Which B&W film?....I can't decide.

[Matthew Rolfe]

Hi, wouldn't mind a bit of help here. I'm a keen landscape photographer looking for a change in film.
I've been using Kodak T-Max 100 for a quite a while and i'm looking for a change. I tend to get a bit precious about one film and use it repeatedly, but now that I have bought a 8x10 camera I think it is time for a change and some experimentation. I'm not asking for advice on what film I should start using from now on, but rather what would be a good film to try out as my first pack of 8x10.



Thanks

[77seriesiii]

try 'em all!! :p

I currently use efke 25, Ortho, Foma 100, 200 and have a yellow box in the fridge. I just started shooting the efke so havent developed it, the Foma is great, love it. I also develop w/ pryocat HD as well.

Honestly, nothing wrong with getting a small sample 25 sheets of each type, maybe even throw in x-ray and IR.

happy shooting

Erick

[Mark Woods]

I've used Ilford's Delta 100, but I keep going back to FP 4+ 125. I just bought some Adox ortho film, but haven't shot any of it yet.

[David Beal]

Try Delta 100 at EI=50, developed in 1:50 Rodinal.

Good shooting.

/s/ David

[IanG]

Agree about Delta 100, and it's cheaper than Tmax in the UK.

Like David I shoot it at 50 EI but I process mine in Pyrocat HD, it's an excellent film.

Ian

[Bosaiya]

Efke 25, of course.

[Daniel_Buck]

Adox CHS 25 and ortho 25 are fun, and inexpensive :-)

[Matthew Rolfe]

Cheers for the advice, I think I will give the Delta 100 a go at 50 first.

[Brian Ellis]

Since you seem to want a change for the sake of making a change (no criticism, nothing wrong with trying different films, it's just that you don't say what if anything bothers you about TMax 100) I guess I'd look for something as different as possible. So that would mean a speed significantly different from TMax 100 in a non-tabular, traditional film, e.g. Ilford HP5+ on the high speed end or Efke 25 on the lower. I assume Ilford still makes HP5+ in 8x10, I haven't used it for a while and nowadays you hardly know from one day to the next what's still around when it comes to film based photography.

[Matthew Rolfe]

Brian, I don't really have too much of a problem with T-Max 100, I just wanted to take the oppurtunity to try something new and see what I may be missing. I will definitly take your advice and try something completely different. Efke 25 seems to crop up a lot so I will try it out.

thanks

[jeroldharter]

Try TMAX 400. Great film.

[Ken Lee]

This is a fairly common question here, and there are basically two kinds of recommendations: anecdotal ("Try this one. I use it, it works very well.", or "Ansel used it. If it's good enough for Ansel, it's good enough for me"), and rigorous ("Here are the graphs and charts, which show why I like it" or "Here are my test photos, which show why I like it.").

Keep in mind that we never use a film alone, but a film/developer combination. A given film will react differently in different developers. The same is true of papers and developers, if you work in the darkroom.

Although the permutations are endless, there are some sages here, who have actually performed fairly rigorous film/paper/developer "shootouts". They can actually explain why they prefer one over another, and they have been kind enough to share their results, in magazine articles, and on the web.

So it may be best to look for a recommended film/developer combination, and ask the person... "Why ?"

[Jim MacKenzie]

Ken makes some good points.

That having been said, I recommend you give Ilford FP4 Plus a try. Here's why I recommend it:

- it's a very forgiving film and tolerant in the darkroom
- it has a really nice tonality
- it's a very common, easy to get film
- Ilford deserves support since they are one of the best black-and-white products manufacturers in the world
- the film responds well to almost any developer (I'm partial to it in PMK although I confess that it's not the easiest developer to use for sheet film)
- I could honestly say that if there were only one b&w emulsion left in the world, I would want it to be this one.

I could make you a long list of emulsions worth trying. Kodak Plus-X is equally worth trying. Tri-X is, well, Tri-X (and HP5 Plus is equally worthy of a try). And there are more obscure films like Fomapan 100 that I keep shaking my finger at myself for buying, but yet when I go to print the negatives, I have a smile on my face because I like its characteristics so much.

But, at the end of the day... FP4 Plus is my film. I don't use it all the time... maybe not even half the time. But more than any other single film. (And I shoot it in 35mm, 120 and 4x5.)

Try it. See what you think of it.

[Brad Rippe]

Matthew,
People like Ken Lee make this forum such a valuable asset. I have used Tri-X for many years (with HC-110). I've been experimenting with Xtol developer, and sometime I'd like to try one of the Pyro formulas. But I need to follow the advice, "keep it simple".
I did use T-max for two years, and went back to Tri-X. I think it would be perfect for 8 by 10.
-Brad

[Gem Singer]

Ilford FP-4+ film (in any format) and Pyrocat-HD developer are a match made in heaven.

[Ed Richards]

Unless you are working in a studio, Tmax 400 (new) in Xtol has a big advantage for 8x10 - speed, at least 400, and probably 500+ in 1:3 xtol. Given the apertures you will be using in 8x10, that is the difference between an exposure that the shutter measures and one that you measure with your watch. Plus TMY-2 has great reciprocity characteristics, so your are not constantly adding time to those longer exposures, and your darker areas are not dropping out because of reciprocity failure.

[Ken Lee]

Here are some of the things to look for in a b&w film/developer combination - most of which I have learned from others, by reading this forum:

(Depending on your subject, some criteria may be irrelevant. They are not in any particular order. I've probably overlooked some important considerations).

Film Speed: - What effective film speed do you get in a variety of developers ?

Linear Response Curve: Does it have a pronounced toe or shoulder ?

Response to Increased/Decreased Development: Does it respond well to changes in development time ? Some combinations are better than others.

Color Balance: Does it render colors naturally - in particular, a blue sky ?

Reciprocity: Once you get past a 1 second exposure, how much exposure compensation is required, and does it become unreasonably long (compared to other films) ?

Ease of Handling: Does the film scratch easily ? Do you have to spend time in processing, to get rid of a magenta dye ?

Stability and Shelf-Life: Does the developer require special handling ? Is it smelly or toxic ? Does it last a long time ? Is it cheap ?

Suitability for Alternative Processing: Does the film have a mask which prevents the transmission of UV light ?

Base Fog: Does the combination produce a high base+fog value, effectively spoiling the low values or resulting in a lower effective film speed ?

Availability + Affordability: Does the film or developer require a special order ? Is it available in a variety of sizes ?

Grain/Accutance/Resolution: Less of an issue for Large Format, but a consideration when making large prints, or when using smaller film.

Examples: Are example images readily available which show off the combination ? Does someone whose work you admire, use it ?

Testing: Has anyone tested the combination in a rigorous manner, and shared their sensitometric data, or their sample prints ?

Compensating Effect: Can simple techniques be used to get additional development in the low values, while restraining development in the highlights ?

Feeling: Do properly exposed/developed images convey a feeling of natural Light ? Are they beautiful ?

[Drew Wiley]

One of the most significant problems you encounter when switching from 4x5 to 8x10
is that you have to use smaller apertures to obtain an equivalent depth of field, hence
longer exposures. You still get a sharper print because the negative is magnified so
much less. Outdoors this often means that your slower films are less practical. I generally like to have some 400 speed along, like HP5+. The new TM400 looks like it is
also worthy of testing. With 8X10 the size of film grain is much less an issue than with
4x5, so you might as well optimize for things like tonality and edge effect instead. But
beyond this, you will encounter quite a range of opinions.

[Eric Leppanen]

At times it seems like there are as many B&W film and developer combinations as there are practitioners. I'm going to take a huge risk and list my take on the main available B&W film stocks (admittedly I've never used Efke, Foma or other small film suppliers, so I apologize in advance for mostly leaving them out of my discussion). This list is based on my own experience shooting 4x5 and 8x10 with X-tol development, plus many many conversations over the years with various photographers (both professional and amateur) at my local B&W custom processing lab.

Efke 25: Finest grained "traditional" film. Some limitations in available developers (cannot be processed in X-tol). Emulsion is relatively soft and care is needed to avoid damage during handling/developing. I have heard some opinions that this film provides better midtone definition than faster, more practical films.
TMX/Delta 100: Finest grained "modern" films. Can be a bit fussy with exposure. Excellent reciprocity characteristics. Some folks consider these films to have a "modern" look.
Acros: Reportedly the finest grained "modern" B&W film (depends on developer combination). More contrasty than TMX/Delta 100 (again somewhat depends on developer combination; for me, it is a relatively contrasty film when used with X-tol; I rated it at ISO 40). Best reciprocity characteristics of any B&W film.
FP4+: Arguably best exposure latitude on any B&W film. "Traditional" film, grainier than TMX/Delta 100 (and possibly TMY-2), finer grained than HP5+/Tri-X. Commercial architectural 4x5 photographers in my area seemed to prefer this film for its practicality.
TMY-2: Finest grained 400 speed film (Delta 400 is not available in sheets). Can be a bit fussy with exposure. Some folks consider this film to have a "modern" look.
HP5+/Tri-X: Highest speed "traditional" films available in sheets. Good exposure latitude. Relatively grainy, although that is of limited import with LF. Relatively poor reciprocity characteristics.

Regarding cost: the Kodak films are relatively expensive, Ilford is middle-of-the-road, and the Efke/Foma offers the best value (at some cost of quality control).

If you shoot exclusively 8x10, then film grain is definitely not a concern, and I would be biased toward the high speed films (personally I use TMY-2). I find that for landscapes, the higher speed definitely comes in handy when using the small aperture selections that 8x10 requires. But if you shoot multiple formats, or like having lots of exposure latitude, then some of the other films might be a better choice. Personally, I have not encountered any consensus on film selection on any film format; folks seems to shoot all sorts of stuff.

The above is based on traditional silver gelatin printing and scanning/digital printing. If you get into alt processes, then a whole new set of criteria come into play.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm a keen landscape photographer looking for a change in film.

I've been using HP5+ in 8x10 and 4x5 for years and have been very happy. Great in Xtol 1+1, D-76 1+1, and pyro developers, such as Pyrocat-HD.

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5+/Tri-X: Highest speed "traditional" films available in sheets. Good exposure latitude. Relatively grainy, although that is of limited import with LF. Relatively poor reciprocity characteristics.

You cannot put HP5+ in the same league as Tri-X, as far as reciprocity characteristics go. HP5+ has way better characteristics. It's also not as grainy as Tri-X.

[Diane Maher]

My question to you would be, what kind of printing are you planning to do? Gelatin silver, pt/pd or some other alt-process? Aside from that, just about all of these films will be just fine for you in 8x10. It comes down to what kind of look you want in your images.

[Eric Leppanen]

You cannot put HP5+ in the same league as Tri-X, as far as reciprocity characteristics go. HP5+ has way better characteristics.This depends upon one's perspective. Yes, HP5+ has relatively better reciprocity characteristics than Tri-X. But HP5+ and Tri-X are both dog slow compared to a "modern" film such as TMY-2. For a ten second measured exposure, for example, TMY-2 requires only opening up the lens aperture by 1/3 of a stop (no need for additional exposure time), whereas HP5+ and Tri-X require 30 seconds and 50 seconds of total exposure time, respectively. When I first started shooting 8x10, I used HP5+ due to its nice exposure latitude, but eventually switched to TMY/TMY-2 after getting repeatedly bit by reciprocity issues (I do a lot of low light photography).

I tend to lump Tri-X and HP5+ together as it is my understanding that HP5+ is Ilford's counterpart to Tri-X, and is targeted at the same market. In fairness I should also note that HP5+ is faster than Tri-X. I have never directly compared the two in terms of exposure times, but Tri-X 320 (the Tri-X version available in sheets) is roughly one stop slower than Tri-X 400 per Kodak's datasheet, and HP5+ in my experience is a legitimate 400 speed film.

Yes despite all this, Tri-X outsells HP5+ (as well as any other B&W film emulsion).

[John Kasaian]

Hi, wouldn't mind a bit of help here. I'm a keen landscape photographer looking for a change in film.
I've been using Kodak T-Max 100 for a quite a while and i'm looking for a change. I tend to get a bit precious about one film and use it repeatedly, but now that I have bought a 8x10 camera I think it is time for a change and some experimentation. I'm not asking for advice on what film I should start using from now on, but rather what would be a good film to try out as my first pack of 8x10.



Thanks

Try Ilford FP-4+. It's very forgiving and does an excellent job (lots of great photographs have been made from FP-4+ negs!) and less costly than Kodak. Fomapan 100 is even more affordable and can yield super results, but the reciprocity is rather bizarre, so if you shoot a lot of long exposures stick with the FP-4+, If not Fomapan is certainly a good choice (I've been shooting it in every situation except where long exposures are called for, then I switch to FP4+)
Have fun!

[Matthew Rolfe]

Great advice from everybody, thankyou. Lots for me to consider and to get going with.

[Philippe Grunchec]

Try Foma 100 or 200!

[aluncrockford]

If you want a traditional feel then Adox 100 in pyro would be a very good place to start,and the place to get it from would be silverprint

[Bruce Watson]

Unless you are working in a studio, Tmax 400 (new) in Xtol has a big advantage for 8x10 - speed, at least 400, and probably 500+ in 1:3 xtol. Given the apertures you will be using in 8x10, that is the difference between an exposure that the shutter measures and one that you measure with your watch. Plus TMY-2 has great reciprocity characteristics, so your are not constantly adding time to those longer exposures, and your darker areas are not dropping out because of reciprocity failure.

What Ed said. Since I switched to TMY-2 I've found it interesting how much shadow detail I capture. Where with Tri-X the shadow under the rock in the river would be largely textureless black, with TMY-2 there's a bigger region of shadow that contains texture before it fades to black. And this with a 1/4 second exposures more or less.

That's the difference in reciprocity characteristics between the two films. For this and other reasons (sharpness, graininess, tonality, higher real film speed, etc.) I find TMY-2 a huge improvement. And I'm shooting 5x4. It can only mean more in 8x10 IMHO.

[Charles Hohenstein]

Efke 25: Finest grained "traditional" film. Some limitations in available developers (cannot be processed in X-tol).

Eric, what is the problem with Efke 25 and Xtol?

[ki6mf]

HP 5 with a diluted developer, I use D 76 1:2 with a normal development time of 14 minutes, produces fine grain results