Film advice

[Dave Henry]

I agree with Michael. I shoot only TMax 400 and 100, soup in RS developer. I've tried them all over the years and really like TMax. When I backpack I can take the same film as a Readyload. It makes everything very simple and is one less thing to think about. FWIW

[Alan Davenport]

I'll add another vote for Polaroid 55. My lab doesn't do B&W chemistry in-house, but send it out, and the bill is $2 per 4x5 sheet. Makes Type 55 sound real attractive, IMO. Besides, you get an instant print to check composition and focus. The print will be overexposed but still useful for quality control (the negative and the paper require different ISO ratings.)

[Emre Yildirim]

I personally think Tmax 400 is one of the worst films ever made, but I guess to each their own. I use Delta 100 for all my B&W work. Once the lab develops it, I scan the sheets and adjust the contrast using Photoshop. It's a wonderful film with lots of latitude (I even shot it at 400 once, accidentally, and I was able to save the picture). For color, I would definitely use Astia 100F. Even for stuff that isn't portraiture, it's a very nice film

[Michael Kadillak]

I personally think Tmax 400 is one of the worst films ever made, but I guess to each their own. I use Delta 100 for all my B&W work. Once the lab develops it, I scan the sheets and adjust the contrast using Photoshop.

How can you possibly expect to extract optimal results from any film unless you personally control the processing (developer, dilution, temprature, agitation and time)? There are simply too many critical variables in the equation to draw any meaningful conclusions let alone any sensitometric information that could be used in the future.

Just my $0.02.

[tim atherton]

a good few well respected, widely published, widely collected photographers just send their film off tot he lab for simple consistency - deep tank Xtol etc.

Or they just use something as simple as Tri-X exposed at 200 and developed straight in D-23, and that's it. No fiddling or fussing or witches brews.

[Emre Yildirim]

How can you possibly expect to extract optimal results from any film

The results from my lab have been very consistent, and I know exactly how the negatives will turn out. I also know that they always use the same developer (TMAX). At $2/sheet ($1/sheet if I drop off lots of sheets), it's really not worth the time to develop it yourself, especially when you're like me and only shoot a few sheets a week.

[Capocheny]

I'll cast another vote for Ilford FP4... it's simply a great film!

Do your own tests to see what the best ASA rating is for YOUR equipment.

Shoot mine at 80 and it comes out smelling like a rose each and every time!

[BTW, I send my films out to a Pro-lab for consistent processing and have never had any issues with doing that.]

Cheers

[Wayne Crider]

Chris you could read threads all day long and read all kind of answers. Also, your exposure, developing and printing will have alot to do with your results. Pick a speed, shoot a 1/2 dz rolls or a couple of boxes and go from there. Experimendation is the the name of the game and don't be afraid to try it.

[Al D]

If you're going to have a lab develop it, then I would be inclined to use a film that is as forgiving of over-development as possible. As a rule, this would be any traditional (read: not tabular or epitaxial grain) ISO 400 emulsion such as Tri-X (well, TXP is 320...close enough) or HP5+.

[Chris_6172]

Thank you all for your input. It looks like I just need to buy some sheets and experiment. I am looking forward to it.