Recommendations for cheap B&W film & developers

[gone]

Great suggestions here. I was looking at shots from Fomapan 400 that were shot at 200, and they look pretty good. Definitely has an old time look w/ deep blacks. Looks like older Tri-X (I'm looking at online scans, so who knows?). Apparently it's a little short on exposure latitude, but most B&W films have plenty of that anyway.

 

[Paul Howell]

Foma had pretty good data sheets online.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Moving from Kodak films and developers, so the low end of the food chain may be a good place to start. Most of the Ilford films have been in my cameras, but not others. Freestyle has Kentmere, Arista and Fomapan on their budget rack. Is anyone shooting these, and what developers do you use? 100 to 400 ISO is fine.

This would be for darkroom printing if it makes any difference. I'm in the US.

Cheap and fresh film is oxymoron. I remember how much I paid for Kentmere in 2014-2015. Working class people salary hasn't changed since then, but film price went up.

Kentmere 400 is superior to Fomapan "400". But not as good as Ilford HP5+.
Kentmere 100 is awesome film, I guess Fomapan 100 isn't bad either.
Arista is not available where I'm.

Want it cheap to develop? Buy Rodinal and use one hour stand developing of two rolls at one time. It is 66 times for two films developed per Rodynal bottle. Where I'm it is well under 20 USD per bottle. Is 30 cents per roll expensive?

Just don't use Foma "400" in it even @200. You will never see sharp images .

Or here is two parts old style developer which last for very long time. I forgot how it is called, but it is like never getting bad lasting one.

I haven't tried new HC-110 yet. My original bottle still in use, because I use high disillusion.

 

[Buzz-01]

The last couple of months I've shot quite some Kentmere 400, AgfaPhoto APX100 & APX 400 and I like them all a lot!

My go-to developer is still D-76 for ISO400 films, which to me is a nice balance between quality, shelf life and price. APX100 in Rodinal works great as well, but with 400 film & Rodinal the grain becomes a little too much for me.

Also for darkroom printing they all tend to work equally fine for me, with the sidenote that I've only started darkroom printing about 6 months ago, considering myself a novice there...

 

[Stats]

Get "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell and mix your own formulas. You can learn a lot by doing so.

 

[Bazza D]

Foma/Aristra EDU are good films, as are Kentmere. I don't mind any of them in 100 or 400. I probably like Foma, the best out those. It comes out a bit contrasty but I like that. I heard that a simple yellow filter tames it but I more likely to use a red filter. I recently purchased a bulk roll of Orwo UN54.It isn't as cheap as the the others but a decent middle ground. I tried it because the Ilford FP4 price went up. I am using Legacy L110, HC-110 knockoff. It is cheaper than HC-110 by a couple dollars and you can buy a smaller bottle that makes it even less expensive. I switched to L110 due to its price and economy. The Orwo UN54 also only uses 6 ml a roll for 6 mins developing in 35mm, so it saves a bit of developer as well.

 

[Auer]

Ilford HP5 is about a buck pricier than Foma 400 in 120.
Rodinal is dirt cheap.
Alternatively, Cinestill's D96 dev is very affordable, as is their F96 fixer , I personally like the fixer a lot. Good products.

 

[grat]

For people commenting on Foma/Arista, particularly the 400 speed, you should probably keep in mind that the emulsion underwent a change about 4 years ago-- pre 2017 data sheets show it being IR sensitive, whereas the 2017 data sheets show it as being totally non-responsive to the IR range. So if your experience is from before 2017, it's a different film (now called "Action").

As a complete novice, I found it easy to work with, and easy to get good results from. If you're printing, you should probably shoot at EI 200-- for digital processing, EI 400 works fine.

 

[DMJ]

As many said, you can make your own developer. I would recommend HC110:B because is cheap but it's also Kodak and you don't want to use their products. I will eventually stop using Tri-X too if they keep increasing the prices. Moving to HP5+ probably, don't want to experiment with different films. I know I will miss Tri-X!

 

[VinceInMT]

For the past few years I’ve been shooting Ilford FP4 in 35mm and developing in Rodinol. During my last purchasing I decided to change things and bought 100’ roll of Kentmere 100 and have been developing that in D-76 stock. For what I shoot it’s just fine.

Considering that I collected all the camera and darkroom gear I’d ever need about 40 years ago, to me, the cost of the consumables is negligible in this hobby. I compare it to buying parts for my vintage cars and breath a sigh of relief that I can get so much joy for so little financial outlay.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Just don't use Foma "400" in it even @200. You will never see sharp images .

I must be doing something wrong.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For people commenting on Foma/Arista, particularly the 400 speed, you should probably keep in mind that the emulsion underwent a change about 4 years ago-- pre 2017 data sheets show it being IR sensitive, whereas the 2017 data sheets show it as being totally non-responsive to the IR range. So if your experience is from before 2017, it's a different film (now called "Action").

I've used both the "old" (ca. 2004-2006) and "new" (fresh purchase in 2020-2021). I think there's little difference unless you use a red or IR filter. I've used it with a red, but I don't now recall whether that was an old roll left over from '05, or a new one. Or perhaps Freestyle is still selling through their stock of the "old" film; the only change in their labeling is a little color code triangle (at least on the 120) added sometime between 2005 and 2020.

 

[Danner]

Bulk HP5 is very inexpensive, and high quality to boot.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Bulk HP5 is very inexpensive, and high quality to boot.

I paid $51 (and free shipping) from B&H for my current bulk roll of .EDU Ultra 400. The only cheaper 35mm would be if I could buy cine lengths of cine stock (400-1000 foot rolls), and I don't have any reliable way to reroll those down to sizes that will fit my Watson loaders.

 

[DMJ]

I paid $51 (and free shipping) from B&H for my current bulk roll of .EDU Ultra 400. The only cheaper 35mm would be if I could buy cine lengths of cine stock (400-1000 foot rolls), and I don't have any reliable way to reroll those down to sizes that will fit my Watson loaders.

That's like $2.5 for a roll of 36. Is it possible to load film, say for 10 shots, or does the loader exposes film at the head/tail and loading a short roll is a waste of film? The one thing I don't like about 35mm is that I have to shoot 36 photos before developing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A Watson exposes about three frames at the core of the cassette (tail as loaded in the camera), so loading short rolls is more wasteful -- but if you're confident in the dark, you can tape the film to the spool and position the cassette in the dark, then close the lid, and only have one exposed tail for each session. I rarely want rolls that short, but I've loaded twelve by counting sixteen clicks...

But I figure it at more like $3 a roll of 36 -- canonically, you get 17 rolls of 36 from a 100 foot bulk roll.

 

[pentaxuser]

That's like $2.5 for a roll of 36. Is it possible to load film, say for 10 shots, or does the loader exposes film at the head/tail and loading a short roll is a waste of film? The one thing I don't like about 35mm is that I have to shoot 36 photos before developing.

It depends to an extent on whether your camera is a manual or automatic loader as to how wasteful it is to load very short rolls such as 10 Auto-loaders do waste quite a lot of film at the start but with manual you can usually avoid as much wastage.

The alternative is to see how much film in inches/cms is wasted when developing a normal roll then add that amount from an already developed roll to the beginning of the short bulk roll. The camera then only wastes the already "wasted" film

pentaxpete, one of our members, has a video demonstrating how he saves film this way but I have no doubt there are other videos which also cover this. There is a bit more work to do of course when loading and it all depends on whether you consider the saving to be worth the effort

pentaxuser

 

[dourbalistar]

UltraFine Xtreme is very good and cheap film, but currently unavailable, PhotoWarehouse now has UltraFine Finesse available, but it is new and there are not a lot of online reports about it. I am currently shooting a 100 foot roll of this, and still trying to figure it out. It its not a bad film, but it isn't TX400 either. The Xtreme films were very good and looked very similar to Kentmere.
Kentmere is made in the same factory by the same people who make Ilford films and is a good affordable choice. There are also rumors that UltraFine Xtreme is rebadged Kentmere, or something very similar.
Foma and Arista EDU are the same film. These films have a somewhat different spectral response. It is a look I like, but many don't. I shoot a lot of Fomapan 100 because I like the film, not because of its low cost.

As for developers, Freestyle's L110 (HC-110 clone) is fairly cheap and develops a lot of film. The 1 gallon packet of D76 is also reasonable priced. I don't mix my own chemicals because, quite frankly, I don't have the time. I find that a batch of XTOL lasts me about 6 months. At that rate, it doesn't make much sense for me to try to save a few pennies.

+1 @Wallendo's suggestions. Ultrafine eXtreme 400 is an excellent film, but has been out of stock for a long time and possibly discontinued. Currently, I'm testing Kentmere Pan 400 to see if it's a good budget alternative replacement for me. As others have mentioned, Ultrafine eXtreme 400 and Kentmere Pan 400 might be the same or very similar. As for LegacyPro L110, I've used it for the past few years with good results. It's inexpensive, comes in a smaller 1 pint bottle, and is easy to pour and mix. @momus, I have image samples on my Flickr for both film stocks developed in LegacyPro L110.

 

[bluechromis]

I second the suggestion to mix one's own chemistry, hard to get less expensive than that and not that hard to do. Some think home brewed chems begin and end with Caffenol, but that's not true. Home mixed chems to do not have to be markedly inferior to commercial products. For example, there are home mixed versions of D-76, including one proposed by Kodak (H), that a number of experts say have advantages over the commercial version.

 

[bluechromis]

I have used the Foma films and Kentmere 400 and found them satisfactory. Some of the limitations of them are that neither of them push as well as top brands. This is especially true of Fomapan. Fomapan ISO rating seem optimistic at best. Fomapan doesn't have good reciprocity characteristics if one does long exposures. Fomapan 400, at least in 35 mm, can get a look of a glow or aura in highlight areas, presumably as result of a less efficient anti-halation layer. I often like this effect, but others may not.

 

[Vonder]

Moving from Kodak films and developers, so the low end of the food chain may be a good place to start. Most of the Ilford films have been in my cameras, but not others. Freestyle has Kentmere, Arista and Fomapan on their budget rack. Is anyone shooting these, and what developers do you use? 100 to 400 ISO is fine.

This would be for darkroom printing if it makes any difference. I'm in the US.

The Arista EDU Ultra films are a huge fav of mine.

 

[removedacct1]

Cheapest developer? Make your own D-76, or perhaps even better (for certain usage scenarios) D-23, which is just two chemicals: Metol and Sodium sulfite. Couldn't be easier or cheaper.

 

[DMJ]

I second the suggestion to mix one's own chemistry, hard to get less expensive than that and not that hard to do. Some think home brewed chems begin and end with Caffenol, but that's not true. Home mixed chems to do not have to be markedly inferior to commercial products. For example, there are home mixed versions of D-76, including one proposed by Kodak (H), that a number of experts say have advantages over the commercial version.

Exactly, especially because manufacturers in the US don't have to disclose what's in their products. They can change (and they do) their proprietary formulas without telling the public.

Make your own developer, save money, and you will have your own unique film "look".

 

[SchwinnParamount]

There is no cheaper film than Arista .EDU Ultra -- this rebranded Fomapan undercuts Foma prices by a small amount. I like the 100 and 400 a lot; it's the only B&W I try to never be without.

For developer, it's hard to beat Parodinal for cost. If you buy acetaminophen in large bottles and can get the cost under a couple cents a tablet, you can make Parodinal at a final cost for 1:50 of around a nickel a roll. Homemade plain hypo fixer (pool supply thiosulfate -- sold as chlorine reducer -- and Amazon-sourced sodium sulfite) can run in the same range (240 g/L thiosulfate and 100 g/L sulfite has a capacity of 16-20 rolls).

I second that! I am getting great results with EDU Ultra 200 and Xtol stock

 

[mshchem]

Cheap developer, in as it doesn't go bad and is cheap to use Adox Rodinal. Great inexpensive considering the technology Kodak T MAX 100 and 400, Ilford Delta 100 and 400.
Really inexpensive but good film Fomapan.
Consider 24 exposure rolls if you want less at one time.
I got rid of most of my bulk loaders doesn't pay anymore, especially if you don't use it all.