Help me pick a B/W 400 speed film

[navilluspm]

Hello all

I am about to run out of 400 speed film. Being a novice to developing, I started out with private label brand called Ultrafine 400 in D-76 1+1. I had decent results, but do not like how the film pushes.

Recently I discovered the joys of PanF+ developed in Rodinal 1:50 after shooting it on my Contax. I love that film!!!

I would like to find a 400 speed film that gives me a look like PanF+. I also would like the versitility of being able to push the film if necessary. I scan my negatives, and usually do not print anything larger than an 8 1/2 by 12 (since that is as large as my Canon printer will go). Here is what I narrowed down my choices to:

1) Neopan 400 developed in Rodinal

2) Tri-x developed in D-76

3) AGFA APX 400 developed in Rodinal

4) Ultrafine 400 Film developed in D-76


Which would you recommed of the four? Or would you add another film (I would like to stick with d-76 or rodinal as my developers).

 

[wlewisiii]

I'd suggest you try Fomapan 400, also known as Arista.EDU Ultra. Excellent traditional film that pushes well and plays nice with D-76. I like all of the Foma films & the Arista versions from http://www.freestylephoto.biz/ is very inexpensive as well.

William

 

[RObert Budding]

I use HP5+ EI 200 developed 1:2 D-76 for 12 min @ 68 F. Very nice film that pushes and pulls nicely.

 

[kaiyen]

I would like to find a 400 speed film that gives me a look like PanF+. I also would like the versitility of being able to push the film if necessary.

1) Neopan 400 developed in Rodinal

I can't imagine Neopan anything looking like Pan F in any developer. Different grain structure. I would not think this would be the right path.

2) Tri-x developed in D-76

This is probably your best bet. Tri-X is ridiculously flexible, has relatively low grain but has some kick, too. Push it like crazy.

3) AGFA APX 400 developed in Rodinal

I would not go with a film that has been discontinued

And I haven't tried Ultrafine, but isn't that Agfa? Or am I thinking...silvertone?

 

[navilluspm]

I really don't know what Ultrafine is. They will not say. Some have guessed Foma, but Ultrafine is very tight lipped about it.
Also Ultrafine has a lot of APX 100 and 400 left, and ADOX announced that they will be making these films again after the supply of APX is gone.

I am interested in the price of Foma. Does that film push well?

How do all these film compare for pushing?

And is HP5+ anything like PanF+ in its look (eg. grain structure and tone)?

 

[navilluspm]

Decided to go the HP5+ route

Decided to go the HP5+ route

Thank you for all who helped. In the end I decided to go the HP5+ route. It was the least expensive premium film in a bulk roll and I like how well others said it pushed.

I was tempted by Neopan 400 with all the good things I read about it, but I also read that Fuji has stopped making it in bulk, and that annoyed me (I like buying and storing bulk rolls).

So far I am very happy with Ilford (PanF) and it seems like a company I want to support because of their efforts to keep quality Black and white film alive at a affordable price (Unlike Kodak and the premium they are starting to charge for Tri-X).

Thanks again.

 

[mfogiel]

If you scan, to begin with try Ilford XP2 at 200 ISO, if you want to develop silver film yourself, try Tmax 400 at 200 and cut the dev time by 25% - you have to be looking for low contrast negs to scan well.

 

[kaiyen]

Ah. I continue to find the concept of HP5 being a good film for pushing kind of humorous. If it gives you the look you want, then no debate from me. But HP5 simply does not handle underexposure well, and extended development does not bring up midtones without tremendous highlight blocking at even a moderate push.

allan

 

[navilluspm]

I never tried HP5+. I was hoping, being a Ilford product, it would sort of look like PanF+. Oh, well. I only bought one roll of it. I can always switch to Tri-X after I shoot it up, if I don't like it. I am sure it will be better than the stuff I am currently using (Ultrafine 400)


Regarding pushing, do you think Tri-X would be better? I heard that HP5+ in Microphen does pretty well (hence the reason I also bought a liters worth of Microphen). On their fact sheet Ilford claims: "HP5 Plus can produce high quality prints when exposed at meter settings up to EI 3200/36 and given extended development in ILFORD ILFOTEC DD-X, ILFOTEC HC, MICROPHEN or ILFOTEC RT RAPID developers."

The reason I mention Microphen is because they say on their website: "HP5 PLUS has been formulated to respond well to push processing and film speeds up to EI 3200/36 are achievable with ILFORD MICROPHEN developer maintaining good shadow detail and well separated mid-tones with sharp grain."​

On P.net, some people said that Hp5+ does very well in Microphen, but to keep it at 800, otherwise it gets very grainy.​

But, again, I have no experience yet. I guess experience will be my best teacher.​

Thank you, kaiyen, for at least offering me you good advice. After this roll, I might end up switching to Tri-x. (I have recently shot a regular roll of Tri-X, and was very content with the results. I guess price is what got me in the end).​

 

[rich815]

None of those, particularly in those developers, will look like PanF+ under the vast majority of circumstances. Neopan 400 I think has the greatest potential, developed in HC-110 or Xtol, to give the closest to PanF+, at least in creaminess and smoothness of tonality.

Then again it depends on what it is about the look of PanF+ you are looking for. Have an example to show?

BTW, Neopan 400 can still be had in bulk from the Megaperls website (http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/) I just loaded up my freezer with an order from him of a few bulk rolls each of Neopan 400, 100SS and 1600. Might be your last chance to stock up for a bulk load of the Neopan 400.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Buy 40 rolls of EITHER TriX, HP5 or Neopan 400. Pay attention while you learn to expose and develop it. You will become convinced that you chose the best emulsion regardless of your initial choice.

I choose Neopan 400 six years ago and learned to use it. I wouldn't change. But neither would I suggest a change for someone who understands how to use the Kodak or Ilford equivalent.

My initial decision to use Neopan 400 was simple. It was $.25 cheaper. Now it's $1.00 cheaper. I think I made a good decision.

FWIW, my favorite developers are: Rodinal for 120 Neopan 400 which I expose at e.i. 250 and HC110 for 35mm Neopan 400 which I shoot at e.i. 320. But that's because I know how they work. I've also done well with Rodinal and 35mm Neopan and HC110 with 120 Neopan.

Just don't make any conclusions about what developer to use with any film before you learn it. You'll box yourself in.

Lastly, Don't take as gospel anything you read here or any other place on the internet. Even from me. Remember what everyone says, but be open minded enough to draw your own conclusions.

 

[navilluspm]

Thank you Bob Michaels for your encouragement and advice. The bulk roll of Ilford was $1 cheaper than Neopan for me. But, again, I am looking to the future of when it will be more expensive becasue I can't use the bulk roll (sigh). If Fuji would not have stopped the bulk roll, I probably would have ordered the Neopan because of the reviews I read about the film.

Rich815, you mention that I should post some examples. Here are some pictures I took with PanF developed in Rodinal. These are the best eaxamples of tonality I like to see. Please do not judge them an their (lack of) artisitic merit.

This kind of tonality is what I would like to mimic in a 400 speed film.

 

[drewbarb]

Buy 40 rolls of EITHER TriX, HP5 or Neopan 400. Pay attention while you learn to expose and develop it. You will become convinced that you chose the best emulsion regardless of your initial choice.

I choose Neopan 400 six years ago and learned to use it. I wouldn't change. But neither would I suggest a change for someone who understands how to use the Kodak or Ilford equivalent.

My initial decision to use Neopan 400 was simple. It was $.25 cheaper. Now it's $1.00 cheaper. I think I made a good decision.

FWIW, my favorite developers are: Rodinal for 120 Neopan 400 which I expose at e.i. 250 and HC110 for 35mm Neopan 400 which I shoot at e.i. 320. But that's because I know how they work. I've also done well with Rodinal and 35mm Neopan and HC110 with 120 Neopan.

Just don't make any conclusions about what developer to use with any film before you learn it. You'll box yourself in.

Lastly, Don't take as gospel anything you read here or any other place on the internet. Even from me. Remember what everyone says, but be open minded enough to draw your own conclusions.

We are of the same mind. Beautifully stated, Bob.

 

[charjohncarter]

drewbarb, I second your motion, I just wish I had said it that well.

 

[d_ross]

I think everyone would like a 400 speed film that was like Pan F, but in reality thats like wanting a BMW for the price of a Lada, fine grain like Pan F in a 400 speed B&W film doesn't exist. perhaps you should look at a larger format camera and therefore smaller degrees of enlargement

 

[tedwhite]

I have been a photographer most of my long life, and in the living of it have tried every black and white film I've ever heard of.

In the ISO 400 group I always return to Kodak's Tri-X. If you develop it properly (and I'm sure there are a number of ways of doing it) and don't over-agitate it, the grain is quite pleasing. I develop it always in D76 diluted 1:1 with distilled water at 68F degrees with gentle agitation once per minute, and I don't push it, but rate it at ISO 400. I know some will say its "true" speed is less, but it works for me and if I want a faster b/w film I turn to Fuji Neopan ISO 1600.

Ted

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I haven't seen anyone mention Ilford's Delta 400 - isn't it available in the US?
I've been using it with good results in Rodinal and it appears to have a smoother grain structure than HP5+.

 

[tedwhite]

Leigh:

Thanks for mentioning a film that I have apparently overlooked, and yes, it is available in the US. At www.freestylephoto.biz, Delta Pro 400 is $3.09 for a 24 exposure roll, $4.29 for a 36; and $45.99 for a 100 foot roll. It's also available in 120 at $2.95 per.

It's virtually the same price through the sizes as Kodak's Tri-X Pan ($3.25 for a 24 exp. roll, etc.).

I'm going to order some.

Ted

 

[RObert Budding]

Ah. I continue to find the concept of HP5 being a good film for pushing kind of humorous. If it gives you the look you want, then no debate from me. But HP5 simply does not handle underexposure well, and extended development does not bring up midtones without tremendous highlight blocking at even a moderate push.

allan

Not sure what developer you're using. But I've been happy with the results of pushing HP5+ in 1:2 D-76. No issues with blocked highlights, and the mid-tones behave nicely.

 

[Ororaro]

I can't imagine Neopan anything looking like Pan F in any developer. Different grain structure. I would not think this would be the right path.



This is probably your best bet. Tri-X is ridiculously flexible, has relatively low grain but has some kick, too. Push it like crazy.



I would not go with a film that has been discontinued

And I haven't tried Ultrafine, but isn't that Agfa? Or am I thinking...silvertone?

Why wouldn't you go with a discontinued film? I can.t see a valid reason not to.
And Silvertone is indeed the APX line.