8x10 Film Choice Paralysis

[Charles S]

That price is for 4x5", I guess

I was a bit too quick. It's actually 2.38 Eur / sheet. Same difference
https://www.macodirect.de/film/schwa...-50-blatt?c=17

[Jim Noel]

What process do you intend to use to print the negatives? That canmake a big difference in your film choice. Most of the alternative processes require a film which can be expanded to produce a longer scale.

"Also Xray film like carestream ektascan b/ra are inexpensive and fun but not as rugged wet as normal Kodak film. But it's cheap fun and I've gotten a few nice photos. Not a full substitute for photographic film."
The last sentence in this post is incorrect. X-Ray film is a photographic film. Not a substitute, a real film. Being orthochromatic it just has a different response to colors than do panchromatic films. No one should neglect it as a part of their film choices. To ignore it is like a painter not including at least all of the primary colors on their pallet.

[paulbarden]

Over the past few years I have narrowed my film choices to three: Bergger Pancro400, Ilford FP4, and Ilford HP5.

I like Pancro400 a lot, but it is more difficult to get a good exposure with it than the Ilford films. In part this is because it is not really a 400 speed emulsion, it is closer to 200, or even 160 for most developer choices. But when you get a good negative, it is VERY good.
The two Ilford Films are both excellent, the only real difference for me is their speeds. Its nice to use FP4 when lighting allows, and when you need the extra speed, HP5 has you covered. I find it much easier to get consistently good negatives with the two Ilford Films.

[jp]

What process do you intend to use to print the negatives? That canmake a big difference in your film choice. Most of the alternative processes require a film which can be expanded to produce a longer scale.

"Also Xray film like carestream ektascan b/ra are inexpensive and fun but not as rugged wet as normal Kodak film. But it's cheap fun and I've gotten a few nice photos. Not a full substitute for photographic film."
The last sentence in this post is incorrect. X-Ray film is a photographic film. Not a substitute, a real film. Being orthochromatic it just has a different response to colors than do panchromatic films. No one should neglect it as a part of their film choices. To ignore it is like a painter not including at least all of the primary colors on their pallet.

I made a point to include it in the film choices. It's worth having a box. My experience has been that the spectral response is different (orthochromatic) and that's less of an issue if you are shooting in a high color temperature situation (such as dusk). It also did not seem to have as big a subject brightness range as some of the other films. Not a fault, just a design choice we can accommodate.

[Nodda Duma]

jp I think xray film is typically high contrast... not sure if it’s as bad (or good) as ortho litho but that’s what my take is.

A film being Orthochromatic in and of itself does not guarantee those characteristics which I’m sure you know, but it’s worth mentioning.

[Jim Noel]

Modern x-ray film can be processed to be high contrast, moderate contrast and in extreme cases low contrast . I think most of us who use it prefer a moderate amount of contrast, usually with nice, bright highlights. It is not dissimilar to the films in general use in the 1930's and early to late 40's. The major difference i find is that most have emulsion on both sides, and the emulsions do not contain hardeners thus they are soft. I use a single sided with anti-halation backing x-ray film as my general use film, and carry FP4+ for those occasions when i am interested in detail inthe reds.

[Drew Wiley]

I've used nearly all of em successfully. TMY400 is probably the most versatile, but also expensive. FP4 would be second on my list in terms of predictable versatility, but too slow for breezy days. HP5 is lovely if it isn't enlarged too much; so I like it in 8x10 but not in smaller formats. I've never cared for the shotgun grain of Tri-X, but lots of other people like it. I've encountered quality control issues with EU films, so prefer to stick to Kodak and Ilford.

[faberryman]

The boxes are so small, you can easily try several different types. I doubt film choice will make or break an image.

[Two23]

I've been shooting 4x5 & 5x7 and starting this year I process my own. It's not hard. I mostly use FP4+ because it has good latitude. I shoot HP5+ when I need the speed. I've also been shooting the Lane dry plates and like them, but I suggest starting with film.


Kent in SD

[Vaughn]

But what do you want the images/prints to look like?