400 ASA film in 120 size

[IanBarber]

HP5 is my main film, and I've shot a lot of TMY-2.... I've recently shot a few rolls of Delta 400 and it has really perked my interest. I shot it at EI320, developed in Pyrocat-HD, and it was lovely.

Andrew, what dilution did you use for the Delta 400 in Pyro-HD and what times. I am on the fence whether to try delta 400 or HP5 of which both will be developed in pyro

 

[IanBarber]

But the straight line of TMY, in the right developer, can go fully two stops or steps further down at full box speed. So, in effect, in some situations, it's a faster film too.

Drew, which developer do you suggest is a good match for TMY-400 in 120 format.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lots of developers work fine with TMY, but for general shooting I use PMK pyro. Gives me full 400 speed with this particular film, plus excellent acutance and tonality. The grain is barely visible in a 16x20 print from 6x7 format; but would be visible in a 20x24 print. I normally shoot TMX100 instead in MF; but my Fuji 6x9 RF is so easy to handhold that it becomes a superb companion to 120 TMY400, especially if conditions are too windy or stormy to realistically use a tripod.

 

[GLS]

Pyrocat-HD works very well with TMY-2 also.

 

[destroya]

Lots of developers work fine with TMY, but for general shooting I use PMK pyro. Gives me full 400 speed with this particular film, plus excellent acutance and tonality. The grain is barely visible in a 16x20 print from 6x7 format; but would be visible in a 20x24 print. I normally shoot TMX100 instead in MF; but my Fuji 6x9 RF is so easy to handhold that it becomes a superb companion to 120 TMY400, especially if conditions are too windy or stormy to realistically use a tripod.

I also use TMY handheld in my 6x9 and 6x8 fuji rangefinders. a perfect match. can shoot the film at 200, 400 or 800 depending on the light and get great results using Pyro-M, 1200 or 1600 work well in XTOL also

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Hp5+ is pretty nice, TMAX 400 in D76 1+1 is wonderful, and even better in replenished XTOL

 

[jim10219]

I prefer TMY for modern grain and tonality. For something with a more classic look, I prefer Rollei IR 400. It looks a lot like Tri-X 400 to me, plus it has IR capabilities if you use an IR filter. So it's a dual purpose film. I think it's highly underrated as a traditional B&W film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Once in awhile I've deliberately underexposed TMY @ 800 and overdeveloped it to get deep black graphic shadows combined with wonderful midtone gradation, kinda the Brett Weston look. Delta 3200 or HP5 doesn't do that crisply due to a long toe. I've never tried Rollei IR, nothing in fact since Konica IR was still around in 120. Can it be daylight-loaded like Konica?

 

[Cumulo]

...i'm usually an FP4 user (at 64 ASA) - but i'm increasingly finding a need for something faster to enable hand-held, macro and greater DOF, frequently in subdued light conditions. I'm thinking about HP5 - but what about something more modern? If it's 'useable' speed is closer to 'box speed' then so much the better. Thanks for your suggestions.

I have used at least a half-dozen B&W films, different speeds, grains, etc. When you ask about something more "modern," I suggest that is nearly without meaning. I ask myself what I want to do with a film when I choose a roll, be it for large, medium or 135 format. Am I looking for graininess for haptic purposes? Do I want or need higher resolution and sharper negative? Do I expect to need temperature latitude or exposure latitude during developing or taking, respectively? What light conditions will I have? Do I need the widest dynamic range under a particularly high contrast light condition or in a low light shade? Until you answer for yourself these questions, your choice of film, I suggest, might be better based on price or convenience. Do you develop your own? Do you work with a processor who actually takes instructions (not all do?) The Other responses I have seen for personal preferences in response to your post don't appear to be particularly useful, for they don't address a type of use matched to yours, in general.

 

[Cumulo]

Once in awhile I've deliberately underexposed TMY @ 800 and overdeveloped it to get deep black graphic shadows combined with wonderful midtone gradation, kinda the Brett Weston look. Delta 3200 or HP5 doesn't do that crisply due to a long toe. I've never tried Rollei IR, nothing in fact since Konica IR was still around in 120. Can it be daylight-loaded like Konica?

I'm not certain why somebody would go to Delta 3200 to shoot as they had with TMY; grain and images in my images shot with Delta 3200 have been totally different from 400 and 800. I'm also not certain why one is comparing IR film loading to these fast B&W films...could you illucidate with respect to more than convenience in loading?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Someone else mentioned Rollei IR. No, that's not going to be in either a speed or look category of this particular thread. All I wanted to know is if it can be daylight loaded. Not all IR films can be. On the other hand, choosing between TMY and Delta 3200 is not such a stretch. Once you get it exposed up onto the straight line Delta 3200 is actually a much slower speed, just like TMZ is actually 1000 rather 3200 if you read the tech sheet. But with Delta 3200, even shot at 800, you get a less dramatic toe than TMY at 800, and of course prominent rather than fine grain. A completely different look. That's what choices are about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Someone else mentioned Rollei IR. No, that's not going to be in either a speed or look category of this particular thread. All I wanted to know is if it can be daylight loaded. Not all IR films can be. On the other hand, choosing between TMY and Delta 3200 is not such a stretch. Once you get it exposed up onto the straight line Delta 3200 is actually a much slower speed, just like TMZ is actually 1000 rather 3200 if you read the tech sheet. But with Delta 3200, even shot at 800, you get a less dramatic toe than TMY at 800, and of course prominent rather than fine grain. A completely different look. That's what choices are about.

I have loaded Rollei IR 400 in 120 in daylight, but like any other film I prefer to be in the shade or inside in dim light. Rollei IR 400 has its own distinct look without filters, R23, R25, R29 and 720 ==> each is different.

 

[Neil Grant]

I have used at least a half-dozen B&W films, different speeds, grains, etc. When you ask about something more "modern," I suggest that is nearly without meaning. I ask myself what I want to do with a film when I choose a roll, be it for large, medium or 135 format. Am I looking for graininess for haptic purposes? Do I want or need higher resolution and sharper negative? Do I expect to need temperature latitude or exposure latitude during developing or taking, respectively? What light conditions will I have? Do I need the widest dynamic range under a particularly high contrast light condition or in a low light shade? Until you answer for yourself these questions, your choice of film, I suggest, might be better based on price or convenience. Do you develop your own? Do you work with a processor who actually takes instructions (not all do?) The Other responses I have seen for personal preferences in response to your post don't appear to be particularly useful, for they don't address a type of use matched to yours, in general.

...the original post elicited a lot of useful responses so it must have meant something they could relate to. Everything is self processed and printed - so it's all controllable. Likely to go with HP 5 but may try TMax 400 too in a pair of backs over a small range of test objects.

 

[Neil Grant]

Someone else mentioned Rollei IR. No, that's not going to be in either a speed or look category of this particular thread. All I wanted to know is if it can be daylight loaded. .

.. no problem daylight loading Rollei ir 400. It's not very fast without a filter. (If you feel like trying) Not 400ASA. - more like 50.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Looks like Rollei IR is similar to the old Konica near-infrared. That was around ASA 25 with a 29 red filter installed. Nothing I'm likely to want to use anytime soon. Went through that phase with my P67 camera a long time ago. But it was fun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

.. no problem daylight loading Rollei ir 400. It's not very fast without a filter. (If you feel like trying) Not 400ASA. - more like 50.

I take a light reading for Rollei IR at 400 and then adjust for the filter I am using. Works much better than "is it 50, or 6, or should it be 12?"

 

[Neil Grant]

I take a light reading for Rollei IR at 400 and then adjust for the filter I am using. Works much better than "is it 50, or 6, or should it be 12?"

...I tried it without a filter out of curiosity. I normally only use it with an r72 and in this case regard the film+filter as '2 or 4' ASA in bright daylight. I don't bother with a meter reading at all - just give it 1/2 or 1/4 sec at f/16.

 

[Dusty Negative]

If the consensus is correct then don't worry. Ultrafine Extreme is available in the U.K. It's called Kentmere. Still a problem of course if you are a 120 user. Ilford do not make Kentmere in 120

pentaxuser

As someone who is still quite a noob in the world of film, I am perplexed at the mystery surrounding this film. What would be the point of an established company like Kentmere producing a bastard film that they refuse to acknowledge in public? Seems fairly well acknowledged (via searchable forum commentaries) that Ultrafine Extreme 400 is a good film. Why not accept the good publicity??

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, what dilution did you use for the Delta 400 in Pyro-HD and what times. I am on the fence whether to try delta 400 or HP5 of which both will be developed in pyro

Wow sorry for my late reply! I use 10ml each of A and B in 500ml water. It's the same dilution I use for HP5. 9:30 21C.

 

[pentaxuser]

As someone who is still quite a noob in the world of film, I am perplexed at the mystery surrounding this film. What would be the point of an established company like Kentmere producing a bastard film that they refuse to acknowledge in public? Seems fairly well acknowledged (via searchable forum commentaries) that Ultrafine Extreme 400 is a good film. Why not accept the good publicity??

You make some good points. If it is Kentmere and there seem to be good grounds for believing it is then I do wonder why Ilford has not made it as Kentmere in 120. As to your point in your second sentence there was a long thread on who makes what films and reasons why a film maker chooses to make a film for a third party and agrees to allow said third party to use another name for the film without revealing this

Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the thread on which all of this was discussed but maybe others who participated can supply this information. Matt King if he see this question and chooses to respond can throw some useful light on the subject

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

You make some good points. If it is Kentmere and there seem to be good grounds for believing it is then I do wonder why Ilford has not made it as Kentmere in 120. As to your point in your second sentence there was a long thread on who makes what films and reasons why a film maker chooses to make a film for a third party and agrees to allow said third party to use another name for the film without revealing this

Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the thread on which all of this was discussed but maybe others who participated can supply this information. Matt King if he see this question and chooses to respond can throw some useful light on the subject

pentaxuser

I can understand the rebranding part, to a certain extent. Just seems odd to me. Kentmere could have (re?)made their name here in the US. instead this decent film gets marketed by....what was their name again? ;-)

In any event, I shan’t lose sleep over it. Just strikes me as odd that this solid film is marketed here in such an unconventional, almost passive way. As long as supplies last I’m a buyer. Cheers.

 

[MattKing]

It is indeed a strange world we live in.
In most cases, the cost of actually manufacturing the film is the smallest component of the cost of that film on the retailer's shelf/site. Some will recall Simon Galley confirming that it cost them more to buy the backing paper for a single roll of 120 film than it did to make the film itself.
The costs of confectioning the film - slitting it to size, punching the sprockets or adding the backing paper and spool, edge printing, packaging, plus the big one, distributing the film, are what drives the shelf price.
So if a third party wants Harman to do all that up in bulk and put the third party's name on it, and are willing to both pay for all of this in one fell swoop and handle most of the distribution costs, it is going to be incredibly attractive to Harman.
I certainly remember the thread pentaxuser refers to - it's just a bit hard go locate.
I think it is this long one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/developer-recomendations-for-agfa-apx-400.167730/

 

[Dusty Negative]

It is indeed a strange world we live in.
In most cases, the cost of actually manufacturing the film is the smallest component of the cost of that film on the retailer's shelf/site. Some will recall Simon Galley confirming that it cost them more to buy the backing paper for a single roll of 120 film than it did to make the film itself.
The costs of confectioning the film - slitting it to size, punching the sprockets or adding the backing paper and spool, edge printing, packaging, plus the big one, distributing the film, are what drives the shelf price.
So if a third party wants Harman to do all that up in bulk and put the third party's name on it, and are willing to both pay for all of this in one fell swoop and handle most of the distribution costs, it is going to be incredibly attractive to Harman.
I certainly remember the thread pentaxuser refers to - it's just a bit hard go locate.
I think it is this long one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/developer-recomendations-for-agfa-apx-400.167730/

Aahhh. A true who-dunnit. Thank you — interesting thread.

 

[Dusty Negative]

It is indeed a strange world we live in.
In most cases, the cost of actually manufacturing the film is the smallest component of the cost of that film on the retailer's shelf/site. Some will recall Simon Galley confirming that it cost them more to buy the backing paper for a single roll of 120 film than it did to make the film itself.
The costs of confectioning the film - slitting it to size, punching the sprockets or adding the backing paper and spool, edge printing, packaging, plus the big one, distributing the film, are what drives the shelf price.
So if a third party wants Harman to do all that up in bulk and put the third party's name on it, and are willing to both pay for all of this in one fell swoop and handle most of the distribution costs, it is going to be incredibly attractive to Harman.
I certainly remember the thread pentaxuser refers to - it's just a bit hard go locate.
I think it is this long one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/developer-recomendations-for-agfa-apx-400.167730/

...and your explanation was very helpful as well. My assumptions are based on the digital ‘factory’ where salaries are probably the biggest expense. Makes complete sense what you are saying.

 

[abruzzi]

Think of it like quantum indeterminacy. Either UFX400 is Kentmere 400 or it isn’t. Currently it exists in both states, some people buy one, some buy the other, liking the results they got from the one they bought. Some people believe they are the same, and buy either, but not having certainty makes them potentially separate products. Once official word leaks that they are the same, the wave function collapses, and the market sees them as the same, and interchangeable. That effectively shrinks the market for both Kentmere and UFX.