suggestions in Daylight street photograpgy film

[Sirius Glass]

But you are the master, mere morals will struggle. Fp4 gives great tonal range when there's a big difference in EV's. Find trix doesn't have a good tonal range in the shadows especially if there is a large difference in lighting. Personally don't like the look of trix, daido obviously does.
The OP is from Portugal where I assume the light is quite strong in daylight as is here, no need for a tripod when shooting street type photography @f11 and under.

Isn't this the other way around? I always get more dynamic range from ISO400 films than ISO100 ones.

Old Gregg has it right. You are looking antipodally.

 

[DMJ]

I think Moriyama uses Tri-X but to obtain images like his, you need extended developing times, dodging/burning and the choice of filter/paper compbinations. If you scan you'll have to work the contrast in Photoshop.
Here is a picture of Kodak's darkroom guide with examples printed on Kodak Polycontrast III RC paper using different filters. The film stock is Tmax 100.
So the film does not matter much, you can also use Ilford films, paper and filters if you go the darkroom way.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Does anyone cares what final look, contrast back then was achieved on darkroom prints.
Seems like next to no one does and thinks is all film and scans. Even if you scan you still have to think about post processing.

 

[Geoff Bartlett]

@awty I think I know what you're referring to, FP4+ does have a certain "look" which makes higher contrast scenes smoother. This recent example comes to mind:

I'm only lately becoming more methodical about my film choices and have settled on FP4, but that "certain 'look'"... I live in a city that manages to be cloudy more often than not and am getting negatives that feel tonally flat and need more work in printing. Cloudy though it is, a lot of daytime shooting is too bright for a 400 film unless I want to carry around filters. Keep looking for the light and stop shooting boring scenes?

 

[MattKing]

do not look as "digitally-harsh" as T-Ma

digitally harsh?

TMax 400, scanned from a toned print

 

[Geoff Bartlett]

@Geoff Bartlett

Delta 100 in particular is suuuuppeeeeerb under flat light! Significantly different from FP4+

I've only recently acquired a 6x6 camera and have been putting FP4 through it so far, but I will try a couple of rolls of Delta.

I've tried pushing the FP4 one stop to I couldn't really see much difference.

What would you suggest for lit portraits?

 

[George Mann]

I like Delta 100 as well, and dislike the extremes of T-Max.

 

[DMJ]

I agree with T-Max looking great under flat light. I also use it on "grainy" subjects such as sand. For everything else: Tri-X 400.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, that's a wet print. Not fair.

Maybe "harsh" is the wrong word, but there's definitely something about T-Max images... they look like someone cranked "clarity" in Lightroom to the max. Technically it's probably a good thing, I suspect it has something to do with its MTF, but this look is not what I am looking for when shooting film.

Okay then, here is a scan from a TMY negative - haven't spent any real time on this in the darkroom, but I have tweaked it a bit digitally to make it presentable:

TMY in particular is an extremely flexible film. It certainly doesn't look digital to me, whether I'm printing it in the darkroom, or presenting it digitally.
It and T-Max are very fine grained, but once you become accustomed to it, it will reward you.
Both this example and the one posted earlier were processed in replenished X-Tol.

Just for the heck of it, this is on 35mm Plus-X, and it too is scanned from the negative:

 

[MattKing]

TMY was the first film I bought. I almost changed my mind about film, when I looked at the lab scans.

There is your problem - the lab scanned the TMY to make it look digital. So you assigned blame to the film.
TMY is like a good actor - it can be made to play all sorts of characters.
You just happened to hand it to a hack director - one who figured that you were looking for something that you weren't.

 

[MattKing]

Here is another couple of looks from TMY - because I can:

All three are negative scans. The last two print really well in the darkroom.