thomasw_
Well-known
So what is your favourite 400 speed film?
maddoc
... likes film again.
It was Tmax 400 (with Tmax developer) but now it became Tri-X (developed in D76 1:1). I like the grain, tonality and simplicity of that combination. 
pesphoto
Veteran
TriX and I develop in Sprint
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Agfa APX 400. Must admit, though, that it's in the list as Arista II.
BTW, I soup it in D-76!
BTW, I soup it in D-76!
chrish
Chris H
i vote FP4 plus
literiter
Well-known
These days its Ilford XP2 or Kodak's BW400CN. This may make me appear like someone who buys their wine in a box but I find the stuff very forgiving and more than adequate for my use at this time.
Some of my cameras are quite old, the shutters are a little off sometimes, so the extra lattitude works in my favor.
Some of my cameras are quite old, the shutters are a little off sometimes, so the extra lattitude works in my favor.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I use Kodak TriX 400, but shoot it at 250 and develop in HC-110h for 11.5 minutes-68 degrees, 30 seconds agitation at first and then 3 inversions each remaining minute. I am hopeful that the new Tmax400 will be worth more than the muddiness of the past, because I would like to not have grain on some images.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1:50 or HC-110 Dil H always works for me. That's both 120 & 35mm.
Years ago I concluded that I could make any of the films work by shooting enough of one kind. I chose Neopan 400 amongst the selection based on price.
Neopan 400 is now up to US$2.99 but HP5 is $3.49 and Tri-X is now 3.99 (all B&H) so that helps.
Oh, actually I shooting HP5 in 35mm right now since when I bought film, B&H was out of Neopan. So I bought a few bricks of HP5 so I wouldn't have to worry about running out. I did the same thing a few years ago. I still can't tell any difference between the two. Except 50 cents.
Years ago I concluded that I could make any of the films work by shooting enough of one kind. I chose Neopan 400 amongst the selection based on price.
Neopan 400 is now up to US$2.99 but HP5 is $3.49 and Tri-X is now 3.99 (all B&H) so that helps.
Oh, actually I shooting HP5 in 35mm right now since when I bought film, B&H was out of Neopan. So I bought a few bricks of HP5 so I wouldn't have to worry about running out. I did the same thing a few years ago. I still can't tell any difference between the two. Except 50 cents.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I've always shot Kodak and Ilford b&w films.
I've noticed that Fuji Neopan seems to have a following. Can someone tell me what you like about it, other than 50 cents cheaper than HP5 and a buck cheaper than Tri-X?
I've noticed that Fuji Neopan seems to have a following. Can someone tell me what you like about it, other than 50 cents cheaper than HP5 and a buck cheaper than Tri-X?
Morca007
Matt
Performance = HP5
Price/performance = Arista.edu ultra
Price/performance = Arista.edu ultra
Photoshadow
Newbie
tri-x for me. i'd also like to learn more about the special qualities of fuji neopan. i guess i'll have to try it out!
Bob Michaels
nobody special
crawdiddy said:
Neopan 400 works the same, can give the same results. I suspect you might have to tweak it slight differently than Tri-X. It's not better in any way. It just happens to cost less.
But hey, if Kodak or Ilford called me and said they were so impressed with my photos that they wanted me to shoot their film and were sending me a free supply of Tri-X or HP5, I'd switch in a heartbeat and learn how to tweak something else.
Nokton48
Veteran
I'm happy with Fuji Presto (Neopan 400) in 35mm and 120, processed in Agfa Rodinal 1:50
On the other hand, I've been thinking about getting 100' of Tri-X, although it's rather expensive, for nostaglic reasons.
On the other hand, I've been thinking about getting 100' of Tri-X, although it's rather expensive, for nostaglic reasons.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
I'm happy with Tri-x, more then happy with Tri-x, back when I was first started I really liked the results of APX400 but now It's just tri-x. I don't want to be bouncing around between films at this point, instead I want to know exactly what I'm getting with what I'm using.
T
tedwhite
Guest
Tri-X all the way. I've been doing it so long I am reluctant to learn another, and it's always given me what I want.
Although I do use Neopan 1600 when ISO 400 doesn't cut it.
Although I do use Neopan 1600 when ISO 400 doesn't cut it.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Neopan 400 is my favorite right now...although I have shot tons of Tri-x...
I love the deep blacks and clean whites...the Nikon F5 loves it too...
I love the deep blacks and clean whites...the Nikon F5 loves it too...
R
rami
Guest
trix + xtol 1+2
sometimes R3 + xtol 1+2
sometimes R3 + xtol 1+2
maddoc
... likes film again.
rami said:
That's my next (alternative) approach for Tri-X ! For low light I am just giving Neopan 1600 a try again and want to soup that one in XTOL, too.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
O yes, Tri-X in rodinal 1:50 has given me my favorite results.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I'm using Neopan 400 right now, for many of the same reasons as Bob M. I used Tri-X for years, but the Neopan is cheaper now, has nice emulsion that can do what I want, and yeilds a thin clear base in less fixing time than current Kodak films. HP5 would be an also-ran for me. I'd like to try other films you folks like, too.