HHPhoto
Well-known
Would not make sense for us Germans, because the film - despite being more expensive than the Kentmeres - is still cheaper here compared to your example
.Price her is 4,75€ including tax for a single film, and only 46,51€ for a 10pack.
And shipping in Germany is cheaper than from an EU country to Germany.
Cheers, Jan
Highway 61
Revisited
Quite the very same price on both sides of the Rhein then.Would not make sense for us Germans, because the film - despite being more expensive than the Kentmeres - is still cheaper here compared to your example
Price her is 4,75€ including tax for a single film, and only 46,51€ for a 10pack.
In this case I more than before don't understand why you haven't recommended it. Of course it doesn't exist in 120 but the OP's question didn't tell it was only about 120.
Ilford PAN 400 is noticeably better than Kentmere 400 / Agfa APX 400 "New". At 4.65 € per roll for a 10x pack I would fill my freezer with a stack pack of 10x packs if I was after a good and cheap BW 400 film being a real 400. It is very unlikely that any of those English made films will be priced like the Foma films ever.
retinax
Well-known
Quite the very same price on both sides of the Rhein then.
In this case I more than before don't understand why you haven't recommended it. Of course it doesn't exist in 120 but the OP's question didn't tell it was only about 120.
Ilford PAN 400 is noticeably better than Kentmere 400 / Agfa APX 400 "New". At 4.65 € per roll for a 10x pack I would fill my freezer with a stack pack of 10x packs if I was after a good and cheap BW 400 film being a real 400. It is very unlikely that any of those English made films will be priced like the Foma films ever.
OP here, that is interesting. It's not only about 120, but ideally both 135 and 120.
Where would one get this PAN 400?
Highway 61
Revisited
If you are in Germany, look here.retinax said:
There is an online shop located in Belgium which lists them even cheaper (under 4 € per roll VAT included if bought as a 10x 135-36 pack) but I couldn't check the shipping costs out, you have to create an account to simulate an order and see what the shipping costs will be (free shipping for an order of 99.- € and above). Look there.
retinax
Well-known
Thank you, I had totally forgotten about Nordfoto. They also have very good prices on tmax 400 and hp5+ in 120, either of that might be the way I'll go.If you are in Germany, look here.
There is an online shop located in Belgium which lists them even cheaper (under 4 € per roll VAT included if bought as a 10x 135-36 pack) but I couldn't check the shipping costs out, you have to create an account to simulate an order and see what the shipping costs will be (free shipping for an order of 99.- € and above). Look there.
In which ways have you found the pan 400 superior to Kentmere? I've found very little about it online, but one statement that it is an older emulsion than the Kentmere.
Highway 61
Revisited
What PAN 400 exactly is remains unclear : new emulsion made from old recipes, or old HP5 (before the "Plus") emulsion stocks coated onto some modern polyester base ?
Anyway it's an excellent film without compromise on the quality, its interest is not only about the price. Normal but very pleasant grain for a 400, a real 400 (will be perfectly exposed when using a lightmeter set at 400 and used properly), very nice contrast, very good acutance, deep blacks (without being buried) and "popping" whites (without being washed out). I found the Kentmere quite more "flat" overall, with a more fuzzy grain.
I must say that the PAN 400 reminds me much the good old Tri-X "from before". To my eyes it "pops out" better than the old HP5.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Based on recommendations here and elsewhere I just bought six rolls of Ilford PAN 400.
Ilford doesn't sell it here in USA. I had to order it from overseas, so it was not cheap.
But if it is as some describe similar to old HP5 or old Tri-X it will be worth the price paid.
Chris
Ilford doesn't sell it here in USA. I had to order it from overseas, so it was not cheap.
But if it is as some describe similar to old HP5 or old Tri-X it will be worth the price paid.
Chris
Highway 61
Revisited
You nailed it.
With Kentmere 400 you're on a budget, the film is a compromise (actual 400 sensitivity contraringly to the Foma 400, but lack of character) and the low price is the key.
With Ilford PAN 400, the low price (in some areas of the world) is one clue, but you're also with an excellent film you may like very much and make your BW 400 of main use.
I develop it in D76 1+1 and I am very happy with the results.
retinax
Well-known
Crisper grain sounds great. I don't quite follow what you're saying about blacks and whites, I take that to be properties of a print, not a negative. Does that mean it has a straighter curve/less pronounced toe and shoulder than Kentmere? I'd actually like something with more of an S-curve to complement tmax with its near straight line. If you've found Kentmere flat, can that not be corrected with longer development?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Did you run specific tests to measure it?
If not, it is all subjective. From my perspective Ultrafine 400 is crappier than K400.
Highway 61
Revisited
kiemchacsu
Well-known
Did you run specific tests to measure it?
If not, it is all subjective. From my perspective Ultrafine 400 is crappier than K400.
No I have not done a direct test, just random shots on both films but I am sure there is test elsewhere on the net.
Anyway, it is a little different as I stated earlier and both are on par.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trask
Established
Please post your findings after using the film — interested to hear your thoughts.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The fastest 400 speed film I have ever tried is Delta 400. When Developed in Kodak Tmax Developer or Ilford DDX, it is the only 400 speed BW film I have tested that gave a true speed of 400.
I know it isn't a cheap film, but it is a very gorgeous film.
I know it isn't a cheap film, but it is a very gorgeous film.
leicapixie
Well-known
Going cheap is false economy!
I am guilty of using Kentmere 400 and 100.
I prefer the 100 and easily pushed to 400..
Sensitivity is a second to high acutance and sharpness..
The Delta and T-Max may be a better solution.
Get the best of your cameras and lenses.
I am guilty of using Kentmere 400 and 100.
I prefer the 100 and easily pushed to 400..
Sensitivity is a second to high acutance and sharpness..
The Delta and T-Max may be a better solution.
Get the best of your cameras and lenses.
presspass
filmshooter
I have been around this circle several times. It made a lot of sense 30 years ago when I shot 12 or so rolls a week. Right now, I'm shooting two a week and have decided that film is the least expensive part of the work. I did use Kentmere 400 and found it close to if not right on 400 with D-23 1:1. That said, I've settled on Tri-X and prefer it to T-Max. With Chris's recommendation above, I will try Delta in a week or so. I've finally learned, and it's taken more years that it should have, that economizing on film makes little sense.
Prest_400
Multiformat
As basically only 120 shooter in B&W it tends to follow my experience, and there isn't much differential in price from HP5 to other choices.
Fomapan would be the obvious choice. I picked very few rolls of the 100 to test and run in a Holga. Kinda wish we still had dirt cheap film such as Shanghai GP3 of years gone, for that lo-fi use.
Been shooting on HP5 as in Europe it has a good price and distribution. It's a very versatile stock and with winter darkness gone, I haven't tried its pushability yet. I was thinking of trying Delta 400 but didn't, TMY is interesting for the "different blue response" but more expensive. However, I ordered Delta 100 with the long bright days being here. I tend to use a Yellow filter #12 on sunny days, and downrate 400 to 160 with the compensation and presumed loss of speed with HC110. Happy to support Fotoimpex (and Adox) as a dealer and the price difference between FP/HP and the Deltas is just a few cents.
retinax
Well-known
Yeah I may have come around to that conclusion too. Looking at paper puts film prices into perspective. Yesterday I placed an order and it didn't include cheap film, as I figured the price difference isn't big enough for it to make much sense, unless bulk loading, but I can't commit to the effort and lock-in for film I'm not completely convinced of. I ordered some more Tmax 400, and a little Adox HR-50 to try, all 135. I actually still have one or two rolls of Kentmere 400 that I got cheap rolling around, and will certainly find a use for them. As in 120 there is no cheaper option for real ISO 400 (in Europe) anyway, it will be HP5+ or Tmax 400, but I'll eventually buy that from Nordfoto, kindly recommended by Highway 61, where it (and Ilford papers!) are cheapest.
Thank you all for the input anyway, I've learned a lot in this thread. Of course this topic is never closed, carry on.
Thank you all for the input anyway, I've learned a lot in this thread. Of course this topic is never closed, carry on.
steveyork
Well-known
I will say the "cheap" B&W film today -- Fomapan and Kentmere -- is actually pretty good, especially at ISO 100, which is the speed of which I'm most familiar. In my experience, the more expensive films, though "better," are not so to the degree to make or break a shot, unless you're getting down to the iso 25 or so or slower emulsions. Some of that really slow stuff has made my really old stuff look MF!
But I also believe that one of the best and economical ways to improve a picture is to opt for higher quality film as opposed to higher end equipment.
Anyway, lots of ways to split the apple.
But I also believe that one of the best and economical ways to improve a picture is to opt for higher quality film as opposed to higher end equipment.
Anyway, lots of ways to split the apple.
Archlich
Well-known
I gulped down 20 rolls of 120 last week so when ordering an emergency resupply, I had to go with Fomapan 400...