What do you think is the most under-rated film available today?

Sirius
+1

For folks who like XP2. You can use B&W chemistry. http://drmoss.ca/xp2.htm

MattKing said:

Probably FP-4.
I would have said Plus-X before it stopped being available.
More related to how frequently they are "rated" than how well they are rated.

Click to expand...

It's amazing to me that Kodak killed Plus-X. Why don't they just package Super-XX in 35mm?

I really, really miss Plus-X. I, too, have trouble believing they discontinued it.
Apparently not everyone felt about it the way I did, though, if sales were soft enough to kill it off. Too bad.

I don't know if underrated is really quite the right word here, but I think Orwo films might enjoy a lot more appreciation if they were more available. Really nice stuff, but it's so hard to get a hold of!

I have no idea whether its sales volumes agree, but I, like Matt King, would suggest that Ilford's FP4+ is seriously underrated (and underappreciated?). For years, it's been a personal favorite: great for portraits, and hands down, second only to PanF+, for my landscape and nature work.

NortheastPhotographic said:

Helios 1984 said:

I feel like Kodak Gold is somewhat snubbed.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. In fact I wish they made it in 120.

Click to expand...

It's plausible that the Lomo Color Negative (100, 400, 800) is Kodacolor. Gold or an older generation? Don't know.
Tried the 100 on 120 and it was quite pleasant.

Polaroid

Pentode said:

I really, really miss Plus-X. I, too, have trouble believing they discontinued it.
Apparently not everyone felt about it the way I did, though, if sales were soft enough to kill it off. Too bad.

I don't know if underrated is really quite the right word here, but I think Orwo films might enjoy a lot more appreciation if they were more available. Really nice stuff, but it's so hard to get a hold of!

Click to expand...

Plus-X and Panatomic-X were dropped because Kodak claimed T-Max 100 would replace both of them. I really miss Panatomic (although I have some frozen) for the tonality, but Plus-X (even though I used a lot of it in school because it came cheap in bulk) never did much for me and I prefer T-max.

Fomapan 100 in Pyrocat HD...

NortheastPhotographic said:

Hi!

I'm starting a series of film reviews, with the aim of putting out information on things that most film shooters may not have tried yet, or may have overlooked. One of the key components of these reviews, is how they relate to the hybrid film-scan workflow, and how that fundamentally changes some of the dogmatic ideas about certain films.

The first review that I'm working on now, is on one of my favorites that I just don't see enough of coming through the lab. That would be Ilford XP2 Super! I love this stock for it's versatility, ease of use, and aesthetic qualities. A lot of my clients never print their work in the darkroom, but still use traditional films like Tri-X or HP5. For the purposes of shooting to scan, XP2 has many advantages.

So please, let us know what you think is an extremely under utilized stock, and why! Aside from XP2 Super, I think Delta 100 & 400 are very underappreciated films. In my testing they scan and print fantastically well, but I think most people reach for traditional grain films first. So that's 2 I've started us off with!

Thanks!
-Mark from Northeast Photographic

P.S. None of these reviews are going to be about "better or worse", but more just how one should think about a stock and how to use it. I don't think XP2 is better than traditional films, or worse. I am merely illuminating it's advantages in the context of the scanning workflow!

Click to expand...

The basic idea of Ilford to bring out XP1 was the following : BW films have a need of simple bw developing. Comercial labs are using c41 most (>90%) this was no other issue in the beginning 80th may be c41 was at 87% rate to that time.
To print bw from comercial labs was no problem but it began to come to a smal niche end of the 70th.
So the pricing of bw increases more and more. (prints and developements).
A form of self-reinforcing process began.
Smal volume caused higher pricing/higher prices caused less volume.
Ilford braked this roule and it braked the upcoming smaler demand of bw printing from amateuric photographers with remaining ambitions in bw - but without darkroom.
We shall not believe this - but it was the reality (caused from the mass) : Millions of bw shooters did not own a darkroom.
The campaign to introduce XP1 was a real smart one from Ilford.
Because Ilford offered a simple c41 kit as a complete set with XP1.
This made XP1 very popular. Many traditional bw shooters with own darkroom loved this set and c41 was simple done with excellent Ilford operation manual included.
But the genius conception behind was to shot bw with c41 film - cheap and fast developement made from mini labs and print onto color paper.
The labs task was no problem : They had to filter color prints most neutral.
The result was in 2 ways :
- bw prints with a smal blue/black cast
- bw prints with a smal brownish/old school cast.
The cast allways differed a little and it was not possible to reorder with the 100% same enjoyable cast.
By the was - todays workflow is a real
catastrophe from most labs.
Last c41/bw years ago (no Ilford - remember minolta/konica film) was in an extreme piggy pink cast...????
The lab was unable to filter the prints better - I reclaimed immediately this piggy pink stuff and never saw the film again. .. the film is missing since then. Simple reason - most labs lose the competance meanwhile.
Later XP2 was introduced as improved emulsion with better characteristics and little smaler grain.
Today it is a beloved scanning favourite
film to many people.
At last you are right XP2 is one of some remaining films wich is indeed underated.
The conception to c41 labs with prints onto color paper is lost - but (caused from scanning) XP2 has a complete new task : The film has remarcable fine grain/nice tonals and is competitive against real bw film champions as there are Hp5 / Delta 400 / Tmax 400.
XP2 don't have to hide behind.

with regards

I would point out that films are rarely removed from sale because of quality. They are removed because they either aren't selling enough, or because their production is problematic (e.g. Kodak HIE).

E. von Hoegh said:

Plus-X and Panatomic-X were dropped because Kodak claimed T-Max 100 would replace both of them. I really miss Panatomic (although I have some frozen) for the tonality, but Plus-X (even though I used a lot of it in school because it came cheap in bulk) never did much for me and I prefer T-max.

Click to expand...

Have you seen Jason Lee's instagram account? He seems to have a pretty big stash of Panatomic upon which he intends to shoot his next project.