• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What's your 4x5 choice of B&W film?

amellice

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
431
Location
Snohomish, WA
Format
Medium Format
I always shoot 120 Trix400, Ilford Pan F and sometimes Fomapan 100. I was surprised that there isn't Trix-400 or Ilford Pan F in 4x5 sheets. Why is that? And what's your substitute for those?

Thanks
 
Tri-X does come in 4x5 sheets, but it's called Tri-X 320; the 400 version is strictly roll and 35mm film. That said, I generally shoot FP4, Delta 100, Tri-X, or Fomapan 100. My choice of a specific film usually revolves around my anticipated subject matter, how I plan to develop the film, and if I think I'll need expansion/contraction development.
 
Kodak makes two different films under the name 'Tri-X' in 120: Tri-X Pan (ASA 400) and Tri-X Professional (TXP, ASA 320). In sheet film, Kodak Royal Pan was closest to Tri-X Pan. For some reason, Kodak discontinued Royal Pan about 2004, and now makes only Tri-X Professional, which is quite different. Royal Pan was a 'general purpose' press-type film with a typical press-film curve (soft highlights, vigorous shadows). TXP has a 'studio-film' curve, with soft shadows and vigorous highlights. It is not well-suited for outdoor work, whereas Royal Pan was. Ilford HP5 is close to Royal Pan in character. I would recommend that film instead of Tri-X 320 for outdoor work.

So, in 35mm, Kodak makes only Tri-X Pan, in 120 both, and in sheet film, only TXP.

http://wwwcaen.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/o3.pdf
 
Last edited:
For 120 Kodak Tri-X 400; for 4"x5" Ilford HP5+ or Ilford FP4+.
 
my choice is tmy and tmx and hp4+5
and also anything i can get ahold of that is expired
 
FP4+ for nearly everything
 
Petraio Prime said:
TXP has a 'studio-film' curve, with soft shadows and vigorous highlights. It is not well-suited for outdoor work, whereas Royal Pan was.
Click to expand...

After nearly 40 years of shooting Tri-X in 120 roll, 4x5 and 8x10 in nearly every kind of outdoor weather condition imaginable, I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. If properly developed and printed by a sensitive darkroom worker, IMHO Tri-X has a "look" that no other film can replicate. The only other I ever used that came close was Kodak Super-XX. This film had a propensity for handling mid-tones like no other.

But, one chooses the materials that works for him/her. Thankfully, we all still have many choices available to us.
 
ACROS until it becomes unobtanium.

I suppose I'll go with FP4+ after that. I've used that in 8x10 with good results.

I haven't touched a yellow box since they refused to correct the color shift in Ektachrome.
That was about 60 years ago.

- Leigh
 
I just processed some 4x5 Ilford Ortho Plus. I'm looking for negatives for alt processes (mostly carbon printing), so I am enjoying the extra contrast I can bring out of the film. Ilford FP4+ is also a favorite for 8x10 negatives I use for platinum printing. Both films in Ilford PQ Universal Dev.

But I have a large variety of makes and models and sizes of film in the refrigerator and will use just about anything...and have. Nice to hear about Royal Pan, one of the first 4x5 films I used (late 70s). I enjoyed TMax100, 4x5 enlarged to 16x20 prints I made from it into the early 90s...rarely did I ever need to use a yellow filter with that film.

By the mid-90s I was (and am) into alt processes and contact printing, so I started to use more specialty films. Kodak Copy Film for example, was wonderful. The Ortho Plus is hopefully replacing Tech Pan for an on-going landscape project, and seems to fit the bill. I was using Tech Pan more for its contrast capabilities rather than fine-grain. The Ortho Plus gives me as much contrast, but with more control and with my usual developer, which is a plus. The proof will be in the prints, though!
 
I normaly shoot FP4+ on my 5x4 camera (Arca Swiss AB), lately have been also shooting Shanghai GP3 film as it is a lot cheaper and nearly as good.

This month have been playing with a box of 100 sheets of old HP4 that I got for free with some success

For anything important I use the FP4+ as it is very forgiving....

Johnkpap
 
FP4+ in 4x5. I reserve 400 speed film for the 8x10 as i usually go 1-2 aperture stops smaller on the lens as i go up in film size.
Hadn't really thought about using Tri-X in 4x5.
I would actually like to try Tri-X in 8x10 but gosh darn is it ever expensive. And, then, i would probably reserve it for negatives i would want to use to make platinum prints, if i ever get my act together on that.
 


Did you ever use Royal Pan? Do you understand the difference between low-flare and high-flare situations? TXP (ASA 320) is a studio film (low-flare environment). It has a higher highlight gradient than Royal Pan or Tri-X Pan. This means that clouds will be denser in the negative, often requiring some burning-in.
 
I've shot a lot of TMX and TMY over the years. I've started to gravitate to Ilford FP-4 in medium format and expect that's what I will order next time I buy 4x5. The little bit of 8x10 I still do I am very happy with the price and results from Ilford, if it was cheaper and packaged in 25 sheet boxes, I would still be shooting Tri-X 320. I am praying that Ilford and Kodak keep going and thrive.

Everyone needs to buy some black and white paper, even if you don't have any use for it. Seems like everyone scans film, OK. But all you need to contact proof negs is a piece on glass and a light bulb. Paper is going to be hard to come by if we don't support Ilford.
 
Unless I am mistaken, Tri-X Professional in 120 is no longer made. I haven't seen any for sale in years. If you know different please tell me and where I can buy it now. I once used that film.........Regards!
 
oldtimermetoo said:
Unless I am mistaken, Tri-X Professional in 120 is no longer made. I haven't seen any for sale in years. If you know different please tell me and where I can buy it now. I once used that film.........Regards!
Click to expand...

Kodak Tri-X Professional 320 is no longer made in 120. Kodak Tri-X 400 is still available in 120.
 

I've never used Royal Pan, but have shot a few hundred sheets of TXP. I tend to slightly overexpose and underdevelop, sort of the Barnbaum approach. I would not say it's a difficult film to use, though you may not like my results

5x7s using TXP:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=txp&user_id=10798256@N07&view_all=1

FP4+, HP5+, TMX, TMY2 are all *great* films, most of the problems being, as they say,
"behind the camera"
 
Last edited:
Another for Delta 100, and HP5 when I need a fast film which is usually for hand held work (5x4). I do use some Fomapan 100 and 200.

In the past I shot APX100 and some Tmax 100 until APX100 disappeared then only Tmax100 until I could no longer source it (while living abroad) so switched to Ilford films which are easier to find around the world, as are Foma.

I have few boxes of FP4 a film I've not used for over 30 years so will be fun to come back full circle : D

Ian
 
I believe larger samples give you more info. If you search B&H for 4x5 film then sort by best sellers you get:
Ilford HP5+, Kodak Portra 160, Portra 400, Ektar, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji Provia , Fuji Velvia 100, Ilford FP4+, Fuji 100 Acros, Kodak Tri-x 320, TMax 100, Arista EDU 100, TMY 400, Arista EDU 400, Rollei Infra red

I was surprised that FP4 was so far down the list and that color was still selling well.
However if you just look at B&W films then : Ilford HP5+/Delta100/FP4+, Fuji Acros, Kodak, Arista
 
dasBlute said:
I've never used Royal Pan, but have shot a few hundred sheets of TXP. I tend to slightly overexpose and underdevelop, sort of the Barnbaum approach. I would not say it's a difficult film to use, though you may not like my results
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I would do, too, if forced to use TXP. But I would use HP5+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register