Another inexpensive film that gives great results is Orwo film and for me buying in bulk seems to be my best option.
Last edited:
Hello, after 2 years i came back to film photography, so i decided to scan all my negatives taken from 2018/2020 and after that search for some new rolls of film to try it. Then i reviewed all the scans to realize what b&w film was more of my liking.
The results in order are Adox Silvermax - Kodak TMax 400 - Ilford Pan 400 - Kodak Tri X 400 - Ilford Pan 100 - Kentmere 100. I think that normally i prefer film with high contrast and that can reproduce fine detail.
Actually i have a 3/4 bottle of rodinal, but also a bag of D76 that expired in may, but i think that it fine to use it, so if i develop film i will use these developers. I have 2 remaining rolls of Ilford Pan 400 and 5 rolls of Kentmere 100 but i want to try new options.
What film do you recommend to try it?
In My country i have available these options:
All Foma films
All Lomography Films
Adox CMS 20 II
Ilford Delta 100/400/3200, XP2 400, HP5 400, FP4 125,ORTHO PLUS, PAN F PLUS 50.
Kodak TriX, Tmax 100/400.
EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222
AGFA APX 100/400.
I attach 1 photo per roll scanned that i like from. So every image its from a new roll but sometimes its the same film.
View attachment 310891
View attachment 310892
View attachment 310893
View attachment 310894
View attachment 310895
View attachment 310896View attachment 310897
View attachment 310898
View attachment 310899
View attachment 310900
That is advice that all should take when starting out. Sadly, it takes many to realise that after they've muddled around for a few years...
Who, me?
The majority of us... especially the self-taught crew...which is most of us here
The majority of us... especially the self-taught crew...which is most of us here
I went through the path of trying one film after another in the late 1960s. As Ed Norton of Honeymooners would say, “ Didn’t learn nutten’.”
I now limit myself to HP or Delta 100, and ditto for 400. Should note that whichever is in camera, it’s always the wrong one for whatever shooting environment I’m in.
That is the reason for changeable film backs or multiple 35mm cameras that share the same lenses.
Yep! That explains much of Hasselblad’s success. My original backs from my 1000F only died a few years ago. Backs more robust than original camera.
Sirius, I believe there were 35mm cameras that permitted changing film mid roll, but I cannot recall any name. If there was one, one of our serious photo equipment historians could provide an answer.
Long ago I carried two bodies, but now I prefer to travel light.
Yep! That explains much of Hasselblad’s success. My original backs from my 1000F only died a few years ago. Backs more robust than original camera.
Sirius, I believe there were 35mm cameras that permitted changing film mid roll, but I cannot recall any name. If there was one, one of our serious photo equipment historians could provide an answer.
Long ago I carried two bodies, but now I prefer to travel light.
I have several Zeiss Contaflex cameras and also four film backs for them. These backs also worked on the Zeiss Contarex cameras. I think it was a great idea for a 35mm camera, and it allowed you to shoot both color and B&W with the same camera on an outing. Since the Japanese were very good at copying German cameras, I'm still amazed that they didn't come out with a 35mm SLR with interchangeable backs in their 35mm gold rush days of the 60's. I do know my wedding photography business sure got much easier when I got a Hassy 500C with interchangeable backs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?