400asa film to match APX 100?

[Fotohuis]

Tri-X 400 is a very flexible film. But in the mean time expensive here too.

Rollei Retro 400S has a good price but is not an iso 400 film. Best results I have with D74 1+15 and this film is iso 200-250.

Here an example printed on Fomabrom Variant 111 fiber paper. The film is very sharp, fine grain and indeed suitable for IR too.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Why, oh why, do people insist on posting examples of their shots here to somehow show something like tonality, detail, etc?
You won't be able to learn anything you need to know from a tiny little JPEG...and self-promotion isn't the point when someone asks for advice.

Also, cost is always important but if you want a very specific look, then the final print doesn't care about how much the roll of film cost. You either get it, or you don't.

/rant

That said, TMY-II may be your best bet but I'd be curious to try Ilford's Delta 400, based on what a few friends have mentioned. Both are more exacting than Tri-X, though.

 

[Fotohuis]

TMY-II may be your best bet but I'd be curious to try Ilford's Delta 400

Both are modern technology films and in look nothing to compare with the asked iso 400 cubical crystal type films.
Tri-X, Retro 400S, Fomapan 400, Kentmere 400 are the same crystal type films. APX 100/Retro 100 in iso 100 too which was the question.

 

[k__43]

I'd also suggest Tmax400 .. although the grain is different, for me it has a similar smoothness in the tones. I prefer Neopan400 tho, which is an entirely different beast.
APX100 & Neopan400 are my favorite films

 

[timor]

Isn't it a matter of developing ? Looks like people have a good "creamy" experience with many different films.

 

[Bluedog2212]

400 spd film vs 100`

400 spd film vs 100`

you should try Rollei IR film shot without a filter. It is superpanchromatic. I develop it in XTOL stock and get really good results at iso 400.

 

[zauhar]

Why, oh why, do people insist on posting examples of their shots here to somehow show something like tonality, detail, etc?
You won't be able to learn anything you need to know from a tiny little JPEG...and self-promotion isn't the point when someone asks for advice.

Also, cost is always important but if you want a very specific look, then the final print doesn't care about how much the roll of film cost. You either get it, or you don't.

/rant

That said, TMY-II may be your best bet but I'd be curious to try Ilford's Delta 400, based on what a few friends have mentioned. Both are more exacting than Tri-X, though.

Colin, I have tried combinations of film/developer specifically because of examples posted (e.g. johncarter and his "semistand" approach with TMax and HC110). I appreciate seeing these very much more than verbal descriptions about "shadow detail" and grain.

JPEGs aren't great, but what should they do, send a darkroom print?

Randy