Justify your choice of film

[Bormental]

How do you decide which films to shoot? Putting large-format aside (cost & availability are big factors there) and only looking at 35mm and medium format: why are you shooting what you're shooting?

In my case:

1. HP5+ for nearly all of my medium format needs. Gorgeous tonality, tough scratch-resistant emulsion, easily available recipes for any developer, and also one of the cheapest 120 films, at least in the US. Only $6 per roll.
   
2. Delta 100/400 for 35mm because of quality/cost ratio when purchased in bulk 100ft rolls. Comparable Kodak products are more expensive.
   
3. Ultrafine Extreme 100/400 for both 35mm and 120 for quality/cost ratio when you're willing to burn a full roll just to get one shot you want.

What is your reasoning?

P.S. Asking because I keep experimenting with films, and nothing (so far) beats reasons 1-2-3 above. But since other films have market for them (i.e. someone keeps buying them), I figured I should ask what their fans see in them I'm missing. Thanks!

 

[Prest_400]

Interesting, and I somehow match those preferences and got tiers of pricing.

HP5 in 120 for flexibility and as bonus it's some of the best Price/Quality ratio in Europe. TriX became quite expensive, as $3 a roll more! Sometimes a bit flat, but a good use of filters and split grade in printing brings a bit of life.

For ISO 100, Delta 100 for both 35mm and 120. If maximizing quality, better do so with the latest tech and that is the Tgrain type films. It is also quite a nice film itself. I'd need to test more as it's a tad contrasty on some scenes (ie. HC110 might not be box speed).

Cheaper films I use:
Kentmere and Agfaphoto (new) APX, supposedly the same Harman manufactured product under the same guise (rumors are Ultrafine might too). Cheap and good. I think there was a thread recently here praising APX100. No fault, great for point and shoots.

Fomapan 100 + 200. In Europe it's the cheapest 120 film. Good quality and quite a pleasant look and tonality.

 

[StepheKoontz]

TMY 400 for 120, just has a look I really love, sharp and snappy.
FP4+ for 35mm, again love the look and tonality. Delta 100 is nice too, but I've found I'm liking FP4+ more, especially on contrasty days. I shoot TMY in 35mm if I need extra speed.
HP5+ for 127 as it's the only bulk film in 46mm rolls. I do like it pretty well too, but still prefer TMY 400. I wish I could get FP4+ in 46mm rolls.

All are developed in D-76, 1+1 for 120, and stock for smaller sizes.

I tried ultrafine 100, hated it. Ultrafine 400 is better but still doesn't have the look of my prefered films.

 

[MattKing]

For a bunch of reasons that make total sense if you know my background, I only use Kodak films, except in categories where Kodak doesn't make a film.
For years I used Plus-X as my slower black and white film and T-Max 400 as my faster black and white film.
Although I still have a small amount of Plus-X left in 135, I have been transitioning to T-Max 100 instead. I've had some success dialing the T-Max 100 in, and reaklly appreciate how complementary it is to T-Max 400.
I value consistency in response - I only try other films to satisfy curiosity, although I once bought a big batch of J & C 120 film because it was incredibly cheap. I didn't finish that batch, and ended up giving a fair part of it away.
It costs too much to use film that saves a few cents on the film but gives you results that disappoint you because you are better at using other film.
FWIW, with colour negative it is Portra 160 or Portra 400, and for colour slide it is Ektachrome.

 

[NB23]

I’m onto my last 2 bulk rolls of tmax 100 (from 20), then I’m switching to 12 bulk of Pan-F, and then onto 14 bulk of tri-x. And 80 rolls of tmax 3200.

For 120, i’m onto my last 10 rolls of Acros (from 100), and then onto 100 rolls of hp5.

Yes, I’m all over the place, and I’m a film/cameras/lenses/bags/papers/films/chemicals hoarder.

 

[braxus]

Most of my favorite films are from Kodak, but not all. All three Kodaks are the old school emulsions of Panatomic X, Plus X, and Tri-X. One film outside of that is Efke 25. I love the old school look of all of these films. Each has a different look then the other. Pan X has great mid tones, plus a glow that really livens up the film. Plus X looks great outdoors on sunny days, with darkened skies, great contrast and blacks, plus really brings out the wood grains. Tri-X also because it has great contrast, and a grittier look. Efke because it has fine grain, and a really old fashioned look to it. Only cloudy days, you can sometimes get darker skin tones with it. Its also ortho-panchromatic. It too has a glow about it.

 

[Bormental]

Fantastic answers, thank you all. @braxus your super-specific reasons are pure gold. @MattKing sorry I am relatively new to photrio, so I am missing context on your affinity to Kodak

@StepheKoontz sorry to hear you hated Ultrafine 100, but I find it a bit strange since you like FP4+ and those two aren't that far apart, especially in D76 (well... I used Ultrafine D76-type developer for both).

Sometimes our choices can be silly. For example, another **big** reason I avoid Kodak (in addition to cost) is their habit to measure things in oz, rat tails, gallons, and elephant ball sacks, instead of just using the metric system like adults, my blood just boils when I see that... they even screw up the time! I mean who the hell uses 6¾ minutes instead of 6:45?

 

[Ian Grant]

Delta 100 & 400 for MF because of the fine grain, sharpness, and tonalty, Delta 100 for 5x4 for the same reasons and HP5 for hand held 5x4 where I need the extra speed.

I don't shoot much 35mm these days but bought 20 rolls of Fomapan 200 at theend of last year and 20 roll of Fomapan 200 in 120 as well, I've used it a lot over the past 12-13 yeras and it's a reliable back up.

For 7x5 I have Fomapan 100 & 200, for 10x8 I still have RFKE PL25 and Fortepan 200 but will switch to Fomapan 200 when I restock.

Ian

 

[Bormental]

@Ian Grant why Fomapan 200?

 

[R.Gould]

For the last 25 years I have used Fomapan in both 35mm and 120, both the 200 and 400, the reason? I feel that I know it inside out and I love the results I get with it, it reminds me of Tri x, the first version, before Kodak mucked about with it, Before that I used a lot of old tri x, but I could not get along with the last re invention of it, when the silver content was reduced, I tried HP5+ for a short while, but I found it flat, sometimes almost lifeless, then I tried Fomapan and never looked back
Richard

 

[Ian Grant]

@Ian Grant why Fomapan 200?

Because I shoot it at half box speed so 100 EI, I do like Fomapan 100 but shoot it at 50 EI and with MF (& 35mm) I rarely use a tripod preferring to work hand held. That's really because I'm predominantly a Large Format photographer and that's on a tripod where possible.

In terms of final image quality I find there's not any significant difference between Fomapan 200 and 100 so that's why I shoot the 200. Unlike Richard I find Fomapan 400 dull and lifeless and find HP5 is way better in terms of grain, sharpness and tonal range. However that's personal preferences and how it suits the way I work and print with a long tonal range.

Ian

 

[mshchem]

TMY-2 120, developed in XTOL
FP-4 Plus 120, 35mm, sheet film, developed in XTOL
HP5 in sheets .

I love Kodak films and developers. I grew up with Kodak, I don't think I had shot any black and white film other than Kodak until about 15 years back.

I have grown to really like Ilford sheet films all of them.

All these films are all amazing, The Kodak T-Max films developed in XTOL are simply the best you can get in a technically advanced film. MHO nothing else can claim to be superior.

I shoot the Ilford FP4 Plus because it's better than the old Plus X IMHO. It's a remarkable film. With FP4 I don't miss Panatomic X or Plus X. It's amazing portrait film.

I am going to be buying film from Kodak and Ilford even if I have a freezer full. If you want to have suppliers you need to buy their products.

 

[halfaman]

My choices.

Color negative (90% of my shots, almost all in MF)
- Portra 160: Best color negative available, the all-round film for any situation. Fine grain, good contrast, some vibrant but faithful colors and pleasant skin tones.
- Fuji 400H: For portraits in MF only. Excellent caucasian skin tones, but grainy in 35 mm and saturation too low for landscapes.
- Portra 400: Medium-soft contrast, hughe latitude and fine grain in MF (a bit distracting in 35 mm). Perfect for high contrast situations, and for unexpected works in unknown situations. A workhorse that always deliver.

B/W film (10% of my shots, almost all in 35 mm)
- TMax 400: If I don't want grain but still need ISO 400 in 35 mm, this film and TMax developer is my way to go. Almost no visible grain and great contrast.
- Ilford HP5+: Excellent for push processing with XTOL, but too soft for my taste at ISO 400 (pending to try with HC-110 dilution B). My choice for anything shot above ISO 400.
- Tri-X: Only in MF, shot at ISO 320 and developed with Rodinal 1+50. Rich shadows and wonderful contrast.
- FP4+: In Rodinal 1+50 or D76 1+1. Fine grain, excellent gradation, good contrast. The best all-round low speed film for me.

 

[Pflaumesaft]

Fomapan 100: I started on this because it was cheap. But as Mr Gould said, got used to the nooks and crannies and nothing else looks right. I shoot it mostly at 80, 50 if harsh sun, and even pushed to 200 on very flat days.

HP5+: Reliable, and gives me true 400 speed when Foma 100 just won't do. Picked up 20 boxes of the Ilford Pan 400 last year. Some conflicting opinions, but to me, if not the same, pretty darn close.

I much preferred the HP5+ to Foma 400. But to me Foma 200 was dull and lifeless. Such is personal opinion lol.

 

[albireo]

Medium Format:
Fomapan 100, 200, 400. I just love all three. IME: They're all different; none of them is 'dull'; they deserve to be processed in the right chemistry; I love the results at box speed (based on my metering technique); the fact that 'they're cheap' is not a determining factor for me: would still stick to them if they were pricier.

35mm:
Agfaphoto APX 100 and 400. Just gorgeous in Xtol and Spur Acurol-N and readily available everywhere here in continental Europe (drugstore film)

Special Mention:
Ilford FP4+ in 120. Just a gorgeous film stock which suits me for some lighting conditions.

 

[darkosaric]

I like to change films. Also I like to change developers. I do not recommend this at all to anybody (opposite is better for general public), but this is more fun to me. So I shoot everything: From Adox CMS 20 to Delta 3200. Rodinal usually, sometimes Tmax devloper, HC110, or D76.

 

[guangong]

Six decades ago, when there were many more choices to experiment and select from, I finally settled on Agfa films. As choices diminished I finally settled on Delta films. Because I shoot Minox 8x11, I need a film with Delta characteristics. Also shoot 35mm, 120 and 4x5. This keeps film processing simple and dependable. I was shooting Fomopan R because I am fond of BW slides, but I disappeared from marketplace in 35mm cassettes. No other film has such a clear base.
Every now and then I try a roll of a different film but see no reason to change.
Whatever film someone prefers, best to stick with it and become familiar with its peculiarities I prefer to keep things simple.

 

[StepheKoontz]

@StepheKoontz sorry to hear you hated Ultrafine 100, but I find it a bit strange since you like FP4+ and those two aren't that far apart, especially in D76 (well... I used Ultrafine D76-type developer for both).[/QUOTE]

Can't really put my finger on it, but to me they look miles apart. I really tried to like it but the images I got from it just seemed "dead". I actually posted a thread about it.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ultrafine-100-extreme-developer-you-like.165803/

 

[StepheKoontz]

I much preferred the HP5+ to Foma 400. But to me Foma 200 was dull and lifeless. Such is personal opinion lol.

That is how ultrafine 100 compared to FP4+ looked to me. Dull and lifeless.

 

[Paul Howell]

Over the past 50 years I've used many different films, while in college I shot a lot of GAF, why? Our photography instructor hated Kodak the Big Yellow Father in Rochester New York. He didn't hate Kodak products, just the company, all of our darkroom chemistry was GAF, we used GAF and Dupont paper, and GAF film, the only Kodak film I used was TriX, GAF 500 was crap. After College while in the Air Force I used what ever the Air Force was using, 80% Kodak, some GAF and some God knows who coated it. While working for the wires I used Kodak and Ilford, my preference being Kodak, PlusX and TriX, for personal shooting in MF I like Verichrome Pan. After I return to Arizona I used Kodak for many years, then decided to buy a less expensive film for "walking around" and Tmax 100 and 400 for any paid work or travel. I used Foma, 200 and 400, then Ultrafine, Ultrafine xtreme, and now back to Foma as my walk around film. I buy an odd roll of Ilford Pan F, sometime Kodak double X, and just ordered a roll of CATLAB 80, what I call "just the hell of it."

I find Foma 200 and Ultrafine to be a pretty good films, good tones, decent grain and resolution.

 

[JWMster]

Fun thread. Love reading what folks do.

My own approach a guy with less experience than many here has been based on finding a film that will work for me in a simple (D-23) developer. Moving into LF 4X5 has pushed me to rethink the use of other formats. I now shoot 35mm as a "sketch" for finding locations in my new home base. It's a walking around camera, and so I'm tending to shoot the films I'm using in LF to make the best of learning how to handle the post shooting stuff, exposure, etc. under a wide range of conditions. This tends to narrow the list of players, and that's fine. It is what it is. That said, I've come to think of Ilford films as my first choice for B&W, and Kodak for C41. Yes, I have and use some others, but the diet is focused on these two.

Favorite B&W is FP4+ but moving to add HP5+ as well. In color, I've used a lot of Portra 400, but am slowing that down and have a fridge filling with Ektachrome as well. Unresolved in my mind is whether to stick with film for color or not... but again, LF results will run the show. B&W is my favorite use of film, though and the next round of Nikon mirrorless may push switch of my DSLR scanning tool to a Z-something.

When MF was my "big", I primarily shot Delta 400 and still have a lot on hand. It's a great film, but not available in LF... so ouch, that's less used these days. But I'm simplifying my gear collection, and pruning it down to Rollei TLR's, Nikon 35mm's and Chamonix.... with Chamonix the "serious stuff" where we pull out all the stops. MF... has been kind of "on hold" while awaiting the new 120 film holder from Negative Supply since I decided to switch to DSLR scanning as mentioned earlier.

 

[removedacct1]

sorry to hear you hated Ultrafine 100, but I find it a bit strange since you like FP4+ and those two aren't that far apart

I used Ultrafine 100 a couple of times and all of the film had conspicuous manufacturing flaws in the emulsion, so I struck it off the list of acceptable emulsions and never looked back.

 

[bdial]

I am somewhat film agnostic these days. For B&W, my go-to favorite had been Plus-X, but I’ve migrated to Tmax-100 or 400, along with Tri-X occasionally. But really, I choose based on my mood. The most recent roll I loaded the other day is Ilford SFX in 35mm. I’m not sure I have my normal fine-grain developer (Xtol) on hand, so it will be grainy as heck when I process it in Rodinol , thus that will be part of my plan shooting it.

 

[DWThomas]

First, in film I pretty much only shoot B&W, and mostly medium format. When I first came back to B&W film early in this millennium, I used Plus-X and Tri-X in whatever the current naming was, as that held good memories from decades back. I did eventually try some others, and began to use a lot of Fuji Acros 100 because it was dirt cheap and worked well for the uses I had. But then, when 125PX dried up, I sort of bounced between Acros and FP-4 in the lower speed area. And then we hit the 'wrapper offset' stuff for Kodak which had some reports of showing in 400TX, so I played with HP5 and found except for developing time it's pretty much interchangeable with 400TX in my use. Since then I've been alternating between 400TX and HP5 on major trips, so if some roll film anomaly turns up maybe I'll only lose half my shots.

I have, of course, tried some IR sensitive stuff, which can be fun. But even though there are lots of film types around, it seems a number of those I've tried in brief encounters, IR and otherwise, got discontinued before I barely scoped them out -- not much incentive to experiment! And Acros disappeared for long enough that I wrote it off. Now that it's back at a seemingly harsh premium, I'm not sure it will re-enter the inventory.

I shoot very little 35mm any more, but have liked Tmax 400 on a couple of outings. And I am rationing out a 1987 vintage bulk roll of Panatomic-X on occasional uses in my Argus C-3. (Argus Day is Argust 20th this year ... )

Caveat: I develop almost universally in HC110 1+63, I shoot mostly landscape/architectural/still life subjects, not portraits, and I don't claim any serious scientific logic in my film choices!

 

[abruzzi]

I shoot Fomapan 100 because its cheap and I like what it looks like. When I need something faster I shoot Tri-X because its not cheap and I like what it looks like, I also really dislike most of the 400 speed films I have shot (foma 400, Ultrafine 400, HP4 have all been less than favored) . When it really dark out, I shoot Delta 3200 because Tmax3200 isn't available in 120. When I want something slow, it is usually, PanF+. I also try lots of films, mostly out of curiosity. Right now 80% of my shooting is MF or LF so all those cool films that are only available in 35mm like P30 are more on the intermittent list.