Favourite 400 speed B+W film?

Favourite 400 speed B+W film?

  • Kodak TriX 400

    Votes: 858 41.1%

  • Kodak TMAX 400

    Votes: 238 11.4%

  • Ilford Delta 400

    Votes: 138 6.6%

  • Ilford HP5 Plus 400

    Votes: 636 30.4%

  • Efke KB400

    Votes: 12 0.6%

  • Fomapan 400

    Votes: 38 1.8%

  • Fuji Neopan 400

    Votes: 328 15.7%

  • Rollei R3 400

    Votes: 15 0.7%

  • Forte Fortepan 400

    Votes: 2 0.1%

  • Arista EDU Ultra 400

    Votes: 22 1.1%

  • Arista II 400

    Votes: 9 0.4%

  • Another unlisted 400

    Votes: 112 5.4%
  • Total voters
    2,090
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
HP5 & TriX because of the flexibility as stated above plus it covers A LOT of my exposure errors! :)
 
Tri-X was my fav for years but have since switched to Ilford HP5 and Fuji Neopan 400.
 
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)
 
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
 
amateriat said:
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
Click to expand...

Ditto, but in reverse order.

/T
 
crawdiddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Bob Michaels said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get a year's supply as well in the beginning of the year.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2239445603_30862c0c84.jpg
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom