Favourite 400 speed B+W film?

[Seele]

I feel that one's personal favourite 400-speed film depends on one's requirements and expectations.

Tri-X, and especially HP5+ are biased towards shadows: they have low overall contrast but extra punch at the toe end of the curve, making them pushable for available-light work which they excel at. T-Max (both 400 and 100) are biased towards highlights so they retain much less shadow details but at the shoulder end have extra separation.

I would hate to use TMY foravailable light work for I would lose precious shadow details at the danger of blockking highlights. But these days many people use 400-speed films routinely so the inherent characteristics of Tri-X and HP5 might not be a deciding factor, and under such situations TMY might give a slight edge in absolute image quality if we disregard tonal rendition across the scale.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I am fan of both HP5 and Tri-x, both are my go-to films for 400 ISO black and white and I usually use HC110 or D76 as my regular developers. I know how both behave so use I love them both.

I love Agfa APX 400 processed in Diafine, I got really nice results out of Fuji Neopan 400 with HC110 but is not available in the suburbs and I enjoyed playing around with Classicpan/Forte 400 when it was still available.

I am getting a watson bulk loader and a 100' of Tri-x for Xmas and I am planning to have a lot fun trying it out with Diafine and Xtol in the new year.

 

[lawrence]

It's interesting to see just how popular HP5 & Tri-X are compared to the other films and I guess it's because they are so amazingly flexible. Personally I prefer HP5 at rated speed and Tri-X if I have to push.

 

[adietrich]

APX-400 in Atomal. Even scans nicely.
-a

 

[jky]

HP5 & TriX because of the flexibility as stated above plus it covers A LOT of my exposure errors! 🙂

 

[colyn]

Tri-X was my fav for years but have since switched to Ilford HP5 and Fuji Neopan 400.

 

[elude]

Depends on the subject; Tmax for portraits in Tmax dvper or HP5 in ID-11 for daily street photography (sometimes in Rodinal which I never do with Tri-X- too crispy)

 

[Tuolumne]

You didn't list any chromogenic B&W films. Don't you consider them "B&W"?

/T

 

[Quercus]

Rollei R3 is a lovely film to "play" with

 

[infrequent]

yes..wondering about chromogenic films as well. which are the ones you guys use?!

 

[amateriat]

I alternate between the two chromogenics generally available (here in the US, at least): Ilford XP-2 Super, and Kodak BW400 CN, in that order.


- Barrett

 

[Tuolumne]

I alternate between the two chromogenics generally available (here in the US, at least): Ilford XP-2 Super, and Kodak BW400 CN, in that order.


- Barrett

Ditto, but in reverse order.

/T

 

[eric]

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 processed (in a pro lab) thousands and thousands of tri-x and hp5+. I like the Fuji. I can't tell the difference in 35mm size (all processed in d76). Perhaps these 3 films exhibit different qualities with different developers but I would take a guess that they look the same if processed in the same developer.

The reason I like the Fuji is it is a lot cheaper.

I am currently printing 16x20's from Fuji Neopan 120 and 35mm right now. This is going to take a couple of months to do, I have about 30 images to make.

If people are just scanning these for web or making 4x6/5x7 or even 8x10 sizes, 35mm in 400 speed is just not worth the effort in making Brand X look better than Brand Y. It would if you were shooting 35mm 50ISo or 25iso versus 100ISO and 400iso

 

[sepiareverb]

Don't know how I missed this one Thomas-

HP5+, but that Fuji Neopan 400 is closing the gap for my work. Handles snow really beautifully, while still giving all the shadow detail one would want.

 

[Bob Michaels]

FYI, B&H now has $2.99 rolls of 35mm Neopan 400 back in stock. They were never out of stock of the $2.74 120 Neopan 400.

So I replenished my supply.

 

[eric]

FYI, B&H now has $2.99 rolls of 35mm Neopan 400 back in stock. They were never out of stock of the $2.74 120 Neopan 400.

So I replenished my supply.

I get a year's supply as well in the beginning of the year.

 

[Bob Michaels]

eric: I have found the thought "what am I going to do with all that film in the freezer" encourages me to shoot more. And the more I shoot, the better my photos become.

$200 worth of film and $25 worth of chemistry always has a more positive impact on the quality of my work than any new lens or camera body, regardless of their cost.

 

[Trius]

I voted for Tri-X, but the new TMY is maybe winning me over. What I don't know about it is:

* "Pushability"
* Spectral response with filters compared to TX

Those are minor things, especially as if I need pushability I pretty well know how Tri-X responds and can use that until I experiment with TMY-2.

 

[Jeroen]

I vote for Fuji Superia 400 and a BW conversion in Photoshop. A little extra grain and it's sooo good.

 

[lewis44]

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.

I have to 2nd this. I use BW400CN mostly and find it to have great latitude and process C-41, means I can get it done fast and cheap. I develop Only @ my local processer and scan the film with a Nikon LS-5000. A nice film for scanners.
I shoot it @ 320 instead of 400 and really like the results.