Favourite 400 speed B+W film?

[maddoc]

Interesting that Fuji's Neopan 400 is so popular amongst Tri-X and HP5. HP5 gives nice transparent negatives but is is just me or has HP5 some more tendency to curl compared to Tri-X for example ? I find HP5 difficult to scan for that reason.

 

[mike goldberg]

The fact that HP5+ is slightly ahead of Tri-X in the poll above, really surprised me. I like the look of HP5+ in HC-110, 1:19 dilution. Would you believe it?... HP5+ is $8- per 36 exp roll in Jerusalem.

To get Tri-X or a long roll of whatever they import here, I have to go to Tel Aviv, an hour away.

Re: Tmax 400, I'm looking forward to the new, improved version. In color, I shoot mostly digital. In B/W, film is still the best ;-)

 

[mike goldberg]

Hi Gabor,
If I can get Neopan 400 in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, I'd like to try it. Re: Scans... a local lab does mine. I give them an un-cut roll, and they cut it into 6 strips of 6 frames, after scanning to CD. Yes, there is some curl to ALL films.
Ciao, Mike

 

[Russ]

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?

Neopan has beautiful tonality, much finer grain than Tri-X and HP-5, and scans well. It also soups well in most developers. Since discovering it, years ago, the only other non C-41 B/W film that I've burned is Delta 400, which is another very good film. A couple of years ago, B/W Photography magazine did a subjective test on the seven traditional B/W films, and they too, considered Neopan 400 to be the best of the lot, with Delta 400, a close second.

Russ

 

[Russ]

I forgot to mention, that for whatever reason, Neopan 400 negs, print up quite well on color paper in the one-hour photo machines. The Neoapn 1600 (very nice film) prints up poorly on one-hour color machines...

Russ

 

[Ororaro]

Interesting that Fuji's Neopan 400 is so popular amongst Tri-X and HP5. HP5 gives nice transparent negatives but is is just me or has HP5 some more tendency to curl compared to Tri-X for example ? I find HP5 difficult to scan for that reason.

Just leave a book over the negative sleeve overnight and you should have nice and flat negatives for scanning the next day.

 

[maddoc]

Just leave a book over the negative sleeve overnight and you should have nice and flat negatives for scanning the next day.

Ned, thanks for the tip ! I tried this once but the film started curling again after a while. According to some info I found over there at photo.net, film curls more when the air is very dry. In summer I don't have any problem (flat negatives, high humidity) in winter they curl like hell (down to 10 % of humidity). :bang:

cheers,

maddoc

Mike: I sent PM to you.

 

[mike goldberg]

Of course, in Jerusalem it's dry, dry 🙄 Once the scan to CD is done at my local lab and the negs are cut to 6 x 6's, it no longer really matters. I no longer have a wet lab, and everyone prints from digital media these days.

 

[feenej]

Not to sound like a broken record, but Neopan, TriX and HP5, in that order. I have not had good luck with Rodinal or Diafine with the 35mm version of HP5, so I am looking for a better develper for the 100 feet of it that I have on hand right now. I wish Neopan was still available in bulk.

 

[Madrigal]

So far- TMax 400 @ 400, Xtol 1:1

 

[John Bragg]

Hi All. I voted for Neopan 400 and I have no hesitation in recommending this lovely film to anyone. I was torn between this and Tri-X as my favorite but the Fuji won by the narrowest of margins. Better skin tones in my opinion.

 

[fidget]

I like HP5+ (ID11 1:1) in my MF work, but sometimes find the grain too much in 35mm, so seem to be standardising on Delta 400 here.

 

[arseniii]

Tri-x.........

 

[planetjoe]

I'll always love 400TX; but these days I'm often rating it @1600, souped in HC110h. Works a treat.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[Madrigal]

I have 1 roll of Tri-X. Not sure which camera I loaded it into... I love surprises 😀

 

[like2fiddle]

I have not had good luck with Rodinal or Diafine with the 35mm version of HP5, so I am looking for a better develper for the 100 feet of it that I have on hand right now.

I have liked HP5 the most in D76 1:1. It is also ok in HC-110 1:100 and dil B. Didn't like it in Rodinal 1:50, but I have not played around with different dilutions of Rodinal as much as I have with the other two developers. Oh, and FWIW, got really good looking negatives of HP5 in Caffenol-C😛, haven't tried printing yet.

 

[Dogman]

HP5+ for several years now. I have about 100 rolls of 35mm in the freezer along with about half that much in 120 size. I process it in Rodinal diluted with sodium sulfite (as per Bill Pierce's articles from the early 1970s) or D76 1:1 or 1:3.

I also like Tri-X but HP5 looks just a smidgen better to me.

 

[Marc-A.]

In my short life as an amateur photographer, I've used a few different films: Neopan 100/400/1600, TriX, Agfa 100/400, HP5, Delta 100/400, Fomapan 400, Era 100 (Chinese film).
TriX was my favorite for a long time, but I found out that HP5 is a better, richer, more subtle film. So my favorite is HP5, but my opinion is of an amateur. For fine grain and superb contrast, Neopan 100 (Acros) is wonderful.

 

[Harry Lime]

Give me Tri-X or give me death.
I would eat the stuff if I could.

Develop it in DD-X, but plan on giving Xtol a try.

 

[GeneW]

Tri-X, Neopan 400, HP5+ : I use whichever one costs the least the day I'm buying. They're great films with slight personality differences but much in common.

Gene