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

[quilts]

It's hard to pick just one, but probably HP5+ for me. I love the flexibility it offers. Tri-X is a close second, but it's getting more and more expensive these days compared to Ilford films.

 

[Thomas71]

Today: FP4+ in XTOL - medium format
Back in the days: APX100 in Rodinal - medium format

 

[GregY]

Today: FP4+ in XTOL - medium format
Back in the days: APX100 in Rodinal - medium format

FP4 + in Pyrocat but definitely yes...... FP4+...... any format

 

[ic-racer]

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

I can only use B&W because I'm not setup for color printing.
Last few years it has been HP5 in all formats.

 

[AnselMortensen]

120- XP2
4x5- FP4+
5x7- HP5+
8x10- Whatever I can afford.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

120- XP2
4x5- FP4+
5x7- HP5+
8x10- Whatever I can afford.

HP5.
It's a good all around film that can be pulled or pushed, it's also readily available.
The best camera , lens and film combination is that what you have with you.

TB

 

[markjwyatt]

HP5.
It's a good all around film that can be pulled or pushed, it's also readily available.
The best camera , lens and film combination is that what you have with you.

TB

I answered FP4+ when this thread started, but I may be moving towards HP5+.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Ilford HP5+

Flexible enough to be used for just about anything, given appropriate development and printing.

 

[Minox]

For 35mm: HP5, APX 100, Tmax 100
For 120: Fomapan 100, Delta 100 and 400
For 8x11: Pan F50, Adox 20, Foma 100 @ 50, Tri-X

If I was to choose just one film, that would be APX 100 for any format.

 

[bjorke]

If the question was "any film living or dead?" then Neopan 400

but otherwise, HP-5 if I can keep getting it in 120

 

[benjiboy]

Ilford Delta 400.

 

[JerseyDoug]

For the last several years my go to combination for 35mm B&W was Tri-X at ISO 400 developed in Rodinal (1+49). But I am now getting results I prefer with HP5 Plus at ISO 800 developed in Ilfosol 3 (1+9). Decreasing the exposure and increasing the development from the default made all the difference.

 

[snusmumriken]

For the last several years my go to combination for 35mm B&W was Tri-X at ISO 400 developed in Rodinal (1+49). But I am now getting results I prefer with HP5 Plus at ISO 800 developed in Ilfosol 3 (1+9). Decreasing the exposure and increasing the development from the default made all the difference.

That interests me a lot. Would you care to post an example?

 

[Mark_S]

Ilford HP5+

Flexible enough to be used for just about anything, given appropriate development and printing.

As others have said, HP5+. I shoot mostly 4x5, and used to shoot Plus-X in the winter, because it was so good at keeping details in the highlights, and most winter landscapes include snow. In the summer, I shot Tri-X, because it held detail in shadow very nicely. When Kodak discontinued Plus-X I tested a bunch of different films and ended up with HP5+. which I use for everything - depending on how you process it, you can get it to do anything.

 

[Minox]

For the last several years my go to combination for 35mm B&W was Tri-X at ISO 400 developed in Rodinal (1+49). But I am now getting results I prefer with HP5 Plus at ISO 800 developed in Ilfosol 3 (1+9). Decreasing the exposure and increasing the development from the default made all the difference.

This sounds really interesting! What time for processing on those films and dilution, if I may ask, please? Thank you !

 

[Cerebum]

Not sure what I answered initially but I recently shot a roll of Adox CHS 100 ii. It blew me away, so, that. And if I couldn't get that, XP2

 

[Helge]

Not sure what I answered initially but I recently shot a roll of Adox CHS 100 ii. It blew me away, so, that. And if I couldn't get that, XP2

Haven’t tried it yet. What is so special about it?

 

[Cerebum]

Haven’t tried it yet. What is so special about it?

I developed it in FX-39. It was a bit grainy for 100 iso but it was nice grain. The mid tones were lovely and highlights and shadows retained lots of detail. It does seem to have suddenly shot up in price so shop around

 

[Anon Ymous]

Adox CHS 100-II is 0.5€ less than Ilford Fp4+ @fotoimpex.
Tell me one good reason I have to prefer CHS over to Fp4+...

The clear base as far as I can tell, if you're interested in reversal. Other than that, I don't know.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Adox CHS 100-II is 0.5€ less than Ilford Fp4+ @fotoimpex.
Tell me one good reason I have to prefer CHS over to Fp4+...

Colour sensitivity.

 

[Cerebum]

Adox CHS 100-II is 0.5€ less than Ilford Fp4+ @fotoimpex.
Tell me one good reason I have to prefer CHS over to Fp4+...

Nope
The question is which film "I" would shoot and I would choose chs 100 ii over FP4+ every time. I loved the character of the grain, it really impressed me, whereas haven't really been moved by fp4. Don't get me wrong, it's lovely film, as is HP5, they just don't do it for me. You on the other hand probably prefer the ilford for just as valid reasons. One thing I would sing the praises of is XP2 shot at 200 then developed in Pyro. That is one fabulous film.

 

[Helge]

I developed it in FX-39. It was a bit grainy for 100 iso but it was nice grain. The mid tones were lovely and highlights and shadows retained lots of detail. It does seem to have suddenly shot up in price so shop around

What seperates it from FP4, Kentmere 100 or Foma 100? Price can’t be it?
I can see it has reduced red sensitivity and a gab between green and red.
How does that translate to photos?
Don’t tell me to google image search. ;-)

 

[Cerebum]

What seperates it from FP4, Kentmere 100 or Foma 100? Price can’t be it?
I can see it has reduced red sensitivity and a gab between green and red.
How does that translate to photos?
Don’t tell me to google image search. ;-)

Hah, as if I would I found it grainier than all of them. I am not normally a big fan of grain but this just appealed to me. The images looked crisp and clean. I have recently shot Rollei Retro and found it quite uncompromising in respect of crushed shadows and blown highlights but the CHS 100 ii was forgiving without being washed out. The highlights and shadows retained lots of detail, even in high contrast situations. I find the foma and kentmere to be a bit safe and unremarkable which is great if you want to stamp your mark in post processing. FP4+ is sharp and contrasty but it didn't make a huge impression. Its a fantastic film but didn't do it for me. I found the Adox to be contrasty without extremes and the detail was exactly what I look for and that is key, it is what I look for but its not everyone's cup of tea. I believe the CHS is a reworked version of an older efke emulsion and maybe I like the retro feel. Another utterly fabulous film is Orwo UN54. I shot one roll and have seen a few others. that is similar to FP4+ but much harder to get hold of. I think it has been rebadged by Lomography but I can't remember if it is Berlin or Potsdam

 

[GregY]

Hah, as if I would I found it grainier than all of them. I am not normally a big fan of grain but this just appealed to me. The images looked crisp and clean. I have recently shot Rollei Retro and found it quite uncompromising in respect of crushed shadows and blown highlights but the CHS 100 ii was forgiving without being washed out. The highlights and shadows retained lots of detail, even in high contrast situations. I find the foma and kentmere to be a bit safe and unremarkable which is great if you want to stamp your mark in post processing. FP4+ is sharp and contrasty but it didn't make a huge impression. Its a fantastic film but didn't do it for me. I found the Adox to be contrasty without extremes and the detail was exactly what I look for and that is key, it is what I look for but its not everyone's cup of tea. I believe the CHS is a reworked version of an older efke emulsion and maybe I like the retro feel. Another utterly fabulous film is Orwo UN54. I shot one roll and have seen a few others. that is similar to FP4+ but much harder to get hold of. I think it has been rebadged by Lomography but I can't remember if it is Berlin or Potsdam

Sadly it is out of stock in North America....in 35mm or 120 (my preferred).

 

[GregY]

I answered FP4+ when this thread started, but I may be moving towards HP5+.

What's influencing you to change your mind Mark? I never cared for the highlight separation in HP5... I'm still sticking with FP4+ & a fast lens or a mono or tripod overcomes any shortcomings for me. Always preferred the innate contrast of the 100 iso films.