Personal Opinions wanted......for BW films...

[anselwannab]

Why don't people seem to like Kodak TMAX films? I've shot it for years and liked it; don't consider myself a development tank jockey, so I haven't experimented. My 100ft roll of TMAX100 just ran out, so if I'm going to make a switch, now would be a good time.

Why is it that on p.net and here I don't see much about TMAX100?

Thanks,
Mark

 

[rich815]

I simply love Neopan Acros 100 (assuming that's what you mean my Neopan 100---I also like the radiacally different "old style" Neopan 100SS.), The Acros is my 100 speed go to film for 120 landscapes and night shots for it's sharpness and lack of reciprocity failure. Usually I like to develop it in D-76 or Rodinal.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=91419923&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=222903028&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=66082150&size=o

For portraits of people and such I find Delta 100 in D-76 1-1 simply amazing (but for landscapes as well I cannot deny it's brilliance).

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=143858750&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=145071644&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=258290357&size=o


And to further complicate matters Plus-X in Rodinal (or even FP-4+) give another alternative look to Acros and Delta 100 and I use those too, especially for 35mm shooting.

I know it's said to find one film and concentrate on it, and that was my intention when I starting more intense "testing" and such a few years ago but I get great results with all the above I mentioned so I simply keep a look out for bulk rolls or expired 120 on sale of any of the above and fill my freezer as I nail it down.

 

[varjag]

Why don't people seem to like Kodak TMAX films?

Why, TMax can be a nice film 🙂 P3200 is great for lowlight.

Actually I fail to remember film that was outright disastrous and unusable. And for sure about anything made today by 1st tier manufacturers is very good.

Tri-X is still the best though 🙂

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Fuji claims Acros uses an exclusive super fine "Sigma" grain technology.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDFs/fujifilm_neopan_acros_sales_leaflet.pdf

 

[rich815]

Actually I fail to remember film that was outright disastrous and unusable. And for sure about anything made today by 1st tier manufacturers is very good.

Tri-X is still the best though 🙂

I would mostly agree with that, especially the Tri-X part! The only film I had that was a outright disaster was Lucky 100 and 400. But I did use them in China when I lived there and only had access to a local powder version of D-76 which I needed to pick out bits of wood and paper particles from before I wculd mix a batch but the film was a disaster! HP5+ worked fine with that developer which made me think it was the film more than the developer.

 

[nightfly]

Best 100 speed film?

Fuji Neopan 400.

I used to shoot a combo of Tri-X, Neopan 400 and FP4 100 speed films because I like the look of the older emulsions but I found that FP4 really didn't offer much in the way of increased sharpness over Neopan 400 and complicated things by giving me another speed film to hassle with. Looking over my prints of the 400 stuff, I found my favorites were shot on Neopan rather than Tri-X, although I mostly shot Tri-X at the time. It just looked a little crisper and more modern to me so I've standardized on Neopan 400 with some 1600 thrown in occasionally and the odd roll of cross processed Kodak Elitechome for color.

I shot a bunch of FP4 down in Patagonia last year with a Mamiya 6 because I wanted a slower film for all the light coming off the glaciers but found that I was a bit disappointed in the sharpness even with that wonderful Mamiya glass and Rodinal whereas the stuff I shot in Buenos Aires on Neopan 400 looked great.

Could be me but I nixed the FP4 after that. I can always pull the Neopan if I need to. I have a roll of Neopan 100 to try (which is different I'm told than Acros) but haven't had the occasion yet.

 

[kaiyen]

Normally I would read all the way through a thread before posting, but I'm tired and being rebellious. Of course, it's perhaps sad that posting early in a thread is my version of being rebellious. anyway.

first off, only Kodak TMAX films are t-grain. The Delta films are e-grain, or epixial. Same idea, though.

The fact that Acros, which is the only one in question, usually, has "flat grain" implies a similar method, where the silver is in more uniform, flatter orientation. However, I don't think it's as controlled as with the t-grain or e-grain methods. The grain itself isn't quite as uniform. So it's kind of in between. You can see the difference between TMX, Delta 100, and Acros with the naked eye on a straight scan or print, in my opinion. But you can also see the difference between Acros and FP4+, too.

allan

Acros was advertised somewhere as a "flat grain" film.

My personal pick would be TX for 400 film.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Fuji Neopan 400 CN C41 because anywhere will develop and scan it in their minilab.

 

[kaiyen]

Why don't people seem to like Kodak TMAX films?

The "traditional" reason why people don't seem to like TMX that much (and I mean TMX, which is the 100 variant) is that the grain is so fine that it looks unsharp no matter how much acutance you throw at it. In reality, the resolution is all there, it's just really, really fine grain. People tend to associate grain with sharpness, and you get more grain as you use higher acutance developers with TMX, but the grain is still very, very low.

With TMY, the 400 variant (I have this nerdy need to use the film codes rather than names, btw), many argue that the current TXT emulsion is actually finer grain with wider latitude and pushability, so it's kind of fallen by the wayside. TMZ is a tad bit slower than Delta 3200 (real ISO of about 1000 vs. 1250), but it has tighter grain, ever so slightly. The response curve is a bit different, too, and development is less finicky than with Delta 3200.

Personally, I am going to switch over to Delta 100 or TMX full-time as my non-portrait 100 speed film once I finish up my dalliances with Efke and FP4. They were good to me, but sometimes we have to move on. I just hope they understand that I need my space, and that it's me, not them, that has to try other emulsions.

allan

 

[nzeeman]

one suggestion - efke 100.

 

[biomed]

I like XP2 Super.


Mike

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Tri X @320 in PMK Pyro for 35mm
HP5 @ 320 in PMK Pyro for 120

Neopan Aros 120 for 6x9cm shots when i want all possible detail.

 

[rich815]

This guy asks for film around 100 speed and loads of people post 400 speed films. Are people only reading the subject line?

 

[nightfly]

He asked for personal recommendations of 100 speed films.

Personally, I stopped shooting it in favor of 400 and I thought I would share why.

 

[dspeltz]

I have used TriX at ISO 200 in HC-110 for 25 years and when calibrated for camera/lens and enlarger it is terrific. However I am open to new things and look forward to your tests. I hope you will put TriX to the comparison.

 

[DavidH]

Delta 100 - my favourite for detail - in Perceptol...and scans so well on my KM5400...

I never liked TMAX and found for some reason that it never scanned too well...dont know why...just changed film for something that did. 🙂

Good luck with your choices.

 

[venchka]

Go to the Gallery section. Search for Acros in key words and Todd.Hanz in the username window. Enjoy! Todd's work with Acros & Pyro is amazing!

 

[kaiyen]

Good point, Rich, nightfly. For me, I shoot FP4+ for portraits, and Delta 100 for landscapes and just about everything else. I might switch to TMX from Delta.

allan

 

[rich815]

Understood. Heck, sometimes I shoot HP5+ at around 125-200.

Then again I have found Acros pushed to 400 to not all that bad in terms of comparisons to other 400 films.

nightfly, my plan at one time was to find a 400 speed film I really liked and to forgo 100 speed films----I really need/want that extra 2 stops for my street work, but I simply find Delta 100, Acros, Plus-X and FP4+ too darn gorgeous and I cannot stay away!

And allan, funny, you like Delta 100 landscapes and not portraits, while I love it for portraits----just goes to show how subjective this all is.

As for Tmax100 I like it but to me it does seem almost too smooth, too digital-like. I like my B&W, even the fine-grained stuff, to have some "bite" which is why I still use Rodinal even though many poo-poo it if you plan to scan your negs....

 

[kaiyen]

Rich - indeed, it's all about taste. I find the Delta 100 look on portraits to be distinct, and in a way I personally don't prefer. It's actually kind of how you describe your distaste for TMX.

Nothing wrong with Rodinal even if you're scanning. Right developer, with the right film, and you're still in the right. I soup TMX almost exclusively in Rodinal. I actually haven't found a preferred one for Delta 100 yet. what do you use?

allan