comparing iso 400 b&w films

[bukaj]

What are the main differences between the popular 35mm b&w films in iso 400? Is there a semi definitive source out there that compares them? I'm just getting into film and have shot two rolls of tri-x, two of kodak 400cn, and next are neopan 400 and hp5. Other than my own testing I'd like to see what the differences between these are so I have a good idea which one I want to use.

thanks,
-jakub

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jakub,

There are essentially three groups:

'Old techhnology' (cubic crystal) as exemplified by HP5 and Tri-X. Lots of latitude; big developer repertoire; less critical on time and temperature; large grain, moderate sharpness.

'New technology' (Kodak T-grain, Ilford epitaxial) as exemplified by Delta 400 and TMY. Less latitude (Ilford is better than Kodak); smaller developer repertoire; more critical on time and temperature (Ilford better than Kodak); finer grain (Kodak better than Ilford); higher sharpness (Ilford better than Kodak).

Chromogenic C41 process: Ilford XP-series, Kodak names keep changing. VERY flexible, reasonably sharp (Ilford better than Kodak), very fine grain (Kodak better than Ilford).

Tonality is a matter of preference. I prefer HP5+; my wife prefers Tri-X; and I've omitted Neopan as I don't personally care for it.

There is no such thing as a definitive source, or even a semi-definitive source. Someone who tells you that they have all the answers is normally someone who has not understood all the questions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tokengirl]

Dear Jakub,

There are essentially three groups:

'Old techhnology' (cubic crystal) as exemplified by HP5 and Tri-X. Lots of latitude; big developer repertoire; less critical on time and temperature; large grain, moderate sharpness.

'New technology' (Kodak T-grain, Ilford epitaxial) as exemplified by Delta 400 and TMY. Less latitude (Ilford is better than Kodak); smaller developer repertoire; more critical on time and temperature (Ilford better than Kodak); finer grain (Kodak better than Ilford); higher sharpness (Ilford better than Kodak).

Chromogenic C41 process: Ilford XP-series, Kodak names keep changing. VERY flexible, reasonably sharp (Ilford better than Kodak), very fine grain (Kodak better than Ilford).

Tonality is a matter of preference. I prefer HP5+; my wife prefers Tri-X; and I've omitted Neopan as I don't personally care for it.

There is no such thing as a definitive source, or even a semi-definitive source. Someone who tells you that they have all the answers is normally someone who has not understood all the questions.

Cheers,

R.

That pretty much sums it up right there.

Another to try, just for something different: Rollei Retro 400S, which has an extended red sensitivity.

The rest is subjective - try them all and pick your favorite.