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

[cliveh]

FP4 100% for black & white 35mm.

 

[Cerebum]

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

Yeah, it is in the UK too. Everything bar Ilford and Kodak seems to be all or nothing where stock is concerned

 

[DF]

FP4 of course.
So reliable, so well suited for Sunny F16.

 

[Steven Lee]

HP5+ because it is available and works well in all formats I shoot.

Also, I am surprised by the popularity of FP4+ here. Great film for sure, but I wouldn't expect a slow film be mentioned in the context of the original question.

 

[DF]

HP5+ because it is available and works well in all formats I shoot.

Also, I am surprised by the popularity of FP4+ here. Great film for sure, but I wouldn't expect a slow film be mentioned in the context of the original question.

You think FP4 is a slow film?
Pan F+ - now there's a slow speed film - you need a tripod for most of it's shots.

 

[Steven Lee]

@DF Traditionally ISO 100 has been called medium speed IIRC. But as the only film you shoot... for that role yes - I call it slow. Especially because it becomes ISO 50 in speed-losing developers when shadow detail is important.

Again, the question wasn't about one's favorite film. It was about the only film you'd shoot. Not the same thing. My favorite is probably Delta 100, but if I was limited to ISO 100 with a modest pushing envelope, I'd be shooting much less. A good ISO 400 film lets me shoot more.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A good ISO 400 film lets me shoot more.

Absolutely. A 400 film that pushes well and holds highlights rules. XP2 is that film. Good for EI 50 to 800 or so in B&W chemistry, and 50 to 3200 or more in C-41 (with bleach bypass if appropriate).

 

[Thomas71]

HP5+ because it is available and works well in all formats I shoot.

Also, I am surprised by the popularity of FP4+ here. Great film for sure, but I wouldn't expect a slow film be mentioned in the context of the original question.

Becaùse in normal light situation FP4+ is definetly better than HP5 in term of grain structure and mid tones contrast.
In high contrast scene you only need to reduce by 20-30% the developing time and FP4 is ok (imho Delta100 is more tricky
Do you really need to shot so often in situation where 400 ISO are required?

 

[GregY]

HP5+ because it is available and works well in all formats I shoot.

Also, I am surprised by the popularity of FP4+ here. Great film for sure, but I wouldn't expect a slow film be mentioned in the context of the original question.

In my world iso 25 or 50 is slow, 100 is medium and 400 is fast...
& then when you consider sheet film with a tripod mounted LF camera the medium speed film shines even more.

 

[GregY]

@DF Traditionally ISO 100 has been called medium speed IIRC. But as the only film you shoot... for that role yes - I call it slow. Especially because it becomes ISO 50 in speed-losing developers when shadow detail is important.

Again, the question wasn't about one's favorite film. It was about the only film you'd shoot. Not the same thing. My favorite is probably Delta 100, but if I was limited to ISO 100 with a modest pushing envelope, I'd be shooting much less. A good ISO 400 film lets me shoot more.

Steven, If i'm restricted to one film, I would want to use my favourite.....the one with what i consider the best tonality, grain structure & size for enlargements..... that's how i arrive at FP4....

 

[GregY]

One reason that drives me to be loyal to a manufacturer, or a particluar product, is its the long term availability.
Adox can't provide that, we have seen multiple times with Silvermax, Scala 160 and old films like chs 25. 50 and 100 and papers.

Absolutely agree with you.

 

[Steven Lee]

@GregY I respect your dedication In my case my favorite film just isn't versatile enough to be my only film. Come to think of it... the same applies to cameras. My favorite 35mm camera is a Leica M, but if I was forced to have just one 35mm camera for life, I'd go with a more versatile Nikon SLR.

 

[GregY]

@GregY I respect your dedication In my case my favorite film just isn't versatile enough to be my only film. Come to think of it... the same applies to cameras. My favorite 35mm camera is a Leica M, but if I was forced to have just one 35mm camera for life, I'd go with a more versatile Nikon SLR.

I find myself at the other end of the spectrum Steven. As much as i love my black paint M4.....if restricted to one camera I would choose the even less versatile Rolleiflex....the bigger negative gets me every time.

 

[Helge]

The “necessity” of sticking with one or a few films, to learn them, is hugely overrated IMO.
It’s a cliche you often hear though.

Not that it isn’t a viable stance for some people.

But trying many films and using what works best for certain subjects and trying something new just for the adventure is not wrong or frivolous.

There is only so many ways and degrees to which you can learn a film.
At some point, the returns of optimization and flexibility, has diminished to the point of boredom and pointlessness.

 

[GregY]

The “necessity” of sticking with one or a few films, to learn them, is hugely overrated IMO.
It’s a cliche you often hear though.

Not that it isn’t a viable stance for some people.

But trying many films and using what works best for certain subjects and trying something new just for the adventure is not wrong or frivolous.

There is only so many ways and degrees to which you can learn a film.
At some point, the returns of optimization and flexibility, has diminished to the point of boredom and pointlessness.

Helge, It's not really clear in the opening statement....what the thought behind the question was. I'm more interested in making & printing photographs than in messing around with testing...although some degree of it is necessary to arrive at good results. It is an interesting question in terms of why one might prefer one over another.
Over the years the choices in film and paper have changed. I don't want to be testing and adjusting all the time, or losing images due to QC issues. That's why i am thankful for the reliability of Ilford & Kodak....& if I had to choose just one....it would be a 100 iso film

 

[Sirius Glass]

A silly restriction. I use whatever black & white film or color film I want, even some discontinued ones.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

I tried HP5 once and it’s got adequate highlight separation. (I’m not sure that flat spot in the midtone region is real, probably just a bad test patch.)

 

[Helge]

Helge, It's not really clear in the opening statement....what the thought behind the question was. I'm more interested in making & printing photographs than in messing around with testing...although some degree of it is necessary to arrive at good results. It is an interesting question in terms of why one might prefer one over another.
Over the years the choices in film and paper have changed. I don't want to be testing and adjusting all the time, or losing images due to QC issues. That's why i am thankful for the reliability of Ilford & Kodak....& if I had to choose just one....it would be a 100 iso film

It was more a general response to Tsubasa. Not this threads topic which is obviously a thought experiment.

Sure, you can learn all the intricacies of for example FP4 to a ridiculous degree. To the point where you can make it sing and dance to just about any song.

But you will never make it record deep red.
You will never give it very low contrast.
It will never push well to 1600.
Etc.

My point was just that both approaches are viable.

It’s specialization vs a good generalist.
Specialists will always turn their nose up at generalists. “There is not such thing as a good generalist”.
And generalist will always view specialists as pedantic, one track minds.

As ridiculous as it sounds it is possible to successfully be a bit of both. A specialist in a few areas but still with a broad general knowledge.
Which is probably what we aught to aim for.

 

[Helge]

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

Thanks. Midtone separation sounds good.
It’s the seemingly very high contrast plus high grain for a 100 film that has left me questioning this film.

 

[removedacct3]

Adox afaic can't provide the long term availability, we have seen multiple times with Silvermax, Scala 160 and old films like chs 25. 50 and 100 and papers.

I do not have any business know-how whatsoever, but I do wonder from time to time if Adox does not shoot itself in the foot by selling or branding products while supplies last. Adox wants to be a premium brand with first class products, but I fail to see how a while-supplies-last product can be considered premium. Especially if you know upfront that availability will be limited.

 

[GregY]

I tried HP5 once and it’s got adequate highlight separation. (I’m not sure that flat spot in the midtone region is real, probably just a bad test patch.)

View attachment 337998

Bill. "I tried HP5 once..." doesn't mean much in the big picture. I've used a lot of it over the years and i get significantly better results with other films. I'm sure user experience varies. With staining developers and my typical subject matter....it's not my film of choice.

 

[GregY]

It was more a general response to Tsubasa. Not this threads topic which is obviously a thought experiment.

Sure, you can learn all the intricacies of for example FP4 to a ridiculous degree. To the point where you can make it sing and dance to just about any song.

But you will never make it record deep red.
You will never give it very low contrast.
It will never push well to 1600.
Etc.

My point was just that both approaches are viable.

It’s specialization vs a good generalist.
Specialists will always turn their nose up at generalists. “There is not such thing as a good generalist”.
And generalist will always view specialists as pedantic, one track minds.

As ridiculous as it sounds it is possible to successfully be a bit of both. A specialist in a few areas but still with a broad general knowledge.
Which is probably what we aught to aim for.

Since i don't seek those characteristics, it suits my purpose very well. I get consistently good results which keeps me coming back to it. If i were a travelling photojournalst, i'd likely default to Tri-X......but that's not my situation.

 

[Agulliver]

Without a doubt, if I could only ever shoot one B&W film it would be Ilford HP5+

Because it can be shot at box speed in most conditions, pulled to 200 in bright sun....pushed to 3200 in low light. It's truly a jack of all trades and I prefer it to Delta 400 or the Kodak offerings. It can be developed in pretty much any chemistry and isn't too fussy what developer is used. It's the ultimate all rounder.

The only thing it cannot do is IR photography. Which I rarely indulge in, though I have dabbled.

 

[markjwyatt]

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

I have been shooting a lot of ADOX CHS 100II recently. I mainly develop in FX-39 now; though I have used Rodinal and HC110. It is definitely my favorite all around 35mm film, but I cannot get it right now in the US. I do not feel I can depend on it being the last film available. Fortunately Ilford HP5+ and FP4+ will probably be survivors, and they are both excellent films also. I truly hope ADOX CHS100 II persists, even if sporadically.

 

[Mark J]

I was looking at it again when scoping sheet film availability recently ; but put off when I saw warnings about not using it in Pyro developers.
Now, was CHS 100 supposed to the the closest thing to the old APX 100, or am I mis-remembering what Adox said when it was introduced ?