Subjective film advice

[Tim Meisburger]

Film is like food or movies; different people have different tastes. I've only tried a few sheet films in black and white. Rating these films on my personal subjective scale that goes from (1) "I can use it, but don't love it" to (5) "I love it", I get:
1. ADOX 50, Foma 100
2. FP4
3.
4. Shanghai 100
5. TMY 320

Based on this, how likely am I to like:

Delta
TMX
Fuji

[Bruce Watson]

Based on this, how likely am I to like:

Delta
TMX
Fuji

I don't have any idea what T-max 320 is. AFAIK, T-max has never been made in a 320 speed. It's always been either TMX at iso 100, or TMY at iso 400. But I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

So if you mean you like T-max...

All the films you list are modern emulsions, similar to TMY in that they are not older cubic-grain films. You should like them all, each in their own way.

Personally, I never found the need for another B&W film after I finally saw the light and tried TMY-2. IMHO the best film ever made. I never looked at another film after I did my first tests with TMY-2. But just because I found that doesn't mean you will. Clearly, YMMV.

[Tim Meisburger]

Sorry! I meant TXP 320.

[Ken Lee]

Based on this, how likely am I to like:

Delta
TMX
Fuji

It depends on how you evaluate and prioritize these less subjective, more objective criteria:

Availability
Affordability
Linearity of spectral response curve
Reciprocity characteristics
In a given developer,

Effective film speed
Grain, acutance, impression of sharpness
Linearity of contrast curve
Changes to above curve with changes in development

[Drew Wiley]

I work with a lot of different films because they are in fact different in numerous ways. And this can be format related. For example, 8x10 is nice because the modest degree of enlargement means I can sacrifice grain size for the sake of other characteristics like curve linearity or speed - and speed is important for the
windy conditions common around here, combined with the smaller f-stops typical of 8x10 work. With 4x5 I have to be more nitpicky on the sharpness or acutance and grain question, so often use lower speed films, and with roll film backs, even more picky, though roll film has the advantage of being much cheaper than sheet film in general. Color film raises a very different set of questions, like which bank to rob next in order to keep shooting it in 8x10. But in terms of favorite b&w films, I rely quite a bit upon TMY400 in 8x10, with any number of other films as backups, depending on the conditions; FP4, ACROS, or TMY in 4x5; and ACROS in roll film, esp in the mtns, and sometimes Pan F in low contrast situations. For 35mm I change my strategy completely, and actually
prefer grainy little handheld snapshot prints without excessive detail, generally taken with either Delta 3200 or TMY400. Then there are the lab films for masking
and color separation work, using both TMX100 and FP4, along with ortho litho film.

[Bruce Watson]

Sorry! I meant TXP 320.

That changes things -- Tri-X is an old style cubic emulsion. If that's what you want, it'll do better for you than any of the newer t-grain-ish emulsions like Delta, TMX, TMY, or Acros. But if TXP does it for you, it's the best at doing that particular thing that I can think of. So... stick with it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I use one film FP4+ KISS. For 25 years I only used TXP 320-loved the tonalities but as I started printing bigger for galleries I didn't like the grain. It took me a while to get the tonalities I wanted but I can make FP4+ work for me now and.......it's relatively cheap :)

[Drew Wiley]

Tri-X is the one particular old-school film I've never liked. Innumerable great images have been made with it, but it just doesn't dovetail with my style. I'd far
rather see Super-XX revived. Of course, that will never happen. Bergger 200 was the closest we got, then it disappeared too, while Foma/Arista 200 is not even
close to 200 speed, has horrible long-exposure recip behavior, and relatively mediocre quality control. But it's the only true straight-line film on the market right
now. T-Max films come a relatively close second-place ranking in terms linearity and deep shadow reproduction, yet with superb quality control and versatility.
TMY400 has excellent acutance too, while TMY100 is nice for softer-edge images like portraiture. I might add, ACROS is the last b&w film being made by Fuji, and is the odd duck in this discussion because it's the only one that's not typical panchromatic. It's orthopan, meaning greater green sensitivity and less red sensitivity, and also unique in having almost direct long-exposure response, without the need for time corrections.

[Drew Wiley]

as usual, an afterthought ... If only one black and white sheet film was left on the planet and versatility was therefore the name of the game, I'd want it to either
be FP4 or TMY400, if the latter was still even affordable.

[Jac@stafford.net]

That changes things -- Tri-X is an old style cubic emulsion.

Kodak changed Tri-X in 1970 and I will never forgive them. Grain was dramatically reduced.

Someone enlighten me, is it true that Tri-X is part tabular?

[Tim Meisburger]

Based on this, how likely am I to like:

Delta
TMX
Fuji

It depends on how you evaluate and prioritize these less subjective, more objective criteria:

Availability
Affordability
Linearity of spectral response curve
Reciprocity characteristics
In a given developer,

Effective film speed
Grain, acutance, impression of sharpness
Linearity of contrast curve
Changes to above curve with changes in development

The first two are not a concern, and the others I don't understand. Essentially I guess I am asking if you like (or dislike) Shanghai or TXP, what are the other films in your experience that have similar characteristics that make you like (or dislike) them. Dislike is a valid comparator, if you dislike for the same reason (its like when you know a movie critic so well that if he dislikes a film, you can be pretty sure you will like it).

[Tim Meisburger]

I work with a lot of different films because they are in fact different in numerous ways. And this can be format related. For example, 8x10 is nice because the modest degree of enlargement means I can sacrifice grain size for the sake of other characteristics like curve linearity or speed - and speed is important for the
windy conditions common around here, combined with the smaller f-stops typical of 8x10 work. With 4x5 I have to be more nitpicky on the sharpness or acutance and grain question, so often use lower speed films, and with roll film backs, even more picky, though roll film has the advantage of being much cheaper than sheet film in general. Color film raises a very different set of questions, like which bank to rob next in order to keep shooting it in 8x10. But in terms of favorite b&w films, I rely quite a bit upon TMY400 in 8x10, with any number of other films as backups, depending on the conditions; FP4, ACROS, or TMY in 4x5; and ACROS in roll film, esp in the mtns, and sometimes Pan F in low contrast situations. For 35mm I change my strategy completely, and actually
prefer grainy little handheld snapshot prints without excessive detail, generally taken with either Delta 3200 or TMY400. Then there are the lab films for masking
and color separation work, using both TMX100 and FP4, along with ortho litho film.

Thanks Drew. This is very helpful, as you group the films I wanted to try with FP4, suggesting they have similarities. The other replies are helpful too, as nobody grouped TXP with anything else, suggesting if I want that look, that is my option.

Thanks Bruce as well for your comments. Based on this I think I will not buy boxes of other film to try, although at some point I might try to trade a couple sheets of TXP to people using Delta or T-Max so I can do a superficial portrait/landscape comparison. If I see something startling there, I might spring for a box, but otherwise will stick with TXP.

Thank you!

[Bruce Watson]

I use one film FP4+ KISS. For 25 years I only used TXP 320-loved the tonalities but as I started printing bigger for galleries I didn't like the grain. It took me a while to get the tonalities I wanted but I can make FP4+ work for me now and.......it's relatively cheap :)

Yep. Plus-X is missed. But FP4+ ain't bad.

Just curious (don't hurt me please), but have you tried TMX or TMY-2? The tonalities are different, but to my eyes the Tmax films are "more real" somehow. And they've got much better reciprocity effect characteristics. Not to mention less graininess than even FP4+.

[David Lobato]

For me it depends on the subject. For unexplainable reasons I started a series of commissioned portraits on 8x10 Tri-X, then continued using it over a 3 year period. I loved the portrait results with that film. For landscapes and outdoor subjects I love the look of T-Max 400 (TMY) but I don't like the cost. Besides that, I've been happy with HP5+ for a long time and have run through several boxes of it. Both of these being with 8x10.

[Drew Wiley]

Back in the heyday of the Great Yellow Father, Plus-X was their "all-toe" film marketed to high-key controlled-lighting studio use, such as Caucasian brides in white wedding dresses, and consequently a rather poor choice for high contrast outdoor light. Super-XX was the race horse, a straight line film capable of an extreme range of lighting and development control, along with technical applications like color separation work. Tri-X was the journalistic favorite with characteristics in between, being relatively forgiving. Then came the T-grain revolution. Current T-Max films offer a great deal of contrast ability with a lot of potential snap in the shadows, plus development flexibility, but are fussy with exposure. The closest thing out there to Plus-X is Delta 100, which does have a fair amount of curve upsweep favoring the high tones, at the cost of deep shadow separation. FP-4 has a long straight line, but not as long as T-Max films. Acros is similar, but with different spectral sensitivity and slightly finer grain. HP5 has a fair amount of toe but fast speed and superb edge effect in staining pyro developers; but I find the grain too large for formats smaller than 8x10, and often have to mask it to get full tonality. I won't repeat much of what I've often
stated before, but simply reducing or diluting development to handle significant contrast is not the same thing as having your cake and eating it too in terms of
preserving gradation and tonality throughout the full range. That can only be done by judicious film and developer choice.

[Kevin Harding]

Can I ask why you have Fomapan 100 and Shanghai GP3 at (almost) opposite ends of your scale? GP3 is my favourite film, and I've been heartbroken since it's been out of production for two years (good news, it's coming back!). I've found, through my experimentation, that Fomapan 100 and GP3 are at least somewhat comparable.

I don't use a lot of TMX so I can't comment on them. I use Delta and Acros, and like them both. Acros I love for its reciprocity handling, but it's a different beast from Shanghai; it's more clinical, more scientific almost. Delta is less of that, but still more so than FP4 or Shanghai.

[Tim Meisburger]

Yep. Plus-X is missed. But FP4+ ain't bad.

Just curious (don't hurt me please), but have you tried TMX or TMY-2? The tonalities are different, but to my eyes the Tmax films are "more real" somehow. And they've got much better reciprocity effect characteristics. Not to mention less graininess than even FP4+.

I have not tried the T-Max, and I don't think I will try the 400, just because it is so expensive. The 100 is actually cheaper than the TXP, and I'm happy to give it a try, but at this point don't want to buy a box of it. If anyone want to trade a few sheets for a few sheets of TXP, I'm up for that.

[Tim Meisburger]

Can I ask why you have Fomapan 100 and Shanghai GP3 at (almost) opposite ends of your scale? GP3 is my favourite film, and I've been heartbroken since it's been out of production for two years (good news, it's coming back!). I've found, through my experimentation, that Fomapan 100 and GP3 are at least somewhat comparable.

I don't use a lot of TMX so I can't comment on them. I use Delta and Acros, and like them both. Acros I love for its reciprocity handling, but it's a different beast from Shanghai; it's more clinical, more scientific almost. Delta is less of that, but still more so than FP4 or Shanghai.

I don't know. They seem quite different to me, but maybe that is my process (D-23). I'm very subjective with film and paper and lenses. I just like what I like, and I think to some degree I consciously avoid getting to technical. I have enough of that in my day job, and enjoy feeling my way along in photography. I started with Shanghai, and tuned my process to it, so maybe that's why I like it. If I spent enough time with another film I might like it just as much. But the TXP I only recently started shooting, and liked it from the first sheet. I don't know why.

[jp]

I think you have to try more than a few sheets of tmy2 to get a feel for it. It is very responsive to changes in development, meaning it's going to take some practice just to get development just right for you. And of course different developers and agitation provide different results. It's a high quality film to say the least. If money isn't a big concern, work your way through a box. If it's an issue, perhaps find half a box or sell half a box.

To be subjective, I stick with FP4+ and tmy2. I've got them figured out for me and my developer choice. I try not to setup my 4x5 or 8x10 camera to tinker and test materials, but rather to make photographs.

[LabRat]

The part that's missing from the question is what developer will be used with these films... Different have films will have their character + "look", but this will be modified by different developers/exposure/time/dilutions etc... For film choices, speed, availability, quality control, price, etc will probably govern the films purchased, but even if there were only one film left in the world, you would have to find a way to use it to get results you like, and that would probably happen mostly in development...

Steve K

[Michael R]

Someone enlighten me, is it true that Tri-X is part tabular?

It isn't true. People get that from Anchell.

See Bob Shanebrook's book which includes photomicrographs of cross sections of both TMY and Tri-X 400 (TXP 320 isn't part tabular either). In fact it's the tabular film which is part tabular since it also has non-tabular grains.

So don't worry if you don't like tabular grains [not that I agree with the assertion tabular films "look" different (aside from being finer grained of course) but anyway...]. Tri-X, TXP, FP4, HP5 are still traditional grained emulsions.

[Neal Chaves]

I always liked TX320 and felt the TMAX films had poor mid-tone separation and blocked highlights (yes, even in the special TMax developer). When the price of TX320 became unreasonable, I switched to HP5+ and found my development times in HC110B and the look of the negatives to be identical. Now that HC110 cannot be shipped, I use Ilford Ilfotec HC and find my times are the same as with HC110. In short, I don't print film curves, but negatives I expose and develop myself, and I find HP5+ to be an accurate clone of TX320 and Ilfotec HC to be identical in performance to HC110.

[Rory_5244]

Hey Neal, Freestyle still ships HC-110: I get mine there.

[Two23]

I only shoot b&w in all of my film cameras. I was using Fomapan 100 for awhile as I like it's older formulation, but found it scratched a bit too easily. My "standard" film is FP4+, with HP5 when I need more shutter speed. I shoot those two in 35mm, 120, 4x5. I only shoot FP4+ in 5x7 since I'm not needing shutter speed there. I also have two boxes of Efke 25 that I shoot when using Petzvals on my 4x5, i.e. want slow shutter speeds. By basically sticking to two films, I can predict the results more easily no matter what format I am shooting. I tend to shy away from films with a more modern, high contrast look. I'm almost always shooting with pre-War lenses anyway (except when using my Nikon F3T or Rolleiflex.)


Kent in SD

[Greg Y]

My films of choice in 35, 120 & 5x7 are in this order FP4+ & Tri-X. I have a stack of TMY-2 in the fridge in 5x7...but use it sparingly...especially with the most recent prices. FP4+ is the most consistent for me in Pyrocat HD in glycol printed w/ a cold head (or a color head on the 5x7 Durst) on variable contrast fiber papers. I've used lots of HP5 in the past but prefer Tri-X 400 in roll fim or 320 in sheets.

[Ari]

Tim, that's an eclectic list, I'm not sure what I say will help, but...
For 8x10:
I like FP4 best, it has a look that's quite reminiscent of Plus-X 125.
HP5 has a nice tonal range, and I use that almost as much as FP4. Both films are developed in HC-110.
My personal tastes go off course when choosing a film based on format; I don't like Acros in sheet film, but love it in 120, vice versa for the Ilford films.
I gave up on Kodak films when I found I couldn't tame the contrast and have the look I wanted, and when they priced themselves out of my budget (whatever that is).