Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Emraphoto, that looks pretty good. Nice and punchy. How did you dev it?
Recommend budget B&W Film to replace LegacyPro 400?
- Thread starter mike.chambers
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 7K
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
That's been my experience with HP5+ as well...you just can't go wrong with Ilford.
I'm a big fan of Neopan 400 myself, there was a recent deal for Unique Photo out of New Jersey for a very good price...although Im not sure it's still in stock presently.
Just remember, there's a line you cross with going too cheap where it affects your quality control...at that point, it becomes irrelevant how many cents you saved since you didn't get the shot and all that money and time is for nothing.
Did I mention you can't go wrong with Ilford..?
presspass
filmshooter
Another vote for Arista Premium 400. I process it myself, and it works well in Xtol, D-76, and D-23. It also pushes, but I'm not happy with what I get; I suspect the problem is mine, not the film. As to curl, I find it has less than Neopan and the Arista variant. Arista/Tri-x prints well in the wet darkroom and scans just fine.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The Kentmere looks good John. I'll give it a try.
Thanks!
Thanks!
f16sunshine
Moderator
I don't understand this. What do you mean, Why would it not be usable with Flash?
zauhar
Veteran
bob338
Well-known
Seriously? Tri-X is crap, and Fomapan is great?
Really?
Fomapan has its place, but Tri-X is probably the one film that will be left standing at the end of it it all. It is as close to perfect as film gets.
In my humble opinion, of course.
Field
Well-known
If it is the stuff Arista is stuffing into the EDU line... it is pretty much unusable unless you are going for extremely blown out white and blue. Here is an example. (I have many, with different cameras too)
Notice how everything that is not white ( or blue, that is a blue dress) is correctly exposed, yet everything white or blue is off the charts.
Some film is designed to 'properly' expose during the day under almost any condition or exposure from the camera. This could be done by making anything that registers on the films emulsion as white (or light blue in this case) peak very fast so you get contrast no matter what. However with direct light for correct exposure you get the ladder. It sucks.
I made the comment because the jug in the air looks maybe too blown out, but it is hard to tell because of the over-hang in the picture that the jug is not under.
Personally I bracketed and used a diffuser another time, even tried bounce flash with a diffuser... It still sucks unless you like the look. There just happens to be films that hate flash.
Field
Well-known
Depends on what you use them for I guess.... and the developer. Maybe Tri-X is not total crap but... (I edited my post) The curling and really poor resolution if you use Tmax developer... It just seems like a little more thought could of been put into it; and the claims on the box are unrealistic for most peoples circumstances. This all depends on what you value too. I am gaining a fondness for the low quality I get with Tri-X in Tmax. But I have to avoid portraits when I plan to do that; I guess.
Fomapan is great during the day because you kind of can't go wrong. Plus it stays flat, and develops with more resolution that Tri-X in a broader range of developers (I found). The one downside is the film negative itself is kind of weak to tearing.
If you put Tri-X through Rodinal you will be confused as to where all the grain went (even though Rodinal is not fine grain? Yes it is bizarre)
Last edited:
filmfan
Well-known
This depends on your chosen dilution and temperature.
It can be surprisingly grain-less, but then again it can be just as surprisingly grainy.
Just shoot Arista Premium 400 and forget about the rest of this whole thing thread.
Field
Well-known
I understand this very well. I have also shot dozens of images without this issue on that particular P&S and never got those results.
When I used my OM2n with bracketing, a diffuser, the whole workout... The white is still out of proportion compared to any other experience with any other film and flash. I do portraits with my diffuser at .5m and get perfectly normal results by purposely underexposing just enough (on the flash settings). Yet it does not work with that film from across the room, let alone up close. If I were to underexpose enough to get that film to register white or blue in acceptable ranges then all the information would be gone on the same subject at the same distance.
For the record at least one other person here at the lab I use, has had this problem with this film.
Generally developer temp is 70* but I cool it to 68* or at the very least correct it according to a chart for temperature correction, but prefer to just cool it down.
Last edited:
zauhar
Veteran
Fair enough. It sounds like your experience is indeed wide and deep. I appreciate that even given that you are still trying to improve and learn. Your method to uncurl the film sounds useful, I will keep this in mind when I get a film dryer in the future.
I actually like Tri-X very much, and I think Field did not mean what he said literally - after all, he said he likes how it looks. I think he meant only that it curls, and no more than that. Young people do not always express themselves clearly.
All the best,
Randy
f16sunshine
Moderator
I see now what you are talking about but also I agree with JSU. This is an exposure issue not a film/flash issue. The film you are using is more sensitive to green than red or blue that is true. It will not be to the extreme of exposure you are seeing here though. Try stopping down, bouncing, diffusing , or all of the above. I appreciate your enthusiasm and strong opinion. That said, it takes many many dozens of rolls to really get to know tiny differences between films. I think you should just shoot the hell out of a few types in different conditions and keep wicked good notes. Check your notes today and check again in 18-24 months and see where your own opinions may vary.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Last edited:
Field
Well-known
It is true with the OM2n it was not to the same extreme, but it is regardless very noticeable. You will never not see it in any kind of direct light.
mike.chambers
Newbie
I am currently seeing it at $4.50 at B&H. I would love to continue using Neopan 400, but, if there is another film that might be as good, but cheaper, I would love to try it out.
mike
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Kodak Double X pushed to 400iso?
bwcolor
Veteran
If it is the stuff Arista is stuffing into the EDU line... it is pretty much unusable unless you are going for extremely blown out white and blue. Here is an example. (I have many, with different cameras too)
Notice how everything that is not white ( or blue, that is a blue dress) is correctly exposed, yet everything white or blue is off the charts.
Some film is designed to 'properly' expose during the day under almost any condition or exposure from the camera. This could be done by making anything that registers on the films emulsion as white (or light blue in this case) peak very fast so you get contrast no matter what. However with direct light for correct exposure you get the ladder. It sucks.
I made the comment because the jug in the air looks maybe too blown out, but it is hard to tell because of the over-hang in the picture that the jug is not under.
Personally I bracketed and used a diffuser another time, even tried bounce flash with a diffuser... It still sucks unless you like the look. There just happens to be films that hate flash.
I've shot EDU Ultra in a five flash studio setup with no problems at all. The emulsion is very soft and is prone to dropouts. Not my favorite film, but still have a good number of rolls in the freezer.
Turtle
Veteran
TriX has no issue with flash. Just think about the application of this film over the years and what poor compatibility with flash would mean. I managed to shoot at least a dozen rolls using direct flash some months ago and had no issues at all. In fact I loved the results...
TriX and HP5+ have about the same resolution and yes, I am confident of this. It depends on what you dev in, but HP5+ has more grain sharpness and TriX is on average finer grained, but overall resolution is about the same. The only exception to this was a batch of 120 which was remarkably low resolution and I never got to the bottom of how it happened. Turned out some people had the same results as me, but this problem never repeated itself.
IMHO TriX is a superb all rounder and I confidently use it in 35mm and 120 for the most demanding work I do. Salgado found it worked rather well too and his prints from 35mm are simply eye watering.
Maybe try D76 1+1, DDX, or Xtol 1+1 or 1+2 and see where you are going wrong.
TriX does not have the resolution of Neopan 400, but then again no traditional 400 film I am aware of does. N400 is a hair away from Delta 400 in terms of resolution, but has a very different look (more modern) to TriX most of the time.
As for replacing N400, I think you will have to look at one or two films:
TriX/Hp5+ for general use where grain/resolution are not critical
D400/Tmax 400 where resolution is critical.
Personally, I have gone for TriX to replace N400 and 1600, which were my two most used films. Tmax 3200/D3200 for when I need the utmost speed.
TrIX and HP5+ both push FAR better than Neopan 400 IMHO. I have happily taken N400 up to 640/800 and gotten good results but could see in some frames the highlights starting to block up. They stay better separated with TriX IMHO and with stand development I have gone up to a good 1200 with good shadpw detail and separation comparable to D3200 at its native speed in the same developer (which is about 1200 too) i.e. with stand development the TriX at 1200 had about the same shadow detail as D3200 in the same developer agitated normally. Grain was similar too, with the edge to the TriX.
TriX and HP5+ have about the same resolution and yes, I am confident of this. It depends on what you dev in, but HP5+ has more grain sharpness and TriX is on average finer grained, but overall resolution is about the same. The only exception to this was a batch of 120 which was remarkably low resolution and I never got to the bottom of how it happened. Turned out some people had the same results as me, but this problem never repeated itself.
IMHO TriX is a superb all rounder and I confidently use it in 35mm and 120 for the most demanding work I do. Salgado found it worked rather well too and his prints from 35mm are simply eye watering.
Maybe try D76 1+1, DDX, or Xtol 1+1 or 1+2 and see where you are going wrong.
TriX does not have the resolution of Neopan 400, but then again no traditional 400 film I am aware of does. N400 is a hair away from Delta 400 in terms of resolution, but has a very different look (more modern) to TriX most of the time.
As for replacing N400, I think you will have to look at one or two films:
TriX/Hp5+ for general use where grain/resolution are not critical
D400/Tmax 400 where resolution is critical.
Personally, I have gone for TriX to replace N400 and 1600, which were my two most used films. Tmax 3200/D3200 for when I need the utmost speed.
TrIX and HP5+ both push FAR better than Neopan 400 IMHO. I have happily taken N400 up to 640/800 and gotten good results but could see in some frames the highlights starting to block up. They stay better separated with TriX IMHO and with stand development I have gone up to a good 1200 with good shadpw detail and separation comparable to D3200 at its native speed in the same developer (which is about 1200 too) i.e. with stand development the TriX at 1200 had about the same shadow detail as D3200 in the same developer agitated normally. Grain was similar too, with the edge to the TriX.
celluloidprop
Well-known
Unfortunately, it's $4.50/roll in either single or pro-packs now, plus shipping.
Mablo
Well-known
Kentmere 400 is quite nice but can be a bit punchy sometimes, sort of like Tri-x in Rodinal.
