Which 1 Film Forever?

dazedgonebye

dazedgonebye

Veteran
Local time
12:16 PM
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
3,932
I'm considering doing a bulk load of black and white 35mm film because I'd like to have 24 exposure rolls and as a cost cutting measure.
At the rate I shoot 35mm, a couple of hundred feet might make enough to last the rest of my life. (It certainly will last that long if my wife kills me for buying more film).

My normal film is FP4 and that's my first impulse. Unfortunately, I got to thinking....
Tri-X really is a wonderful and versatile film. If I'm going to have only one, maybe it should be the winner.

Any thoughts?
 
"There can only be one." I've heard that from somewhere, but I know they weren't refering to Tri-X like I'd suggest. I think it lasted this long for a reason, and yes it really is versatile; push pull whatever, just remember which and mod your dev time accordingly. Some people mention about the graininess, and so?
 
Go Tri X without a doubt. You can almost do anything with it, expose between 100 and 6400 EI, you can develop it in anything, and the tonality is always good. If you liked FP4+, then you might shoot Tri X at EI 200 and develop shorter in D761+1 or in Rodinal for optimum tonal range. But I would simply buy Arista Premium 400 cassettes - I do not think you can save mych over that.
 
Foma 200 :)
The only film I have been impressed by.

But since they're having some issues right now, I'm going to give Tri-X another go (and Neopan 400) and hope they'll be back on the shelves soon.

Efke 100 is nice but it lacks sharpness. Very nice mood though.
 
Go for FP4+. I'm a Tri-X shooter, but if I had to choose just one, I'd go for FP4 and get my flash chops together for low light. My reason would be that FP4 is better for portraits. No grain in the skin tones. I used to use FP4 for everything and I was already thinking of going back to it. More f-stop choices in bright light, too.
Vic
 
#1. Crunch the numbers. Arista Premium is only pennies more than bulk loading.
#2. Bulk loading wastes film for each roll you load. Fewer longer rolls saves film.
#3. Arista Premium 100 exposed at 400 and developed accordingly in Xtol 1:3 looks surprisingly good. It looks really good exposed at 100. Give it a shot.
#4. If you need a film for above 400, buy both the 100 & 400.

If I were choosing one film today it would be bricks of Arista Premium 100.
 
mfogiel said:
But I would simply buy Arista Premium 400 cassettes - I do not think you can save mych over that.
Click to expand...

You can save space. Which is my main reason for buying bulk film.

Arista Premium 400 in 100 ft rolls is pretty darned cheap, but not the cheapest film out there. It is the cheapest Tri-X, though.

I also like to short load cassettes (yes, it wastes film. It also lets me change film easier. I tend to waste at least half a roll of 36 exposures when I pull it from the camera after shooting).

One thing for the OP: do you really want to invest in a couple of hundred feet of film that you have to reinvent your workflow for? Why not buy bulk FP4, if that is what you like?
 
Last edited:
I use HP5 as my only B&W film. It's very versatile and pushes well up to 1600, and even 3200 with more grain. I've used Tri-X and find the negs much thinner and more difficult to print well than HP5.
 
Seems like its Plus-X since it has the exact same times as PX, I shot about 8 rolls of it so far and I like it in D-76 or Rodinal or Ilford Microphen.
There is a mapping the freestyle films thread that also seems to say arista 100 premium is Kodak Plus-X and premium 400 is Tri-X. The arista.edu films seem to be foma films
 
Last edited:
Tri X would be my choice for the versatility (or the Arista Premium 400). Buy several 100 ft cans (you can NEVER have too much film!) - roll up 5-6 rolls and shoot them as test films, developer times, exposures etc and then settle for the combination that works for you.
FP4 is not as grainy - but far less tolerant. Tri X/Arista can be pushed and pulled to almost "fantasy" levels - and the information on how-to is available on various websites.
Of course, 400 ft can of XX would work well too. can be shot at 100/250/400 etc and it is cheap. It also has the most thorough Flickr site for processing etc and now there is a "source" list for developers, formulas etc attached to it. Check" Shooting Kodak XX" on Flickr and here on Rf.
 
Ilford HP5+

Ilford HP5+

Ilford HP5+. On sunny days, make full use of one of the virtues of rangefinders (as your finder won't go all yellow or orange on you as with a SLR) and slap on a good yellow filter. Brings you down to EI 200.

If I lived in the US, Kodak 400TX might be the more natural choice. However, since the latest upgrade to Tri-X, I sure find the film is decidedly more fine-grained than HP5+, but I kind of like the more "old-fashioned" look I am getting with HP5+. This is of course highly subjective, and YMMV.

And there's a literary argument for you: Every time I handle the packaged film seeing "Mobberley Cheshire" makes me smile - like the Cheshire Cat ;-)
For the Shire! ;-)
 
venchka said:
#1. Crunch the numbers. Arista Premium is only pennies more than bulk loading.
#2. Bulk loading wastes film for each roll you load. Fewer longer rolls saves film.
#3. Arista Premium 100 exposed at 400 and developed accordingly in Xtol 1:3 looks surprisingly good. It looks really good exposed at 100. Give it a shot.
#4. If you need a film for above 400, buy both the 100 & 400.

If I were choosing one film today it would be bricks of Arista Premium 100.
Click to expand...


That made me reach for my calculator ... by bulk loading my results/savings are as follows:

I shoot twenty four exposure rolls of Arista Premium 400 which I bulk load into used cassettes from the local Kodak one hour ... by doing this as against buying packaged Arista Premium 400 in twenty four exposure rolls I save forty three cents per roll!

That's more than a 'few pennies' laddie! :eek:

Someone in my family was Scottish from memory! :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom