I’ve played with pretty much any film I come across, and in terms of cost-benefit I’ve settled on Fomapan films. I like the grain structure, they are some of the cheapest BW film available and have great latitude if you like to mess with stand development. I shot this photo on a Pentax ME camera using Fomapan 100. Developed at home with Ilfotec DDX and scanned with a Canon 5D Mk3 + Canon 100mm f2.8.
HP5 and Delta 100 for most things, and Lucky 200 since it’s the only 220 B&W left that I know of.
Never heard of Lucky 200, will search for it. Got any photos you shot on it to share?
Mostly HP5. Because it’s just so damn flexible.
Will get me a bunch of Foma films for some experiments in the near future though.
@RodPhoto Tri-x has always turned out for me. I don’t hoot a lot of frames so the cost doesn’t get prohibitive
I’ve been using a bunch of Kodak 5222 (“Double-X”). I got a bulk roll of it a few years ago, like 130ft for $20. Slightly expired but still pushes great to 400 or shot normally around 200.
Higher sensitivity and I’ll go for HP5, but that is getting less common for me nowadays.
HP5+ Is definitely my go-to. I usually push it 1-2 stops as well.
I’ve also been trying Kentmere 400, but I’ve been having trouble developing it at home. Idk if the massive dev chart is just wrong, but the times I’ve used from there have cooked my rolls a little too much.
Interesting, I’ve used the dev chart to develop K400 and I thought they were fine, what developer are you using? Although, maybe they are getting overdeveloped and I just don’t see it.
I’ve also settled on Fomapan. I mostly tend to use 200 or 400, but I’ve also found that pushing the 400 to 1600 to do some night time city shooting is a really fun time.
Yes, I’ve been messing with shooting different ISOs on the same roll after seeing this video with good results!
I’ve gone through a couple go to films over the last couple years:
Rollei Retro 80S - bought a bulk roll of this when I first stated shooting. Works great with Rodinal and the grain is very nice. Main problem is the obviously slow speed, and it’s very contrasty.
Kentmere 400 - another one I bulk rolled for a while. Decent results, and I was tempted to switch to it again recently for budget reasons, but I noticed that I tended to have a lot more great shots with Tri-X, even though I shot a lot more Kentmere. Generally I found it was pretty low contrast. The emulsion apparently doesn’t have as much silver content as non-budget Harmon emulsions (ie. HP5+), so I wonder if that’s a factor in why I didn’t like it as much as Tri-X.
Kodak Tri-X - my pre-pandemic standard after giving up on bulk rolls. I would love to continue using it, but the new pricing is just too high.
These days I’m starting to standardize on Ilford HP5+. I’ve only shot a few rolls so far, but it seems comparable to Tri-X.
Kentmere is great for price, agreed on the low contrast but I was ok with that, easy to fix in post and sometimes I liked the “neutral” look of the shots, however I was getting very dirty scratched negatives from it. Clearly that is my fault, but I thought I was being careful with them and it doesn’t happen to me with other films so I’ve switched to Fomapan.
Ilford FP4, mostly. I shoot virtually exclusively large format, occasionally medium format, but pretty much always from a tripod, and like longer exposures and / or wide open apertures, so have no need for a faster film.
I quite like Fomapan 100, but it fails because of extreme reciprocity on long exposures.
I would love to shoot Fuji Acros again, that was the perfect film for me. But Fuji.
The prices for Kodak in 4x5 are absurd, bad enough I have to put up with those for color.
FP4 is beautiful, I shoot Fomapan for price, but FPR is amazing. I don’t shoot a lot of very long exposures so didn’t know about those issues with Fomapan, a shame. So what you’re saying is, it is not consistent with long exposures? Like, several long exposures that are exactly the same result in different film reactions?
