As a relative newby in the course of returning to film, I've standardized on Ilford's HP5+ and FP4+, but admit to similar urges to experiment with other emulsions. Standardization on Ilford has something to do with an estimate that this is the sweet spot of the quality-value equation together with a sense that Ilford's tie to my main focus on B&W ought to merit the benefit of the doubt and full support on the basis that they provide a wide array of materials supporting the field. I do not sense a similar commitment and dependency on the part of either Fuji or Kodak for the future - though with Kodak (Alaris), my impression may be out-of-date. That said, I don't mean to demean or avoid either company's products as they are excellent. Yet neither seem to offer much reward for choosing to standardize on their materials. By contrast, bulk load Ilford and an already modest cost drops further - even to the point where you'll shoot often enough to improve. FWIW, since returning to film, I've been sufficiently satisfied with Ilford I have yet to try the much hallowed TRI-X... and don't feel that "pull". T-MAX on the other hand is more appealing or at least has been used in more shots I've admired that I look at these with admiration. Same for a slew of films developed in D-23.... so I find it difficult to attribute the results to the film, the developer and/or the photographer except by consistency. I have a slew of developers but am using mostly HC-110 and (increasingly) FA-1027 (which seems to be a Clayton's variant on D-76 if I read it right).
For daliances with other films, my choices in B&W run along similar lines of thought: smaller firms like Adox, Bergger, Ferrania and Foma where film is their life's blood and B&W their main gig. While I could buy any of these (including Ilford) on discount from Freestyle and others, I'd prefer to see them make it under their own flagship brand, and won't. I'm trying to stay away from the rebrands, but fairly can't ferret out all the duplicates. Theory here is that this approach will generally keep things simpler, more reliable, etc. - even if it costs a tad more.
I'm doing a bit with color, but only a bit. I'm a hybrid-est, and so digital color is "okay" here (for me) - at least while I re-figure out film color. This may wait for a Medium Format camera to really replace digital... but that's a while off, and I'm sort of resisting the whole camera-as-big-as-a-house thing and sticking with 35mm. Here I guess I'm sticking with Portra 160/400 and Cinestill for now - all very much Kodak, and so far, I'm leaving development to pro labs. There's enough infrastructure to put in place to control the film process that color development, though I hear it's not much harder... just didn't seem worth the squeeze at this point. With color, I don't feel there's the same degree of creativity as B&W 'cause you either nail a skin tone or you miss and "the miss" defines the viewer's experience - even more than perhaps it should. Of course, the last statement attests that I am NOT a hipster or lomographist.
Good luck and have fun!
