing on something more mainstream like Ilford Delta 400 or HP5+ or Kodak T-Max 400 or possibly even Kentmere 400.

I have not yet ruled out a couple of second-tier films like Foma/AristaEDU Ultra 200 and Agfa/Rollei Superpan 200. I like the idea of ISO 200 films, but there are not many to choose from. So, I just put a roll of 5222 Double-X back in my B&H shopping cart. Kodak recommends D-96, but hopefully, it will look good in EcoPro? I often shoot in mid-day sunlight, and I am not a big fan of heavy grain, so if 5222 needs D-96 to control contrast and grain, it may not be for me?

 

[haliderollei]

Well, if money were no issue I would shoot TMAX100 & Tri-X 400. That now is Pan F 50 & HP5

 

[Craig]

I’m warming up to Delta 400 120.
What is it you like about it?

I like the speed and I find it works very well in Xtol to give me the tonality I want. I've generally never got HP5 to work well for me and get the contrast and range of exposure I'm looking for - many of the prints end up flat and not having the snap I think they should. The Delta films ( both 100 and 400) do both well, and print easily.

 

[jwd722]

For over 50 years it was Tri-X. 35mm, 120 and 4x5. Used to be more affordable...

Now it is HP5+ bought in 100ft roll.

Slower speed is FP4+ but, just in case of price increases, I bought a 100ft roll of Kentmere 100 to see how that goes.

I still miss Plus X.

So in answer to the original question it would be HP5+. (for now)

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've generally never got HP5 to work well for me and get the contrast and range of exposure I'm looking for - many of the prints end up flat and not having the snap I think they should.

HP5+ is (in some use case scenarios) a bit faster in shadow speed than Delta 400, TX400, TMY400 etc - which will drive otherwise identical exposures sufficiently far up the scale as to cause the effects you describe.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can't really pick one for various reasons.

XP2+ if I could get it in 4x5 sheets, but I can't.

Pre-2007 Tri-X if I could get it fresh, but I can't.

At best I settle on a few: FP4+ for medium speed, HP5+ for 400, because I can get both in all film sizes I shoot, 35mm, 120, and 4x5. So that would reduce it to two films and if I had to pick one of those, HP5+ because I don't shoot much 35mm black and white at all and in medium and even more so large format the grain difference is far less important, if even noticeable. I also very, very rarely shoot in bright sun. As in almost never, maybe a vacation twice a year. Since I work overnights and sleep through the heat, and bright, of the day most of the time, by far most of my shooting is from later afternoon into twilight, or sometimes in deeply shaded woods. Either way, I prefer at least 400, though for the times 125 will do FP4+ gives me superb results. So if I really HAD to pick just one currently available black and white film it would be HP5+.

Fortunately we don't have to make such a choice.

 

[Roger Cole]

Somewhere…probably here…someone translated an article from Czech in which Foma basically said it wasn’t worth their time to fix the emulsion issues in 120. So, well, take that salacious unsubstantiated claim for whatever it might be worth.

It certainly isn't worth my money to buy it, so we're even on that score.

Sometimes things balance out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for your reply. Ilford XP2 Super is definitely still on my list, but if I go that route, I will probably want to try d.i.y. C-41 processing. I wouldn't mind trying XP2 Super in EcoPro, but not sure I have the patience to do a lot of testing for development times - or the experience to critically evaluate test negatives by eye.

Funny, but I had a roll of CineStill Film BwXX Double-X in my B&H shopping cart, but I removed it before my last order. I felt like I have been too long trying out too many different films - and like I should be focusing on something more mainstream like Ilford Delta 400 or HP5+ or Kodak T-Max 400 or possibly even Kentmere 400.

Another option for XP2 Super (vs. buying into C-41 chemicals) is Cinestill Df96. Works fine, gives pretty much box speed (though you could pull a stop). Be sure to give the double time they recommend for tabular grain films like T-Max or Delta; when I tried it, my film was still milky when I opened the tank after the standard time (and then got some Sabattier effect when I closed it up and gave the extra time; should have gone to fixer, especially since I had it on hand). It shouldn't take a lot of testing to get the time for EcoPro, though -- find a film with both HC-110 and Xtol listed, and give the proportional time to what's given in the seminal article for XP2 Super in HC-110. One roll to test, one more to adjust if needed, and if you buy a bulk roll of 5222 from Film Photography Project, they can be short rolls.

If I couldn't shoot XP2 Super for some reason, Double-X would be on the short list of "one B&W film forever more." It's got character much like old Tri-X, pushes well, it's the same or faster true speed as Foma 400, and the tonality is excellent. Works very well in Df96 also.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It certainly isn't worth my money to buy it, so we're even on that score.

Sometimes things balance out.

Roger,
I just bought a bulk roll of Foma 200 and I find it a very nice film to work with. I've been using it to test some older cameras I'm getting ready to sell. I like the looks of the results so far. I've only developed it in FX-39II and Rodinal to date, but will run some through my two normal developers, Xtol-R(Adox XT3) and Pyrocat-HDC soon. With a good price and better QC, I would certainly buy it in 120 format. Most folks that have used it in 4X5 seem to like it also. I've been using an EI of 100-125 and that even seems to be a little on the fast side. I'm going to do a little followup after I use it in Pyrocat and Xtol-R. I'd like to get an EI of at least 160 with my metering style, but might be dreaming about that one. It's weird that Foma would waste their time making it in 120 at all if it is not worth fixing. I'd say they might just be working behind closed doors to solve the emulsion cracking problem, but who knows. It still probably won't replace HP5+ or Acros II in 120 for me.

 

[Roger Cole]

If it had good QC that would be different. But all the complaints have caused me to simple avoid it in 120.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, if you don't mind, can you share what EI you use with Foma 200. I know your EI may not be the best EI for me, but it would be another data point. I have shot one roll, only, of Arista EDU 200 outdoors at EI 160 - incident metering in contrasty light - and that seems to be OK - but just curious what works for others. I use LegacyPro Eco Pro ascorbic acid chemisty diluted 1+1. Examples <here>

I meter at 200 and err on the side over exposure, so in reality it’s probably more like 125 to 160.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I was at Pro Photo Supply in Portland today and was talking with a long time employee about film. He pointed to the refrigerated case, which contained a variety of emulsions and said the main movers were Tri-X, HP5+ and Portra.

Assuming I can actually get Portra in 35mm, it flies off the shelf. I've had quite a bit of it on back order for many months now.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thanks for your reply. Ilford XP2 Super is definitely still on my list, but if I go that route, I will probably want to try d.i.y. C-41 processing. I wouldn't mind trying XP2 Super in EcoPro, but not sure I have the patience to do a lot of testing for development times - or the experience to critically evaluate test negatives by eye.

Funny, but I had a roll of CineStill Film BwXX Double-X in my B&H shopping cart, but I removed it before my last order. I felt like I have been too long trying out too many different films - and like I should be focusing on something more mainstream like Ilford Delta 400 or HP5+ or Kodak T-Max 400 or possibly even Kentmere 400.

I have not yet ruled out a couple of second-tier films like Foma/AristaEDU Ultra 200 and Agfa/Rollei Superpan 200. I like the idea of ISO 200 films, but there are not many to choose from. So, I just put a roll of 5222 Double-X back in my B&H shopping cart. Kodak recommends D-96, but hopefully, it will look good in EcoPro? I often shoot in mid-day sunlight, and I am not a big fan of heavy grain, so if 5222 needs D-96 to control contrast and grain, it may not be for me?

If you're committed to just one developer, I'd get a roll of each emulsion for the ISO range you'd prefer, then come up with a series of images that you can expose consistently that are roughly representative of what you normally shoot and shoot just those images for each emulsion and process them. This way you have a reasonable baseline to compare from. From there, make a first pick and a second pick. Buy a brick of 10 rolls of the first pick and start using it. You'll know by the time you get to the end of the brick whether you want to keep shooting it, or if you want to go to the second pick.

If you can't define what you normally shoot, or come up with a consistent way to make representative images, then I'd just pick something, get a brick of 10 rolls and shoot it. Again, you'll know if you want to keep shooting it after 10 rolls. If you're not comfortable with committing to a bulk roll after 10 rolls, then get 10 more rolls of another emulsion and shoot that.

Personally, I find that it's hard to evaluate what you like or don't like about a particular film unless you've shot at least 5-10 rolls of it for everything that you're going to shoot. If you want to stay in the 125-250 range, your list of available emulsions is pretty short, so it's really just down to figuring out which one you like best.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you're committed to just one developer, I'd get a roll of each emulsion for the ISO range you'd prefer, then come up with a series of images that you can expose consistently that are roughly representative of what you normally shoot and shoot just those images for each emulsion and process them.

I am doing that now. I have two Pentax MX bodies, each loaded with a different b&w film (same ISO/EI). So I am able to photograph the same scene under the same light, same lens, same aperture, same processing, etc. This is working much better for me than trying to compare different subjects shot on different days.

Personally, I find that it's hard to evaluate what you like or don't like about a particular film unless you've shot at least 5-10 rolls of it for everything that you're going to shoot. If you want to stay in the 125-250 range, your list of available emulsions is pretty short, so it's really just down to figuring out which one you like best.

I think you are right. So I need to quit trying out new films (new to me), and get more experience with some of the films I have already tried, but only two or three times.
Thanks

 

[bsdunek]

I didn't see any votes for Ilford FP4+, my favorite.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

I didn't see any votes for Ilford FP4+, my favorite.

There were many