Help me pick 120 B&W film

[Ken Ford]

I'm trying to work the cobwebs out of both my brain and my Hasselblad.

B&W film selection has changed tremendously since I last did much MF B&W work (almost all of my recent stuff has been color - and by recent, I mean since Reagan was in office). I used to shoot a lot of Plus-X and Tri-X, and later Ilford stuff.

I need to select two different non-chromogenic 120 B&W films for a long-term project I'd like to kick off. I need one medium speed (100-125) and one high speed (320-400) emulsion. I have no experience or knowledge of the newer films like T-Max. I would also like to stick with a single developer. I plan on wet printing, but may succumb to scanning if I get disgusted with running a wet darkroom after all these years. (I hope my D2 didn't hear that!) I tend to like high acutance in 35, but would probably be better served with something more mainstream in 6x6.

Any suggestions? I'm tempted to start with Plus-X and Tri-X, but am also considering the T-Max films and Ilford. What are the practical differences between Tri-X and Tri-X Professional?

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,
There are no bad films. It is just a matter of taste.
The T-max films tend to be sharper than trix, but are also less forgiving in exposure and development.
I use a lot of trix and fuji accros. But any choice you make will do the job.
I use xtol as my standard developer.
I'd say you do some tests before you pick the film for the project.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[Les Hall]

In the day, when I used to make a living doing this kind of thing, I used Agfapan almost exclusively. Is it still available? Processed in Rodinal it is awesome. Fuji Neopan is pretty good too - is that still available?

Of course Plus-X is a good film too. There was something, however, about that Agfapan/Rodinal combo that I just loved. Probably more to do with Rodinal than anything.

These days, with good cheap MF scanners, I am contemplating shooting a bunch of different colour films to see which ones convert to B&W the best in Photoshop RAW or whatever else is good for that. Kind of makes sense to me.....

Les

 

[mpt600]

Ilford Delta 100 and 400? I switch between these dev'd in DD-X.

 

[Solinar]

For 120, Plus X and Tri X in D76 will work just fine.

I'm more of a Rodinal man, myself.

Plus, I have a freezer full of Agfa APX 100 I need to work through to see if by chance I may have 10 rolls of APX 25 buried in there somewhere.

 

[Ken Ford]

How well do the 120 versions of Plus-X and Tri-X work in Rodinal?

 

[Solinar]

I can't speak for Plus-X, but Tri-X in Rodinal prints with better tonality and better accutance on my condenser enlarger than with D76 or HC110.

 

[mfogiel]

I'd say, that you should think over the darkroom/scanning choice first, because in my experience, the new films are sharper and scan much better than the old, but this comes at the expense of exposure latitude and tonailty.
I have tried a few B&W films recently, (I scan) and I have liked more the modern films, in particular Acros is amazing among the slow films, here's a shot in 35mm;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1485752110/in/set-72157602063137880/
- I do not have a MF example ready. Here's a shot with TMax 100
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1163898588/in/set-72157601175708450/
and here a couple with Delta 100, this one is a real killer for detail:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1459265881/in/set-72157602063137880/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1459260603/in/set-72157602063137880/
in the 400 ISO I have found te tonality of HP5+ very beautiful:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1458402619/in/set-72157602063137880/
but it does not cope that well with high acutance scenes like the Deltas, here's another one to illustrate the point:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1454617012/in/set-72157602063137880/
and the Tmax 400 in 6x6 can be a bit of both: good detail and not a bad tonality:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1065097998/in/set-72157601234693316/
And just for a comparison a shot with the Tri X 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1081339160/in/set-72157601234693316/.
All this has been developed in a pro lab with a machine using the T-Max developer in accelerated process at 24°C.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I like Acros from 25-200, Tri-X from 100-800...both souped in Xtol straight or 1:1

 

[rich815]

Hi,
There are no bad films. It is just a matter of taste.

Michael is perfectly correct. And the use and results from B&W can vary so much it's really up to your personal subjective tastes more than anything anyone could recommend here. My Flickr page below will show you the many B&W films and developers I've used over a lot of experimenting over the last few years. I've started to lean towards a few combinations that I like most but that's my own subjective opinion and it varies from subject matter to subject matter. Even then if I see a good deal on a B&W film, any film, I buy it and use it, though I will concentrate on one film and one developer for certain projects.

Since you are talking about Hasselblad here's a link to some Hassy shots of mine over the past 6 months or so. Maybe that will give you some ideas on film and developers used with that system (film and developer used are in most of the image titles):

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Hasselblad&w=38698047@N00

 

[rich815]

I like Acros from 25-200, Tri-X from 100-800...both souped in Xtol straight or 1:1

Just to more emphasize my point: Todd, I'm sure, gets great results from those films and Xtol, as likely do many others. I love both of those films. But I cannot for the life of me get results I favor using Xtol. Go figure.

 

[wlewisiii]

If you will be scanning, I've had good luck with Fomapan/Arista.edu Ultra 100 @ 200 and 400 @ 640 in Diafine. Another wonderful combination for scanning has been Plus-X @ 400 in Diafine. And when you need the speed, Tri-X at 1600 (or Pro @ 1200) and dunked in Diafine is still one of the finest combinations around.

Plus the Arista stuff is only ~$2 a roll.

William

 

[Mackinaw]

As mentioned before, it's mostly a matter of personal taste. I've been using Ilford Delta 100 for the past few years (in Rodinal) and have been perfectly satisfied with the results. I'll probably try Plus-X again mainly because I haven't used it in years. The Rollei 100 film has also caught my eye which, I gather, is actually APX 100 (apparently Rollei bought one of the master rolls once Agfa went out of business).

As for the 320 and 400 Tr-X films, there's more on the Kodak website, but one is better with electronic flash while the other is a more general-purpose film. I've had good results with both developed in Xtol.

Of course my favorite 120 B&W film right now is APX 25. I recently found over 20 rolls stashed away in the corner in one of our little-used freezers. Talk about X-mas in October.

Jim B.

 

[lawrence]

FP4 and Tri-X in D-76 are classics. Why not start with them? Although Tri-X is so fine grained now you may not want to bother with the FP4. BTW, Kodak says "TRI-X Pan Professional Films have an ISO speed of 320/26°, and feature excellent tone gradation and brilliant highlights. They are especially well suited to low-flare interior lighting or flash illumination. They are also useful for portraiture with low-contrast backlighting outdoors." So while Tri-X is general purpose, Tri-X Professional is special purpose as it is designed to give better skin tones at the expense of shadow detail.

 

[Pherdinand]

i have found delta 400 of too low contrast somehow. Definitely prefer tri-x.
I don't know if there's still Tri-x pan 320 made, i think it is not available anymore. I haven't seen it in the shops for some time already. I'd say just go for tri-x and that's it.
FP4+is great in 120 format for the lower speed film. If you really need that lower speed or higher resolution.

 

[totifoto]

I use Delta 400 for my MF shooting and develope in Microphen. Fantastic film for MF but I cant use it for 35mm shooting cause I always seem to get it too grainy :bang:

The Delta is so good for pushing and you can also pull it down to 200 to get it very contrasty.

Samples:

@400

@800

@1600

@3200

 

[MikeL]

I haven't sampled everything, but I agree with mfogiel about HP5 for tonality and Delta 100 for detail.

Nice images Rich! I like the Mare Island ones.

 

[40oz]

Pan F and Tri-X 400 is what I shoot in 35mm, and process in D-76. You can shoot Tri-X anywhere from 200 to 1600 easily, and Pan F is great just at 50. You are only missing 100 ISO, and that's easily covered within a stop by either Pan F or pulled Tri-X. The Pan F really showcases medium format, while MF Tri-X is impressive in it's own right.

AFAIK, the difference between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320 is the 400 takes to pushing, while the 320 is what I consider a studio film - controlled conditions let it shine, but not so flexible with regard to exposure and developing. Caveat - that's based purely on what I read from Kodak and people who have used both.

Again, there's no bad film Use what you like. I like Tri-X and Pan F, but Plus-X, TMax 400, HP-5, and many others are great too. I just picked two I liked.

 

[MikeCassidy]

Ilford PanF and FP4 in D76 1-3. As for 400 I use Tri-X in both 35 and 120; I do switch back and forth between Plus X and FP4; I haven't made up my mind yet which I like better.

What I like about Rodinal is that its in a small bottle and easy to carry to the darkroom. What I like about D76 is that it is at the lab already.

For sharpness and no grain T-Max in all its variations developed in T-Max.

 

[Ken Ford]

Hmmm. I think I'll start simple with Plus-X and Tri-X.

Thanks for the insights, all!