ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?

[deadrangefinder76]

For budget I will do B&W ISO 100 or 400 Fomapan/Ultrapan.

During developing process I will add like 15 to 18ml-ish of Blazinal/Rodinal per roll 35mm.

Works okey for me, for the start.

If I have extra budget go Ilford HP5.

I always do bulking, cheaper, and do my own processing.

 

[kxl]

HP5+ developed in HC-110, Dilution B has been my go-to for a long time at ISO 400.

 

[Godfrey]

I have used HP5+ in 35mm.
I wasn't pleased with my negatives, which were a bit muddy.

I liked the look of old HP5 (pre-1989, no "Plus") better than Tri-X...

Chris

It's all in how you process it. I use HP5+ in both 35mm and 120 formats. Expose at ISO 320, process in HC-110 @ 1:49 dilution, 68-70°F for 9.5 min, with constant gentle agitation (Agfa Rondix 35 or Rondinax 60 (120) daylight loading tank). Perfect negatives.

Sapling Against The Hedge
Voigtländer Perkeo II, Ilford HP5+​

G

 

[Godfrey]

Tri-X is a bit coarse grained, HP5+ is smoother, TMY is smoother yet with higher acutance.
How you expose and process the film is the key.

 

[Ray Kilby]

Ilford C41 process b/w film. It rates at 400 but you can shift it even on the same roll, and it gives you slightly differing affects. More grain, less grain etc… and it’s a very flat even densitiy neg, so it scans beautifully and you can up the contrast in post. I love this film.

 

[wlewisiii]

Ilford C41 process b/w film. It rates at 400 but you can shift it even on the same roll, and it gives you slightly differing affects. More grain, less grain etc… and it’s a very flat even densitiy neg, so it scans beautifully and you can up the contrast in post. I love this film.

It's my standard in 35 & 120. The local lab can do the processing & scanning & on the rare occasion I want a print, they can do a better job than I ever could. 👍

 

[Godfrey]

Ilford C41 process b/w film. It rates at 400 but you can shift it even on the same roll, and it gives you slightly differing affects. More grain, less grain etc… and it’s a very flat even densitiy neg, so it scans beautifully and you can up the contrast in post. I love this film.

I forgot Ilford XP2 Super ... excellent film. C41 processing is the standard way to process it, but you can also process it in standard B&W chemistry at EI from 200 to 1200.

After Lunch with Don K. - Morro Bay 2019
Fuji GS645S Wide 60 Professional
Ilford XP2 Super exposed ISO 320
Agfa Rondinax 60, HC-110 1:49 @ 10 minutes​

It's a very low grain film, no matter which way you process it, with beautiful tonal transitions. The C41 process method is lower grain than standard development, but acutance is about the same for either.

G

(This photo allows me a moment to reminisce: That's my dear friend Don whom I met in the middle 1990s in pursuit of Minox subminiature lore. I was about 40 when we met, he was about 66. Don was a master printer and a brilliant photographer, and a great all around guy who had a storied past working in the military, in private industry doing programming in the era before the modern world, and then went on to be a professor and school administrator. I used to go visit and we'd go out shooting Minox submini, developing procedures for processing and scanning the itty-bitty format and making presentation quality prints from it. He passed away in 2022, after giving me a huge stack of his prints, the three books he custom-created by hand, and a bunch of his Minox gear to hand on to others interested in Minox subminiature photography. I miss him still; a wonderful guy and a soul mate whom I could click with and dive in on any topic that came up. A thinker and a brilliant photographer. Godspeed, Don!)

 

[skahde]

XP2 if you want to avoid any hustle, excellent stuff albeit with a little less edge-sharpness than you can tweek out of conventional b+w.
Delta 400 as a middle of the ground solution with excellent sharpness and fine grain with developers like D76/ID11and relatives
HP5+ if you want something flexible to play with but it also needs some taming to show its potential. Works very well with Rodinal and I developed tons of it in Ilfotec HC dilution 1+31 pushed to 3200 ISO (empty shadows were accepted but max highlight-separation was asked for and achieved).

 

[Alpsman]

Actually in the 120 format
I'm using Ilford HP5, either in Ilford Ilfosol 3 or in Rollei Supergrain. When I prewash for 2 x 1 Minute there will be no foam in the drum. It will dry flat.

In the past I've used Ilford Delta 100 & 400, Tri-X, expired AGFA 400 (works very well), Rollei Retro 80S and 400S.

The only one which rolls like a spiral spring and after 30 years still does was a Lucky.

I think the secret of flat drying is a not to dry environment and a not to high surrounding temperature so that the wet film have enough time to dry without stress.

In the future, after my stored HP5 is used, I'll change to Foma 400, just because of the price.
And if the film will have some spots or other negligible disturbances - ah - dont give a sh...
In the digital world they make an afford to try to fake em 🤣

 

[Sanug]

If the price of HP5 is an issue, I would strongly prefer Kentmere 400 and not Fomapan. Kentmere reaches the box speed and can be pushed very well, and it has no issues. Fomapan 400 has ISO 250 only and comes with defects quite often (in 120). The lowside of the Kentmere is the lacking antihalation layer.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Frankly nothing I've seen here looks to me like Tri-X, so I bought a five roll pack in 120; I'll try that first.
If I experience any of the problems I had in the past I will refer to the recommendations in this thread.

Chris

 

[SilverInversion]

I'm happy to report that I will be using a 120 roll film camera again for the first time in more than a decade.
I like the look of Tri-X but have had my share of difficulty processing it in 35mm, i.e. pink and curled negatives.
Does 120 Tri-X share these traits? If so can you recommend some other film that would give me a similar look?

BTW the developers used will be ADOX Rodinal and Syrup 110, and I'd prefer to expose the film @ ISO 400.
I use AP plastic auto-load reels. Thin base 120 films would buckle and jam using my similar Paterson reels.

TIA,
Chris

Any 400 iso film from Kodak or Ilford.
I'd say away from Adox, Foma (but I'd consider it if costs are of primary concern), and I'd avoid Rollei and all other minor vendors.

 

[Prest_400]

Any 400 iso film from Kodak or Ilford.
I'd say away from Adox, Foma (but I'd consider it if costs are of primary concern), and I'd avoid Rollei and all other minor vendors.

In Europe ADOX Chemistry is relatively well available, even to our local store level. Mostly for their D76 and specially XT3 which is a handy XTOL equivalent that comes in 1L. The films are more spontaneously available, and also depends on the format, and I largely agree as they are more niche.
Fun fact: ADOX had made an Agfa APX400 successor circa 2010. Yes, the Agfa APX and not a mere rebrand, but it did not go past a public testing stage due to competition.

If the price of HP5 is an issue, I would strongly prefer Kentmere 400 and not Fomapan. Kentmere reaches the box speed and can be pushed very well, and it has no issues. Fomapan 400 has ISO 250 only and comes with defects quite often (in 120). The lowside of the Kentmere is the lacking antihalation layer.

As of Foma 400 I would second this. It does have its own characteristics though, specially its sensitization towards red. It's more akin a Panchromatic type C in the old old Kodak sensitization type. Aka the old graph you can find around such as in: Spectral Sensitivity of B&W Film - A Deep Dive into Orthochromatic, Panchromatic and All the Rest

But then again, if you are US based, availability and pricing of Kodak (Tri-X, TMY) might be better than Ilford's.

 

[deadrangefinder76]

Ultrapan 100 , a rebadge Fomapan 100

 

[sebastel]

i always liked Foma films for their rendering, but not so much for their other properties. especially being prone to scratching - made me go for ilford pan.

concerning kentmere - i'm positively surprised to learn they're available in 120. and there's an ISO 200 film. good things can happen while you're not watching
🙂


cheers, sebastian

 

[Peter_S]

HP5+. Trouble is it looks best pushed to 800 😃

 

[p.giannakis]

I choose different films for different times of the year and different occasions.

- in summer or bright sunlight when contrast is high, I use HP5 and develop it in 1:50. I try to get as flat of a negative as possible. That gives me more leeway to manipulate the final scan.



- autumm/spring, when light is low on the horizon and there is a lot of backlight, I prefer the likes of Ilford Pan400 (when I can find it) or APX400. They give slightly higher contrast, are a bit grittier and have nice highlights



- in winter, when I want to stress the bad/stormy weather, I prefer Foma400.





APX400 is also good. I like APX400 / Pan400 for low light work too.



I can get the same feeling from HP5 but requires a bit more effort.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Great shots, Pan! But for people who print their pictures on gelatine paper it is better to use always the same film/developer and exposure index IMO.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Great shots, Pan! But for people who print their pictures on gelatine paper it is better to use always the same film/developer and exposure index IMO.

I plan to print my negatives in the wet darkroom, on normal contrast paper.
I know I can get the look I prefer using Tri-X developed in Rodinal or HC110.
However if I have problems I will try some of the films shown in this thread.

Chris

 

[das]

+1 for XP2. You can also print it on regular b&w paper. It's pretty good in 135, really shines in 120, easy to scan (can utilize digital ICE with scanners, unlike "regular" b&w film), and its results and tonal range are very predictable (especially if you use C41 processing). For me, although XP2 is a little $$$ if not rolling 100 foot rolls yourself, its price differential against mid-range b&w films is worth it. I greatly prefer it over HP5 for everyday shooting; and it is much better than any of the cheaper stuff (like Kentmere).