The one film approach?

[martin s]

I just bought a considerable amount of Rollei Retro 100 / APX 100 bulk rolls. It will be my one film approach from now on.

For developing the stuff: Diafine or if I want some change Rodinal 1+100.

Remember to rate it at EI250 if you want to develop in Diafine (as recommended on the packaging), EI100 looks awful.

martin

 

[Darkhorse]

I don't think I could ever limit myself to just one film, but Plus-X is one I come back to a lot. I just lurve the tonality of it. I've been using more and more Tri-X though, and I suspect I should be using it a lot more since I just got a bunch of it for dirt cheap (Arista Premium).

 

[Mephiloco]

I go with Tri-X/Arista Premium. It pushes well (up to 6400 with good results in my experience) and is cheap ($2.09 for aristra premium) compared to tmax 3200 which is something like $7.

I also like Acros 100 for those really bright days, but mostly tri-x

 

[notturtle]

Ah, yes, when I say Foma 100/200 I mean the arista EDU Ultra 100 & 200 😀

 

[Murray Kelly]

As an an addendum, 35mm means a probable variation in frame to frame density. Maybe one should lean toward something like Diafine to even out the differences between the well exposed and the not so well exposed frames on a 36 exp roll? I don't follow this rule conscously as perhaps I should, but the principle applies.
Murray

 

[wjlapier]

First I'll say that I have too many different types of film in the freezer--lots of Fuji and Kodachrome. But for B+W it's been TriX and Tmax. I'd like to stick to one as some earlier stated, you can shoot from 100-6400. Which brings me to a question.

What do you mean by rated? Shoot 400 at 320--metered at 320?--and develop for 400? What does that achieve?

That said, I'm thinking of Ektar 35mm for the summer vacation--10 rolls might be enough. Maybe push TriX for the evenings.

Remember to rate it at EI250 if you want to develop in Diafine (as recommended on the packaging), EI100 looks awful.

martin

 

[kxl]

If I had to choose one, it would be Tri-X (or Arista Premium 400) for its incredible versatility. However, at specific EI's, and with specific developers, there are others that I prefer. Examples:

@ 100 - I LOVE Plus-X (AP 100) in Microdol 1+3. But I would never constrain myself to a 100-speed film and nothing else.

HP5+ @ 400 in HC-110 dil B is AS SMOOTH AS BUTTER. But at higher ISO's, I prefer Tri-X.

@1600 I prefer Neopan 1600 in XTOL. But I would never constrain myself to a 1600-speed film and nothing else.

 

[Trius]

I'm trying to decide between TX and TMY for faster speed, have a bulk roll of Pan F+ I need to use, as I've been gravitating to using slower films. But right now I'm giving serious thought to using a lot of FP4+ ... not sure I could give up 400 ISO completely, but I love the look of FP4+ ... I'll probably dance with TMX before I make a final decision on a medium speed film, though.

But for the year of Leica (whenever I start that), I will be using one film exclusively. Probably Tri-X cuz it's such a classic combination. Developer will be either Rodinal, Rodinal-XTol or XTol on its own.

 

[tensai]

I've done a bunch of Tri-X over the years but for the last two or three years it's been Neopan 400...and 120 more than 35mm...

I've almost only shot Neopan so far (120).
What do you feel are the biggest differences between the two?
Just curious..




cheers

 

[amateriat]

One film? Can't quite do that. I have narrowed my go-to films a good deal:

- For color, it's not exactly one one particular film, but one film family, and that would be Portra. In particular, 160NC, 400NC, and 800, in that order. (Fuji Pro 400/800 sneaks in from time to time, as deemed appropriate.)

- Black-and-white: until my home developing arrangement has stabilized (basement in my building is getting redone, so it's off-limits for another month or so), I'm still Chromogenic Man. Up until several months ago, my standard was Ilford XP2 Super, with occasional bits of Kodak BW400NC. Now, between logistics and economics, that's been reversed, with Rochester's offering getting top billing. It requires a slightly different approach than XP2, but I've gotten the hang of it, and I can afford to grab a brick or two at a time. It also doesn't hurt that the stuff, like most all of Kodak's films of late, is highly curl-resistant...a big deal in terms of scanning, where it appears to be making a big differnce to my eye.


- Barrett

 

[mas]

Tri-x and Microdol.

 

[John Bragg]

Neopan 400 @ Ei 200 in Rodinal 1:50. It has a look and feel that is (for me) the most satisfying combination. It does all that I require of it and more....