400 ASA film in 120 size

[Neil Grant]

As a side note, Tri-X (and certainly HP5) prints very easily in my opinion. Grain is small enough in 120 to be a non-issue, but gives a nice texture to the prints. 400 ISO is fast enough to allow the use of filters as well as the relative low-speed medium format lenses.

What size do you intent to print, by the way?

..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.

 

[pentaxuser]

..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.

At that size a print from a 120 film will be grain free. I'd go for HP5+. A very forgiving film in terms of processing with a lot of latitude in speed terms and cheaper than D400. OK price may not be your primary concern but why pay more if the "more" that another film gives you will not be apparent at 8x8?

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.

Pretty much anything will work nicely at that size - choose by tonality, not grain. Even Delta 3200 might be worth considering if you want to take a slightly more radical step.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Ultrafine 400 as my shoot around film, developed in MCM 100, has nice tones, good tight grain, other film is Tmax 400, developed in MCM 100, DDX if I'm going to push. Have not used TriX in a long time. I think Kodak reformulated trix in the eary 2000, came as a surprise with digital coming along, just not sure if 320 version was reworked or just the 400.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...if FP4 was faster then i'd be happy. So, like FP4. Not a film that is over fussy with regard to exposure. Developers i have are ID 11 and FX 39 (started to use when i had some TP120). Negs will be printed and not scanned.

You can easily expose FP4+ at EI200 and develop accordingly.

 

[mshchem]

...if FP4 was faster then i'd be happy. So, like FP4. Not a film that is over fussy with regard to exposure. Developers i have are ID 11 and FX 39 (started to use when i had some TP120). Negs will be printed and not scanned.

I'm a long time user of TMY. Re: box speed of FP4, maybe a dumb question, are you certain of your thermometer (s) calibration?

I use XTOL, I don't really know what my personal film speed is, I tend to add a extra few seconds when I develop. I haven’t much experience with FP4.

No reason to abandon Ilford unless you want to make a change.

 

[MattKing]

TMY-2 for me. But I would be happy with Tri-X and HP5+.

 

[Louis Nargi]

TriX 400 isn’t modern but it’s absolutely magnificent in 120 format.

AGREE

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Agree with the others, TriX 400. Also, would highly recommend Ultrafine xtreme 400. Have got good results with it at box speed.

Marcelo

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I will also join the chorus in favor of ultrafine 400. It's just about the cheapest film you can buy and I've been more pleased with it than I have been with HP5 in hc-110.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

TriX 400 isn’t modern but it’s absolutely magnificent in 120 format.

I agree that Tri-X is fantastic in both med. format and 135. No complaints. But it is sort of modern because it was changed in the early 2000s. Back then, both Tri-X 400 and Professional 320 were available in 120. I don't know how this current version is different other than being finer grain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree that Tri-X is fantastic in both med. format and 135. The only drawback that Tri-X 400 is that it is not available in 4"x5".

 

[Nodda Duma]

I agree that Tri-X is fantastic in both med. format and 135. No complaints. But it is sort of modern because it was changed in the early 2000s. Back then, both Tri-X 400 and Professional 320 were available in 120. I don't know how this current version is different other than being finer grain.

What I meant by "isn't modern" is that it's not a T-Grain emulsion. Yes, the distribution of grain forms includes tabular grains (and I know how that's done), but it doesn't act like a T-grain emulsion.

 

[Neil Grant]

You can easily expose FP4+ at EI200 and develop accordingly.

..you'll loose shadow detail and produce a contrastier neg. That's not what i want.
Since the micro-image properties are less important in 120 format at the modest printing size i will be making, consideration moves onto other factors such as which 400 ASA film will be closest to 'box speed' in either ID 11 or FX 39? Maybe no real difference, though some users may have experience. Answering questions about tonal rendering would, i'm sure, provide a bewildering range of opinions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

..you'll loose shadow detail and produce a contrastier neg. That's not what i want.
Since the micro-image properties are less important in 120 format at the modest printing size i will be making, consideration moves onto other factors such as which 400 ASA film will be closest to 'box speed' in either ID 11 or FX 39? Maybe no real difference, though some users may have experience. Answering questions about tonal rendering would, i'm sure, provide a bewildering range of opinions.

in my experience ,this calls for HP5+

 

[John Wiegerink]

In 120 format I shoot mostly HP5+, FP4+, PanF+ with some Ultrafine Xtreme thrown in the mix. In 120 I actually prefer HP5+ over FP4+ as it seems to look sharper than FP4+. I think it's due to the grain structure of HP5+ that does it for me over FP4+. I shot two identical shots of a steam locomotive on a sunny day. Rated both at box speed and wanted to see how the highlights held and the shadows under the the train. I processed them in Xtol-R and enlarged them to 16"x20". The FP4+ seemed softer while the HP5+ negative gave a better/sharper print to my eyes. They both did very well in the highlight and shadow department so no problem there. As far as visible grain? I could not see any in the shot from HP5+ and that really surprised me. Maybe it was the Xtol-R that helped, but I have also used Pyrocat-HDC and MC before that and no problems with grain there either. To be honest I used the shoot a lot of TMY2, but not since the number bleed problem. Now HP5+ is my main 120 film and more than likely will stay my main 120 film until one of us is gone. Oh, and next to Ultrafine Xtreme a roll of HP5+ is one of the cheapest films to buy. You could probably get the results you are looking for with most of the 400 speed films mentioned above.

 

[GLS]

I've never heard of this Ultrafine Xtreme before, nor have I seen it for sale at any of the usual UK suspects. Is it a US-market only product?

 

[jim appleyard]

I've never heard of this Ultrafine Xtreme before, nor have I seen it for sale at any of the usual UK suspects. Is it a US-market only product?

It's a US based company and they DO international shipping if you want to PAY for it. Check out the shipping details thoroughly before you buy! You may be better off paying a little more to buy your film locally.
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulblfi.html

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

oh shot, didn't saw you where from England. Sorry, agree with Jim.

If you strike a deal with it, it is a great film to explore, but not worth if shipping charges kill it.

Marcelo

 

[Paul Howell]

Most agree that Ultrafine extreme is made by Harmont, same as Kentmeyer 400 and and 100, but for whatever reason only Ultrafine (Photo Warehouse) seems to have it 120 size.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Most agree that Ultrafine extreme is made by Harmont, same as Kentmeyer 400 and and 100, but for whatever reason only Ultrafine (Photo Warehouse) seems to have it 120 size.

Quite possibly because Maco/ Rollei sell it as RPX 100 & 400.

 

[Agulliver]

If people are impressed with the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120, I may just ask friends to bring back a brick in the new year. Not that I need it, but maybe I want it

 

[DREW WILEY]

I love the combination of HP5 with pyro for its "watercolor grain" effect combined with superb edge acutance when shooting it in 8x10 film and enlarging it no more that 3X; but at higher magnifications it looks mushy to me, so I never shoot it in 120. On those very rare occasions when I want buckshot grain in an image, and a certain level of drama in contrast, I'll shoot Tri-X in roll film version. Neither is a true 400 speed film. But TMY400 is the real deal. Superb linearity and shadow separation even in bright sunlight. True 400 speed, at least for me. Exceptionally fine grain for a film that speed, yet good edge acutance too. You have to meter it a bit more carefully than other films, but so what. But for a different look, I'd add to the mix Delta 3200, which I rate at 800 anyway, just a stop above 400. I simply don't get the idea of rating FP4 high. For all practical purposes, I find it to be an ASA 50 film, so shooting it at 400 simply equates to lopping 4 zones from the shadows. Kinda like chopping down a Christmas tree and coming home with the stump instead. Rate it higher than even that, and all you get is some leftover sawdust.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The film I use the most these days in 120 is FP4. My suggestion is you go with HP5 which not so coincidentally is what I do.

I've used Ultrafine Extreme 400 quite a bit. Just ordered some this week. Not quite the same level of film as HP5. Great cheap film for Holgas and the like though. If you scan it it doesn't really matter. For printing though it is a lot harder to get a good print from. It almost seems like it is an exercise in how little silver you can put in the film and still call it film...

Another way to go is just skip the 400 films altogether and go to Delta 3200. I haven't shot it in years but it is a hellofa film.

Not too fond of the "modern" films myself. Never liked TMax.

 

[Paul Howell]

Quite possibly because Maco/ Rollei sell it as RPX 100 & 400.

Good to know, thought Rollei was using their own emulation. Is Rollei selling as a bargain film?