ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?

[ChrisPlatt]

I'm happy to report that I will be using a 120 roll film camera again for the first time in more than a decade.
I like the look of Tri-X but have had my share of difficulty processing it in 35mm, i.e. pink and curled negatives.
Does 120 Tri-X share these traits? If so can you recommend some other film that would give me a similar look?

BTW the developers used will be ADOX Rodinal and Syrup 110, and I'd prefer to expose the film @ ISO 400.
I use AP plastic auto-load reels. Thin base 120 films would buckle and jam using my similar Paterson reels.

TIA,
Chris

 

[titrisol]

Ilford HP5 does a great job, I've gotten good results with it in Ilford MIcrophen and DDX and in Clayton F76 and Edwal FG7


Fompan400 used to be my favorite but haven't purchased it in a long time and I'm worried about manufacturing defects which seems to be common???

Rodinal and HP5+ is not a bad match if you know what to expect
in 35mm grain is very dominant (see below), but in 120 it might not be so bad.. Worth a shot

 

[Kai-san]

I recently processed a roll of Ilford HP5 120 for a friend, it has a strong curl. I put it under a stack of books for one week and still it was not easy to scan.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I have used HP5+ in 35mm.
I wasn't pleased with my negatives, which were a bit muddy.

I liked the look of old HP5 (pre-1989, no "Plus") better than Tri-X...

Chris

 

[38Deardorff]

Either modern Tri-X or TMax 400 (smoother) are great in 120. No curl issues

 

[EarlJam]

I've had good luck with Fomapan 400 and TMAX 400, albeit with processing by my local lab. I've found that Tri-X works really well with the Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I like the look of Tri-X but have had my share of difficulty processing it in 35mm, i.e. pink and curled negatives.

I'm a bit confused, been processing 35mm Tri-X since 1976 and have never had those issues. Anytime I see a pink tint to B&W negatives, it tells me my fixer is expired and I refix the negs with fresh fixer. And never had an issue with Tri-X curling, not nearly like the old Agfa B&W films would curl. Maybe look at your developing process. You shouldn't be getting curled and pink negs from Tri-X.

Best,
-Tim

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I've found that Tri-X works really well with the Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar.

That was my friend Bob Hickey's secret formula.

Chris

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Either modern Tri-X or TMax 400 (smoother) are great in 120. No curl issues

That's encouraging.

My friend Bob Hickey (RIP) never used anything but Tri-X in his Rolleiflex.
He said finer-grained film negatives could not be focused using his grain focuser.

Chris

 

[trix4ever]

I used tri-x for decades until they changed the formula, and have had great luck with Delta 400. But I would never soup either in rodinal and I would never rate either at 400.
Rate them at 250, develop in d76 1:1 or preferably lc29 1:29, your 120 negs will sing.
Oh and I've never managed to make HP5 work for me.

Delta 400 @250 in lc29 1:29 Hassy SWC

 

[Freakscene]

If your Tri-X is pink and it is fixed properly (twice the clearing time in rapid/ammonium thiosulfate fixer with less than 6g/L dissolved silver) you can give it a little light (sleeved hanging inside a window is enough) and the colour disappears quickly.

I have never found that Tri-X curls.

Having worked in labs where you have to make every combination function at least acceptably, I can reliably report that you can get almost all film and developer combinations to work fine with enough adjustment of technique, and certainly all common films and developers can be made to work together acceptably. There are always some inherent limits (Rodinal, for example, tends to be grainy, lowers midtones, and does not give full speed) but mostly you can make things work. But, for example, you won’t get full shadow contrast with HC-110 or Rodinal in Tri-X exposed at 400.

 

[Rayt]

We all have our preferences and my go to film is Tmax 400 in DDX 1:7 or 1:9. I also liked Acros in Rodinal but since the original Acros was discontinued I only shot TMY. HC110 was my preferred developer until it was discontinued. When it was available again I had already moved on. Now I mostly shoot digital and not enough film to keep open bottles of chemicals around so I will likely go for Rodinal. I have around 20 rolls of exposed b/w film sitting around so need to get off my ass.

 

[Rob-F]

I have had no problem with Tri-X when developed in D-76 or DDX, then Kodak stop bath, then Kodak Rapid Fixer. I suspect the trouble you've been having could be your choice of developer and fixer, not Tri-X per se. The pink result sounds especially like a fixer problem. Are you using a stop bath?

 

[Darthfeeble]

My favorite was Kentmere 400, it's cheap (relatively) and scans well. I shot it as directed and the images could have used more contrast as the lab developed it, easily corrected in your favorite image processor if that's your thing. I know nothing about developing so I'm of no help there.

 

[Kai-san]

If your Tri-X is pink and it is fixed properly (twice the clearing time in fixer with less than 6g/L dissolved silver) you can give it a little light (sleeved hanging inside a window is enough) and the colour disappears quickly.

I have never found that Tri-X curls.

Having worked in labs where you have to make every combination function at least acceptably, I can reliably report that you can get almost all film and developer combinations to work fine with enough adjustment of technique, and certainly all common films and developers can be made to work together acceptably. There are always some inherent limits (Rodinal, for example, tends to be grainy, lowers midtones, and does not give full speed) but mostly you can make things work. But, for example, you won’t get full shadow contrast with HC-110 or Rodinal in Tri-X exposed at 400.

Kodak T-Max does also have a pink tint, but a pre-wash will fix that.

 

[sebastel]

i like delta 400 in perceptol, rated ISO 200 .. 250

enjoy shooting 120! (i should reactivate my Rolleiflex, too)

 

[wlewisiii]

XP2+ in my Rolleiflex and I have my lab dunk and scan.

Life is too short to waste time scanning when they can do it for me.

 

[Doug A]

The AP 120 reels are definitely easier to load than the Paterson reels. The only 120 reels I've found that load even more easily are SS Nikor reels when used with the Nikor Semi-Automatic Loader.

A good way to compare films and developers is to do a search on Flickr with the keywords of film and developer. For example do a search with the keywords "Tri-X" and "Rodinal", or try "DELTA" and "ILFOTEC". My searches continue to confirm my preference of cubic grain films like Tri-X or Kentmere 400 over tabular grain films like T-Max 400 or Delta 400, and high acutance developers like Rodinal or Ilfosol 3 over solvent developers like HC-110 or D-76.

And I have to say, at some risk of provoking a reaction, that there seems to be an element of confirmation bias in some online criticism of Rodinal. My Tri-X negatives developed with Rodinal in the early 1960's do have more obvious grain than their lower speed contemporaries but my current Tri-X negatives developed with Adox Rodinal have much smoother grain and the highest acutance of all the ISO 400 film and developer combinations I have tried. I have no trouble getting good shadow detail with Tri-X at ISO 400 developed with Rodinal 1:50 but I scan my negatives and make inkjet prints. That may not be the case when making darkroom wet prints.

 

[Prest_400]

I have standardised in Ilford's offerings, because they are very available and well priced in Europe. Although have a bit of a mess:
Kentmere 400 for fun and general shooting, cheap, good.
HP5 because it is a classic and a "go to".
Delta 400 for its technical edge. To be fair, I still have to properly try Kodak TMY, but the tabular grain films are supposedly comparable in sharpness and graininess to the cubical 100 films.

Preferrably developed in XTOL 1+1; actually ADOX XT3, which is neat in 1L packages for small batches. No problems at all, I tend to print grade 3 in our diffuser enlarger, just developing for Ilford suggested times in all films and I have used HP5's times for K400.
No problems with contrast, fairly said K400 maybe is a bit flat but also I have mostly shot it under overcast. Usually exposing around 320, or box speed exposing for shadows. I shot some HP5 in my Super Ikonta with Tessar and using a yellow filter, and it particularly sings! Nice contrast and beautiful tonality.

During the summer there was a sale at a retailer so I bought a brick of HP5 and D400 which should be good for a couple years depending on travels.

And I have to say, at some risk of provoking a reaction, that there seems to be an element of confirmation bias in some online criticism of Rodinal. My Tri-X negatives developed with Rodinal in the early 1960's do have more obvious grain than their lower speed contemporaries but my current Tri-X negatives developed with Adox Rodinal have much smoother grain and the highest acutance of all the ISO 400 film and developer combinations I have tried. I have no trouble getting good shadow detail with Tri-X at ISO 400 developed with Rodinal 1:50 but I scan my negatives and make inkjet prints. That may not be the case when making darkroom wet prints.

A roll of 2019 expired TriX fell on my lap and I used to test a P645. While at it, in Rodinal, as it is a legendary combination. Sadly a bit low contrast and foggy due to the film's age, but nothing a couple extra grades compensates. Not to criticise the hybrid users, but I see on a local level a lot of "Pushing in rodinal", "expired film" etc, but if the film is suboptimal (age, underexposure even if slight) then it is not nice to print.
Together with that TriX, I had gotten some 2020-21 expired HP5 and Delta 400. I am no densitometer guy but there was some difference in printing which I attribute to fog. Scan and post process makes it easier to compensate for the fog.

Anyways, TriX in Rodinal... Did a ca. 8x10 print using a condensor enlarger and it has such acutance that my eyes bleed! Grain is visible but tight at that size.

Kodak T-Max does also have a pink tint, but a pre-wash will fix that.

Even Ilford's do. Particularly interesting, Kentmere 400 exhibits more residual pinks for me. It also has a darker base.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Thanks for the suggestions and sample images.

Chris