Author Topic: favorite bw iso 400 film? (Read 8824 times)

jojonas~ · « **on:** January 09, 2015, 05:01:28 PM »

What film and why?

I'm thinking about stocking up on 120 bw film to go with my rodinal.

But I'm not that used to iso 400 films so I need some guidance from everyone here.
So hit me with what you've got!

(Example shots are not mandatory but would be nice)

02Pilot · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2015, 05:18:41 PM »

I've used Tri-X, HP5+, and TMY. Of those, if I were stocking up, it would be with HP5+ - not because I necessarily prefer it over Tri-X, but because here in the States it's about half the price in bulk. TMY is interesting and nice, but doesn't really offer the look I like for most things. Tri-X and HP5+ are very similar (at least in Caffenol); HP5+ seems a little less contrasty, but the difference is negligible. The Ilford films also dry completely flat, which is very helpful when scanning.

I'll put together some examples and post them (they will all be Caffenol, not Rodinal - sorry, it's all I've got).

Ezzie · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2015, 05:31:55 PM »

Neopan 400 in Caffenol, or R09 1+50. Sorry to say it is no more. I have maybe 3 rolls left.

Kayos · « **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2015, 05:46:20 PM »

Retro 400s in Rodinol 1+25

Always found it a joy to use, develop and scan

No shots uploaded but I have 5 120 rolls en route to give my rolleicord an outing soon

Indofunk · « **Reply #4 on:** January 09, 2015, 05:49:26 PM »

I've tried HP5, Tri-X, TMax, Neopan, XP2, and Lomography's mystery "Lady Grey". Unfortunately, most of my experimentation happened in the days before I started home developing, so I don't know what chemistry these shots were souped in. I finally settled on Tri-X because of how well it pushes and its grain, as well as its cost. If cost were no object, I'd probably keep a decent stock of XP2 as well, since it likes Rodinal so much.

HP5, Rodinal 1+50 18min

Tri-X, Rodinal 1:100 1hr

XP2, Rodinal 1:100 1.5hrs

Neopan, lab-developed

Lady Grey, lab-developed

TMax 100 (not 400), Rodinal 1+50 12min

Indofunk · « **Reply #5 on:** January 09, 2015, 05:52:14 PM »

Actually, come to think of it, if I had to develop only in Rodinal, I think I might go with TMax. The smooth grain gets balanced out by Rodinal's grain-emphasizing factor

KevinAllan · « **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:05:54 PM »

I haven't settled on a favourite yet, but Rollei IR400 is worth considering as you have the option to use it with an R72 filter for infra-red, or with no filter (or yellow, green, or red, etc) for "normal" images.

You didn't specify film size - these examples are 120, and developed in Rodinal. Grain is minimal in medium format but noticeable in 35mm

First is with an orange filter and the second is with an R72 filter:

Ezzie · « **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:10:42 PM »

Or, if you plan on not pushing beyond 400, you could use Acros pushed to 400 in R09 1:100 as here. Still very fine grained and nice tonal range

Dyrafjeld #2 by Eirik0304, on Flickr

Indofunk · « **Reply #8 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:11:46 PM »

Pushing Acros to 400 is an interesting concept, I've always loved Acros...

jojonas~ · « **Reply #9 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:26:04 PM »

okay, Acros pushed looks surprisingly nice! I'll keep that in mind but with considering a iso 400 film I want to have a door open to pushing further.

Tri-X does have a nice look to it as seems to push well. though considering how curly they seem I find myself in doubt.

Rollei 400s is actually something I've shot a bit of in 35mm and quite enjoyed. I've read some bad reviews on it but never quite understood why. might be a contender

T-Max 400 hm... seing as how the fabolous t-grain film acros behaves in rodinal pushed I might look at t-max again. never liked how long it takes to fix though. and this one has kodak-curl built in too, I presume?

Anyone tried Rollei RPX 400?

Indofunk · « **Reply #10 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:27:48 PM »

As for the curl, just press the film overnight between 2 heavy books (I up the ante by placing a jar full of change on top) and you'll be fine.

ManuelL · « **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:49:18 PM »

I mostly use Tmax. I think for landscape it is a great film - for portraits not so much.
In the beginning I used Rodinal with it, but at the moment I prefer XTol for developing.

KevinAllan · « **Reply #12 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:52:13 PM »

I haven't experienced curling with any Kodak film, BW or colour

mcduff · « **Reply #13 on:** January 09, 2015, 06:52:43 PM »

I really don't have a favorite, tho I have shot a fair bit of HP5+, mainly because it is cheap.

I know there are lots of folks that LOVE Tri-X (I know tintin does), and I know there are lots of folks that LOVE Fp4+ (such as myself). But I dont know of anyone who loves HP5+, even here (so far at least), most of the folks use it because they say it is cheap, not because they say it is the best. Am I misinterpreting things? I would like to hear from the HP5+ 'lovers'.

And Satish, that tri-x in rodinal looks awesome.

02Pilot · « **Reply #14 on:** January 09, 2015, 07:32:02 PM »

Quote from: mcduff on January 09, 2015, 06:52:43 PM

I really don't have a favorite, tho I have shot a fair bit of HP5+, mainly because it is cheap.

I know there are lots of folks that LOVE Tri-X (I know tintin does), and I know there are lots of folks that LOVE Fp4+ (such as myself). But I dont know of anyone who loves HP5+, even here (so far at least), most of the folks use it because they say it is cheap, not because they say it is the best. Am I misinterpreting things? I would like to hear from the HP5+ 'lovers'.

I'd say I've come to feel that HP5+ and Tri-X are pretty interchangeable in my use, so I guess you could extend that to a love of HP5+, since I came to love Tri-X some time ago. I haven't shot enough FP4+ to develop a strong feeling about it, but I'm beginning to feel the stirrings of what could be a very significant attraction to Pan F+ in 120. I have an on-and-off dalliance with Acros as well, mostly in pinhole cameras.

Indofunk · « **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2015, 07:41:06 PM »

Quote from: 02Pilot on January 09, 2015, 07:32:02 PM

I'd say I've come to feel that HP5+ and Tri-X are pretty interchangeable in my use

Really? I'd say that Tri-X and HP5 are pretty much on the opposite ends of the B&W spectrum for me. HP5 is very midtoney, while Tri-X is contrasty. HP5's grain is very even, and Tri-X seems more random. Could this all be due to my Rodinal/HC110 developer vs your Caffenol?

02Pilot · « **Reply #16 on:** January 09, 2015, 07:45:17 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on January 09, 2015, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: 02Pilot on January 09, 2015, 07:32:02 PM
I'd say I've come to feel that HP5+ and Tri-X are pretty interchangeable in my use

Really? I'd say that Tri-X and HP5 are pretty much on the opposite ends of the B&W spectrum for me. HP5 is very midtoney, while Tri-X is contrasty. HP5's grain is very even, and Tri-X seems more random. Could this all be due to my Rodinal/HC110 developer vs your Caffenol?

Could be development, could be usage. I do see a little more midtone separation in HP5+ (broadly speaking), but the difference isn't huge to my eyes. Hadn't really thought much about minute differences in grain, but I'm going to look at some negatives to see if I can identify it.

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2015, 10:21:57 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on January 09, 2015, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: 02Pilot on January 09, 2015, 07:32:02 PM
I'd say I've come to feel that HP5+ and Tri-X are pretty interchangeable in my use

Really? I'd say that Tri-X and HP5 are pretty much on the opposite ends of the B&W spectrum for me. HP5 is very midtoney, while Tri-X is contrasty. HP5's grain is very even, and Tri-X seems more random. Could this all be due to my Rodinal/HC110 developer vs your Caffenol?

It depends on how you process both.
If you want that grimy punk look, it's got to be HP5+ in PQ Universal.
If processed in "normal" developer, it has a very smooth contrast curve.

Tri-X is just a classic with a classic look. Fantastic in HC-110.

These days, I use Fomapan 400 simply because it's super cheap. It's a bit on the contrasty side and definitely has a unique look to it. You either love it or hate it.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2015, 10:58:54 PM »

I like Tri-X pushed 1.5 stops in Xtol. It gives me what I want -- lots of contrast yet shadow detail. Here are some examples (NSFW)

http://www.hookstrapped.com/album/city-at-night?p=1&s=UA-23787610-1

http://www.hookstrapped.com/album/mueca?p=1&s=UA-23787610-1

http://www.hookstrapped.com/album/ven-amor?p=1&s=UA-23787610-1 (#7 is Neopan 1600)

SLVR · « **Reply #19 on:** January 09, 2015, 11:27:59 PM »

Appreciate the work warning. I've clicked links many times at work to discover nsfw content with no disclaimer.

Late Developer · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2015, 11:41:14 AM »

What a question.....depends on what look I think I want

1. Easily processable, low grain and nice tones : XP2 Super
2. Grainy : Tri-X, HP5+
3. Not grainy : Delta 100, Delta 400

If I could only have one, it would probably have to be Delta 400 - but I might change my mind next week.....

jojonas~ · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2015, 01:23:42 PM »

argh... I should probably just buy and shoot one of each to see what I like!

I had not given much thought to Ilfords Delta films. is their 400 versatile? (in rodinal)

Late Developer · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2015, 04:24:10 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on January 10, 2015, 01:23:42 PM

argh... I should probably just buy and shoot one of each to see what I like!

I had not given much thought to Ilfords Delta films. is their 400 versatile? (in rodinal)

I don't process my own. You'll need to check the Big Dev Chart.

If you want to see some of my photos using Delta 400, check out my photo essay on Malta. Very fine grained and I really like the tones. Is it better or worse than HP5+ or TMax 400?? No, it's just different.

tkmedia · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2015, 07:40:01 PM »

a number of days ago, while looking at your stash photo I was thinking you needed more 400...

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2015, 09:21:46 PM »

What I like a lot about 400 film is how versatile it can be when in the right hands. I regularly pull mine to EI 240 in the daytime. It's a bit grainier than a 100 film would be but I'm happy with the results anyways.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2015, 05:18:04 PM »

Quote from: tkmedia on January 10, 2015, 07:40:01 PM

a number of days ago, while looking at your stash photo I was thinking you needed more 400...

ain't it the truth!

I'm thinking about sticking to low iso for the odd finds of old rolls here and there while buying fresh for 400 (and over) I don't like how they age..

Indofunk · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2015, 05:20:04 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on January 11, 2015, 05:18:04 PM

Quote from: tkmedia on January 10, 2015, 07:40:01 PM
a number of days ago, while looking at your stash photo I was thinking you needed more 400...
ain't it the truth!

I'm thinking about sticking to low iso for the odd finds of old rolls here and there while buying fresh for 400 (and over) I don't like how they age..

This is probably a good policy

jharr · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2015, 06:06:30 PM »

Wait... Film comes in iso higher than 25?

Nigel · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2015, 07:10:54 PM »

For me it has to be Tri-X.

I keep trying other films and I really don't understand why, I love the look of Tri-X. I'm currently giving Orwo N74+ a run, but somewhere in the back of my mind I know that'll be back to Tri-X.

Hungry Mike · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2015, 03:06:39 PM »

Generally I've preferred Tri-X but I had some 35mm HP5+ that I needed to use up (I don't like how it ages either). I had read somewhere (perhaps APUG) that some people add a small amount of Rodinal (1:100) halfway through their Xtol development. I tried it and while the results didn't blow me away they were definitely more to my liking than the standard Xtol development I use. It gave it more of the character that I like in Tri-X. I think I'd definitely like to try Francois' suggestion of HP5+ in PQ Universal, especially for a shabby or dog-eared subject.