Just bought 8x10, which film?

[Scott-S]

I just purchased my first 8x10 camera, very excited. I've shot all other formats. I like the idea of buying Artista EDU because of cost but worried about quality control. I've used their 4x5 and 120 film and there is definitely issues. I like efke as well but again there are issues with delicacy, scratches and nicks in the emulsion. Since I'll be doing portraits I will only shoot maybe 3-4 exposures and I can only process one sheet at a time, so I don't want to take a chance.(Its also hard to schedule and getting people to sit).

What films do people use here for 8x10?

[Eric Woodbury]

I think you are right. Start out with economical film until you get it under control.

Personally, I use HP5+ for everything: small to big.

[Mark Sawyer]

HP5+ is my favorite, followed by FP4, but I've used the Arista 200 without too many issues. It has occassional minor quality control issues, is a bit delicate to handle, has a bit larger grain, and tends to drop the deeper shadow information more quickly. But yeah, it's cheaper...

The Ilford films tend to be more forgiving of minor exposure and processing issues.

[Ralph Barker]

I use a lot of Ilford HP5+ for landscapes and such, but prefer the look of FP4+ for portraits. But, I use studio strobes for indoor work, so the slower speed is not an issue.

[BarryS]

I was happy with the tonality and grain of Arista EDU 200, but the emulsion is soft without a hardening fixer and I had problems with particles embedded in the emulsion. It was difficult to tell if it was defects in the emulsion or issues that occurred during processsing, but ultimately, I use Kodak or Ilford when it counts--my favorite is TMAX 100. I've had zero problems with mainstream films. Arista APHS is great for practice and when you can deal with an ultra-slow emulsion.

[edkirkpatrick]

I just spoke to a rep at B&H photo and they can no longer get TMAX 100 8x10 in anything other than 10 sheet boxes. He said Kodak has discontinued the 50 sheet box. Has anyone else heard this? They still have 50 sheet boxes of 4x5 TMX100... Better get a pile of that ordered and in the freezer....

[MIke Sherck]

I just spoke to a rep at B&H photo and they can no longer get TMAX 100 8x10 in anything other than 10 sheet boxes. He said Kodak has discontinued the 50 sheet box. Has anyone else heard this? They still have 50 sheet boxes of 4x5 TMX100... Better get a pile of that ordered and in the freezer....

Kodak changed their 8x10 film offerings to 10-sheet boxes last year and raised the price at the same time; a lot of folks are unhappy with both choices. Kodak's b&w 8x10 film is now $5 per sheet, which is far more than anyone else charges, regardless of how one feels about having to buy so many boxes of film just to get a useful number of sheets of film. 4x5 film, on the other hand, is still available in 50-sheet boxes and I have heard of no plans of that changing, so I don't think you need to panic over it.

While 100 Tmax is my favorite 4x5 film, I just can't afford $5 per sheet to shoot it in 8x10. I've tried Foma 100 and 200 and HP5+ and my most-used 8x10 film now is HP5+. It isn't anything like Tmax but has its own characteristics and I rather like it for contact printing. I do have to expose the heck out of it and develop thoroughly, though, to get enough contrast to make me happy. Frankly, I have this problem with all films other than Tmax and Tri-x. Obviously, must be me. :)

Foma 200 in 8x10 sheets has very nice tonality and grain but as you've been told, the emulsion is rather soft: I found it necessary to process (in trays) one sheet at a time in order to avoid scratches. I never found a defect in the film itself, as others have, but maybe I was just lucky over the 200 or so sheets I shot in the past couple of years. Extreme corrections for reciprocity failure is the primary reason I use HP5+, as a lot of my photography is in rather low light. Foma is much less expensive, though, at about $2 per sheet (as Arista branded film from Freestyle.) HP5+ works out to a bit over $3 per sheet, still a significant savings over Kodak's offerings.

Mike

[Drew Wiley]

I'm another person finding EDU200 to be very fragile in development. Have to be extra
careful. Plus it's on the slow side for 8X10. Nevertheless I find it a worthwhile niche,
since HP5 has too much toe for some applications. I'd be eager to hear other peoples'
feedback on the new TM400. I understand how they've controlled random granularity;
but what has this done to edge effect? For landscape use, the lack of edge effect in
TM100 is one of its most disapponting aspects. Anyone use the new 400 film? Does it
still have the edge acuity of its former version? Are the highlights manageable?

[Toyon]

It takes a lot of time and effort and (probably) gasoline to haul around an 8x10, if you are only going to shoot a few sheets, it is penny-wise/pound-foolish to economize on film. I would choose TMY-2 first for its speed and quality. I'm not a huge fan of Hp5, but I do like fp4 though its a slower speed film. If you are contact printing it doesn't matter so much.

[Eric Leppanen]

I'd be eager to hear other peoples' feedback on the new TM400... Does it still have the edge acuity of its former version? Are the highlights manageable?When processed in Xtol, I find TMY-2 to be slightly "hotter" (more contrast) by maybe a third of a stop or so versus the original TMY. As a result I perceive TMY-2 to be slightly sharper when processed normally versus TMY (actual resolution isn't any different due to those small LF apertures, but that's another story...). So if you are happy with TMY edge acuity, I can't imagine you not being happy with TMY-2, at least for a workflow similar to my own.

If I were to get really concerned about holding highlights, then I might overexpose and pull TMY-2 a smidge, but so far that hasn't been a problem for my work.

TMY-2 also has noticeably smaller grain than TMY when viewed under a 10x loupe.

Sandy King has previously posted here about these two films, and authored a comparison recently in View Camera magazine.

[Gene McCluney]

I have standardized on Arista.edu.ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) for my b/w work in 5x7, and I shoot a ton of film. Yesterday I exposed 72 sheets. I process on film hangers in 3.5 gallon tanks and after almost 1000 sheets processed, I have yet to have a scratch on this film. I do use Kodak Rapid-Fix with Hardener, and when I hang up the negatives I wipe them down with a couple of photo sponges moistened in the Photo-flo solution I use as my final rinse for the film before hanging. I have found that this film is quite rugged...but the box speed is not realistic. It is really a more like ISO 100, to ISO 80 film. If you use a higher ISO index, your shadows will be underexposed. I would not hesitate to use Foma films in 8x10.

Is this the "best" b/w film for Large Format. No. But...it is affordable for those who like to shoot a lot, it can produce good tones when exposed and developed properly. If I had my "druthers" I would rather shoot Plus-X or Super XX, but those are long discontinued. Fomapan 200 responds fairly well to a No. 23a light red filter for darkening the clear blue sky in exterior shots..something I am very fond of doing.

[Drew Wiley]

Holy cow Gene, that's more sheet film than I develop in a year (except for color masking work)! So I can understand how you can afford to mix up a dunk tank of developer at a time. I work with dimple-bottomed stainless trays, and the EDU scratches really easily if an adjacent piece of film slides by a little off. I'm fiddling around with a Jobo drum for 5@8x10 at a time, but this is by far the slowest filling and draining drum I own (compared to my print drums from other brands), so can't figure out how to get truly even development, especially with a film like this which develops rapidly. I use pyro and sure miss Bergger 200! That new Kodak film looks tempting
even if I have to put up with the stupid 10-sheet packaging.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I like HP5+ for most 8x10 work. Just received some 100EI ERA 8x10 film from Isaac Chen in Singapore, which is very promising. Haven't tried it yet.