Best "Less Expensive" Alternative to 8x10 TXP and HP5?

[Frank Petronio]

As I move into 8x10, film price is a more important factor. Which of the various European/Asian films is going to give me the most Tri-X like quality? I need the 320-400 ISO....

Of all the alternatives, which brand has the best quality control?

And what is this about the emulsions being soft? What exactly does that mean in the real world? (I've never used anything but Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford so I've never encountered a "soft" emulsion).

Would commercial lab processing it like TXP in a Jobo be likely to damage it?

[Erik Larsen]

Hi Frank,
Arista edu ultra (Foma) is real cheap, but it only available up to 200asa I believe. I've used it in 4x5 and 11x14 in a jobo and had no problems with the "soft" emulsion without a hardening fixer being used. In your ISO range you want you may be stuck with the premium films from Ilford or Kodak.
regards
Erik

[Frank Petronio]

Sorry, I should have checked. It looks like HP5 is the only "cheap" alternative to TXP.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the film you wanted was Fortepan 400 (Classicpan, J&C Classic, Europan, Arista.EDU I, etc.). Alas, no more.

A soft emulsion is only a problem if you're tray processing (in which case you just need to handle the film carefully) or handling it roughly (in which case you might mess up any film). There should be no problems with soft emulsion films in a Jobo, tanks and hangers, or large tank dip and dunk.

The film is as likely to scratch in the developer or stop/rinse as the fixer or wash, so I don't see a hardening fixer as being much protection.

[D. Bryant]

Sorry, I should have checked. It looks like HP5 is the only "cheap" alternative to TXP.

TXP is the only cheap alternative to or for TXP.

Don Bryant

[John Kasaian]

TXP is the only cheap alternative to or for TXP.

Don Bryant

So true! :(
I've never tried Fomapan 200 or it's alter ego Arista.eduUltra 200 so I can't comment on it (although I have become rather fond of Arista .eduUltra 100) but it might be worth a try.

[Gene McCluney]

AFAIK, TXP and HP5 and Tmax 400 are the ONLY ISO 400 sheet films available in 8x10.

[j.e.simmons]

I went the route of the "cheap" eastern European films for awhile. I found numerous quality control issues so that I've found it cheaper in the long run to go with Kodak and Ilford.

I agree with David - the soft emulsion films are prone to scratching at any stage of the process, so hardening fixer is not a solution. I had to resort to processing one sheet at a time in a tube to eliminate severe scratches. I wasn't under any deadline pressure, so the time involved didn't bother me, but it might hinder you.
juan

[Bruce Barlow]

Life's too short to use cheap film, especially if there's even a remote chance of quality control issues (yeah, Kodak and Ilford have them, too, but I trust them more)

I remember standing on a rock in Maine with the cable release in my hand, wondering whether that particular picture was worth $5 (2 sheets of Tri-X). It occurred to me that I was spending $60/night on a hotel, $2.50 a gallon (at that time) for gas, and $35 a day for food.

Click.

[pdoyle]

I remember standing on a rock in Maine with the cable release in my hand, wondering whether that particular picture was worth $5...
LOL! I have had that same thought! Brings to mind an old Seinfeld episode in which Elaine's favorite form of birth control was no longer being manufactured and after having stocked-up she was wondering whether or not her date that evening was "sponge worthy".

[windpointphoto]

Life's too short to use cheap film, especially if there's even a remote chance of quality control issues (yeah, Kodak and Ilford have them, too, but I trust them more)

I remember standing on a rock in Maine with the cable release in my hand, wondering whether that particular picture was worth $5 (2 sheets of Tri-X). It occurred to me that I was spending $60/night on a hotel, $2.50 a gallon (at that time) for gas, and $35 a day for food.

Click.

How true, how true. Film has always been the cheapest part of the hobby. Penny wise, pound foolish as they say.

[Ed Pierce]

How true, how true. Film has always been the cheapest part of the hobby. Penny wise, pound foolish as they say.

I have sold many prints which were not my "favorite" images. I obviously thought they were good enough to print and include with an exhibit, but still I was surprised when people were willing to buy them.

I have also been surprised by my contact sheets, finding an image I really like when I didn't think it was so great at the time.

I've learned that I can't fully trust my own judgement in the field. If there's any question, I go ahead and make the negative. You can't win if you don't play.

[David A. Goldfarb]

To be fair, I suspect that Frank is shooting more film on one of his model shoots than most of us do in a day of landscape photography, but still, even if Fortepan 400 were still available, it probably would cut film costs by about 50% compared to Tri-X, which probably isn't much in the overall budget for model, transportation, a room in a skanky-chic hotel, equipment depreciation, film processing, etc.

[D. Bryant]

How true, how true. Film has always been the cheapest part of the hobby. Penny wise, pound foolish as they say.

I think Frank is probably suffering from sticker shock since moving to 8x10, but I think it should be worth the cost of the film since Kodak film is virtually 100% defect free.

Don Bryant

[Doug Howk]

The Eastern European films at higher ASA always seemed low contrast & prone to emulsion problems. For 8X10, which I only contact print, I've standardized on new T-Max 400 (and FP-4 for in the field). At $44 per box of 10 at Badger Graphics, it is a worthwhile cost - great for portraits in studio.

[Bruce Barlow]

I think Frank is probably suffering from sticker shock since moving to 8x10, but I think it should be worth the cost of the film since Kodak film is virtually 100% defect free.

Don Bryant

Yeah, true, but that said, I just bought HP5 in 8x10 because I'm mad at Kodak for discontinuing 50-sheet boxes of Tri-X. And HP5's in 25 sheet boxes. I THINK I'd pay the $4 a sheet for Tri-X, but I'll be fuddled if I'll open more than one box each time I have to reload holders! This is my first defection from LF Tri-X, after 25 years. Breakin' Up Is Hard To Do!

[Frank Petronio]

OK thanks, I may go back to HP5 in spite of the occasional packaging flaws I had with their 4x5 -- which were more annoying than "fatal" -- but I'm also going to try some TMY again, since it's been ten years or so since my last experience with that film.

FWIW, I no longer shoot in hotels or do all that much with nudity -- since March when my stuff got picked up by a lot of porn sites the whole idea has made me uncomfortable and I don't like exposing my friends/models to that sort of scrutiny -- but you guys can ogle... they said you're cool, lol.

The idea with moving up to 8x10 is to slow down and shoot less, but more intently, and using a heavy tripod camera and more lighting goes along with that notion. After trying some lightweight 8x10 options I'm going for the heavy metal -- travel by car route -- and not flying around nearly as much (unless a client pays).

I might even do some of that landscape stuff again. Out of the car.

[ic-racer]

How true, how true. Film has always been the cheapest part of the hobby. Penny wise, pound foolish as they say.

I don't agree that it is anymore. I think it currently is the most expensive part by far.

[Herb Cunningham]

Frank, I have belonged to the :"film of the month club" for a while, But I keep going back to Ilford. I develop in ss tanks with hangers, so no scratching issues, but Efke has had some emulsion problems in my experience in the past, so I dropped them. Never tried any of the Arista films.
Don't do any models, so slow speeds are fine in my uses.

Kodak makes me nervous about their longevity, although I have used their films for over 50 years.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're using a heavy camera and lighting and don't mind the extra weight of a bigger (or another) pack, I think FP4+ has a more Tri-Xish look than HP5+, and yeah, those 10-sheet Tri-X boxes do jack up the price some. Fortunately, I have a decent stock of 8x10" film in the freezer for now and can wait a bit to see if reasonable sized boxes will come back.

[Daniel_Buck]

I too have been looking at more inexpensive alternatives to Tri-x 320, I've got a box of Arista EDU 100 in 8x10 that I have yet to try. (since film speed for me is not very critical, the jump from 320 to 100 isn't bad). Hopfully I'll have some time to give it a try soon! With only 4 8x10 holders for my usual hiking trips, a box of 10 sheets is silly because it will leave me with 2 sheets in a box and make loading the next batch progressivly more complicated with multiple boxes inside of my changing tent!

I love Tri-x though, it's so forgiving, and I enjoy it's result!

[Drew Wiley]

Why in the world would anyone want to compromise on 8X10 film? You'll just end up
spending more on printing paper if the film is less than cooperative.Films like Tri-X, HP5,
FP4, and "Eastern European" 200-speed films all have very different curves and each
a distinctly different look. They also all respond to developers differently. Pick one and
master it first. My personal preference is for as long a straight line as possible and
compatibility with pyro, so my favorite are the 200-speed films. The quality has been
superb; but I currently have about half a dozen different types of 8X10 films on hand,
each with its strong points for particular applications. Start with one film, learn its
strengths and limitations, but shoot carefully. The probability is that you will simply
shoot less film with an 8x10 than with a smaller format, so it won't really cost you that
much more overall. Admittedly, I've never been a fan of Tri-X, and have difficulty
understanding what its appeal is in this day and age, when there are a variety of
excellent alternatives. But if that's the look you want, buy it.

[John Kasaian]

www.ultrafineoline.com is supposed to be carrying a new line of 400 speed 8x10 sheet film in the near future. They've always had reasonable prices (very similar to Freestyle's Arista brand) I have no idea how it performs but I think it is worth looking into.

[Daniel_Buck]

Why in the world would anyone want to compromise on 8X10 film? You'll just end up spending more on printing paper if the film is less than cooperative
not all of us print traditionally :)


Pick one and master it first.
I agree, however Tri-x comes only in 10 sheet boxes now, and that is quite annoying. So much so that I'm ready to look at other films. For the most part, Tri-x 320 has been my main film, for 35mm and 120 (I've been shooting both of them for about 4 years now) and it's been my only film for large format. (I've been shooting large format for only 1 year) and one of my main reasons for looking for an alternative (for 8x10 only, not 4x5) is the packaging size.

I like most everything else about the film, and have found it to be very predictable for what I shoot. If I could find an alternative that was both cheaper, and came in larger quantities, that would be great. Until recently, I have not had any need to look for alternatives to Tri-x 320, sure it's a bit more expensive than some other films, but that's ok. But now with the 10-sheet 8x10 boxes, it's both a bit more expensive, and a bit more annoying :) A bit more expensive I can tolerate, and I was willing to tolerate until the 10-sheet boxes, now I'm passively looking for an alternative.

[Turner Reich]

I have three 8x10 cameras and a supply of JandC 400, when it's gone I'll shoot less and less 8x10 and more 5x7, when the 5x7 gets thin and too expensive I'll go to 4x5 again and when it is narrowed down to a few emulsions of high cost I'll be using the 2x3 I'm stocking up on. When that runs out it's 120 roll film for me. When it is gone I'll probably be gone.

Maybe the upcoming depression will end film and me. It will be interesting photographing a depression.

[Turner Reich]

One more thought, how long will it be before Kodak starts reducing the length of a 120 roll?

[John Kasaian]

Such doom and gloom! There are more suppliers of quality film than just the Great Yellow Father in Rochester to choose from and while 8x10 was never "cheap" it is certainly affordable. Unfortunately the affordable stuff isn't fast stuff right now. It will be interesting to see what the 400 ISO Ultrafine looks like.

[Turner Reich]

I tried the Ultrafine web search and came up with not.


The idea with moving up to 8x10 is to slow down and shoot less, but more intently, and using a heavy tripod camera and more lighting goes along with that notion. After trying some lightweight 8x10 options I'm going for the heavy metal -- travel by car route -- and not flying around nearly as much (unless a client pays).

I might even do some of that landscape stuff again. Out of the car.
__________________

8x10 definitely slows you down, and you don't have to shoot it exclusively. Have you considered a 5x7 back for the 8x10? I have one for my Calumet C1 and it gives me two formats with just the additional back to bring along. 5x7 film helps keep the cost down. I'm going to make a 5x7 reducing back for my wood field camera, the C1 is getting too heavy to take out.

Does your camera have the springs for inside dividers? That would enable you to shoot two on one, either two 5x8 or two 4x10, two nice formats.

[John O'Connell]

Have all of your sheets processed in DR5, and Tri-X won't seem that expensive!

Can't say I'm sure that HP5+ is going to serve as a replacement for TXP, considering your subject matter (skin tones). Good luck.

[John Kasaian]

I tried the Ultrafine web search and came up with not.




Try this link
www.ultrafineonline.com/newulplblfi.html

[Turner Reich]

John, that link works, do you know anything about the 8x10 film that will be offered there?

[John Kasaian]

John, that link works, do you know anything about the 8x10 film that will be offered there?

Nope. The last Ultrafine shhet film offering was Ilford. I have no idea where the new stuff is coming from. If you're interested you might e-mail Ultrafine and ask them. There's nothing like getting the low-down straight from the horse's mouth!:D