Most versatile B+W film

[f16sunshine]

What is your most versatile B+W film. There are many choices out there some more flexible than others. My personal favorite is Tmax400. I've learned how to adjust development times and agitation to successfully shoot it anywhere from 100iso to box speed and up to 1600. At 3200 images are high contrast in low light but usable especially for printing. For developer I use Tmax liquid 1:4 and rodinal 1:50 and 1:100 on occasion. I only shoot in 120 at this point although will get a box of 4x5 sheets with my next FS order.

What's your best and why? Very interested in others practices.

From Rff Gallery

Tmax 400 at iso 100

Tmax400 at box speed

Tmax400 at 1600

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Any 400 speed film is very versatile. Fast enough to work in relatively low light handheld, like overcast rainy days but not too fast to use on sunny days. I use Tri-X and used to use a lot of Tmax 400, which I still like a lot. Been using Tri-X because of Freestyle's $2 a roll house brand.

 

[healyzh]

For 35mm I've pretty much standardized on TMAX as my 400 speed B&W film. I've taken it as high as 1600, and like the results, but I like TMAX 3200 when I really need speed. I typically develop TMAX in Ilford DDX. For 100 ISO, I rather like Fuji Acros in Rodinal 1:100.

I'm trying to learn to like Tri-X, but so far I'm not really feeling it. Another film I'm trying to like in 35mm is Ilford FP4+, I love it in 4x5, but not so much in 35mm or 120, and I don't know why.

 

[aldobonnard]

Ilford HP5 seems to be the most versatile film, gives good results -2 / +3 stops (ISO100-ISO3200) in XTol, Ilford HC, Ilford DDX, Microphen. Works well with Rodinal 1+100 stand development too, I have tried it successfully.
In the UK, you can buy bulk rolls or film if bought by 10 or 20 rolls, prices can be as cheap as around £2.50 per roll.
Neopan 400 and Delta 400 are great too, but not as tolerant as HP5. They demand some thought and according your agitation / dilution technique with how much push/pull is asked for.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ilford HP5 seems to be the most versatile film, gives good results -2 / +3 stops (ISO100-ISO3200) in XTol, Ilford HC, Ilford DDX, Microphen. Works well with Rodinal 1+100 stand development too, I have tried it successfully.
In the UK, you can buy bulk rolls or film if bought by 10 or 20 rolls, prices can be as cheap as around £2.50 per roll.
Neopan 400 and Delta 400 are great too, but not as tolerant as HP5. They demand some thought and according your agitation / dilution technique with how much push/pull is asked for.

I'll second all that, and add that if you're not wedded to playing with funny developers, there's a lot to be said for XP2 as the most versatile option.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

Tri X or HP5+ are top of the line - in MF I would even say HP5+ looks better, but in 35mm Tri X wins, for its smaller grain, both great choices. I disagree with chromogenic film choice - you can only overexpose it, but never the other way round.

 

[sebastel]

XP2 works very well for me, so far i used it in a range of IE 100 .. 1600.
for conventional B&W, i currently learn to like ilford pan 400, but i am not so certain whether i like LC29.

concerning developers: what is funny for the one, may be the perfect choice for almost all occasions for the other. it's the same with films, you need to try it out to make your choice.

 

[aldobonnard]

Roger, Sebastel,
Following your advices, I think that I will give a go at XP2 🙂
Being able to ICE the negatives can save a lot of time !
What about the Neopan 400CN and TMax CN, anyone happy with it and its push/pull abilities?

 

[arunrajmohan]

Arista P400 (Tri-X) on manual exposure cams and TMAX400 on autoexposure cams. Just because I have had the most consistent and reliable results from them. I develop tri-x with HC110 and tmax with D76. Great films.

 

[semilog]

2TMY (TMAX400-2) is probably my single-choice film simply because its grain in XTOL 1+1 is so tight that it looks like an old-school 125 emulsion. Fantastic film.

If I couldn't get 2TMY, or wasn't willing to deal with its somewhat stringent process control requirements, I'd be using HP5+ for sure. I've shot a lot of Tri-X, usually on someone else's tab. It's fine stuff but I never loved it the way I love HP5 or 2TMY.

Neopan 400 is o.k., I have about 20 rolls in the freezer to shoot through and it has nice tonality. I shoot the Neopan almost exclusively with a Nikon 85mm lens for portraiture. I won't re-stock the Neopan when it's gone.

Going forward I plan to shoot just ACROS (at my current burn rate, I have 3-5 years' worth stockpiled), 2TMY, and HP5+.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, Sebastel,
Following your advices, I think that I will give a go at XP2 🙂
Being able to ICE the negatives can save a lot of time !
What about the Neopan 400CN and TMax CN, anyone happy with it and its push/pull abilities?

Neopan 400CN is made for Fuji by Ilford.

Kodak's films are finer graned but less sharp; about 1/3 stop slower last time I tested (a long time ago); and have (ir again, had) an odd curve shape with a tendency to too much contrast in the highlights.

Cheers,

R.

 

[maddoc]

From my experience, the most versatile BW film is Tri-X. Available in 135 and120, wide exposure latitude, and the final appearance can be tweaked by choice of the developer.

 

[PKR]

HP5 is my first choice. Tri-X will do in a pinch. Acros 100 is great if long exposures are necessary.

 

[Turtle]

I have used pretty well everything and feel TriX is the most versatile because it pushes so well, responds very nicely (and smoothly) to almost no agitation in some devs and is very tolerant to exposure and development erorrs as well as different types.

TMY-2 is looking interesting in use at normal speeds, but I am confident it wont push as well as TriX but have to find out for myself!

 

[Tim Gray]

Actually, in my experience, TMY-2 does push reasonably well.

 

[PKR]

Actually, in my experience, TMY-2 does push reasonably well.

It's interesting that the two Scientists on here both like TMY-2.. Hummm.

How critical is the processing? I've run E-6, so I can hold temp to 1/2 deg. Is it that much better than HP5? Semilog please chip in on this.

pkr

 

[Ljós]

Actually, in my experience, TMY-2 does push reasonably well.

I agree. My experience with TMY2 is not as extensive as with Tri-X or as with HP5, which used to be my main film for years.
I am at an interesting point right now because I have just got myself an enlarger and can finally do darkroom work at home. That means that I am going through a large amount of negatives that I had shot and developed "for the cupboard", but never seen printed.

Turns out I really, really like the HP5-in-HC110 look, mostly when there was good light and the negatives have a "lushness", for lack of a better term.

The TMY2 surprises me (also) at low light levels. Underexposed one or two stops, and developed in HC-110 with prolonged development, but not excessive push-development. The Negatives are obviously very thin, but still print nicely. Still very little grain.

So far I have had no disasters with the reportedly more finicky TMY2, and I am using a M2 and handheld meter, and often expose by the seat of the pants. So I am thankful to all - for example Roger Hicks in his review of TMY2 - who told about the improved handling of this revamped TMY. Maybe it will be trickier once summer comes, and harsher contrastier lighting. But so far I do not feel that TMY2 exceeds my exposing skills or my developing routine.

In the long run though.... I might return to HP5. We'll see. We have choices - all is well ;-)

 

[semilog]

It's interesting that the two Scientists on here both like TMY-2.. Hummm.

How critical is the processing? I've run E-6, so I can hold temp to 1/2 deg. Is it that much better than HP5? Semilog please chip in on this.

If you can deal with E-6 2TMY won't present a problem. It is easier to under- or overdevelop than non T-grain films, is all.

I strongly suspect that this lack of development latitude has been erroneously confused by many users with a lack of exposure latitude, or a lack of DR.

Tonality is to my taste but it might or might not be to yours. In my case I keep going back to negative scans that I really like and looking at the metadata and, lo and behold, it's 2TMY.

Unlike my attempts 15 years ago with the original TMY and D76 or HC110, the 2TMY and XTOL combination hasn't got mealy grain. The grain is hard edged and acute —*but amazingly fine for a 400 ISO film. I think of it as Plus-X for Seattle (where there is 2-4 stops less light than in SF, 6+ months a year)

Native speed in XTOL is (in my hands) true ISO 400, and Father Kodak's recommendation, that the film can be shot at 800 with no change in dev, is *almost* true. I'd say 640 with no change in dev, 800 *if* your metering is bang-on. But you better not be low by another -1/3 if you follow that recommendation...

I don't personally like 2TMY in rodinal, but that's on 135. 120 might be a different story. So far all of the 2TMY I've shot has been developed in XTOL. I've tested full strength, 1+1, 1+3. At ISO400 to 800 I've settled on 1+1.

I haven't pushed the film past 1600 but others here have and they've gotten good results. TMAX developer, or XTOL undiluted seem to be the consensus weapons of choice.

Roger and Frances published a very useful review of this film. This comment of theirs is particularly descriptive, and accurate:

The new film has a lot of “sparkle”—a very high MTF at relatively low frequencies—without excessive contrast.

 

[Tim Gray]

It's interesting that the two Scientists on here both like TMY-2.. Hummm.

How critical is the processing? I've run E-6, so I can hold temp to 1/2 deg. Is it that much better than HP5? Semilog please chip in on this.

Haha. I actually shoot a lot more Tri-X than TMY-2. But I can say that I think TMY-2 is better from a technical standpoint. I've been using more TMY and might switch over the bulk of my shooting to it, but I'm not there yet. If I do, TMZ will become my Tri-X replacement for when I want grit.

As far as processing, the first roll I ever did of it came out just fine. It sounds like you have your processing under way better control then me, so you should be fine. I have no great means of temperature control, so I usually develop at whatever temperature the room and chemicals are at, measuring the temperature and using the appropriate time from the XTOL pdf. I use XTOL 1:1. But so far, so good.

And when I say it came out fine, it wet printed at grade 2 and scanned just fine, just like the Tri-X shot I did at the same time. Both had about equal amounts of shadow, so I'd say their speeds are pretty dang close based on casual testing.

The funny thing about TMY/Tri-X for me is that their grain is pretty similar on a lot of shots when scanned on my scanner (Coolscan V at 4000dpi), with the TMY being a bit better. In a wet print though, the TMY is much finer grained.

 

[PKR]

Thank you both. I'll try a roll or two. I scan my stuff these days, and it sounds like it scans well.

pkr