B&W 35mm film recommendations

[radiant]

Any of the films from the major manufacturers are fine.

Exactly. When I started there were only 5 different films on the shelves. I think internet spoiled people...

I disagree with this. It's like saying "five different wines should be enough". It's wise to spend time searching for film that pleases your needs and then learn use the film inside out in benefit to make your photography look the way you want it.

 

[ozphoto]

How long is a piece of string? As you can see, lots of suggestions from knowledgable users.

I would suggest Tri-x simply because it's tried and true and 9/10 the results will be fine, even if you make some mistakes with exposure. You could probably throw HP5 into that mix as well - there isn't much between them and any good lab, will be able to process both of these well.

While looking at Flickr images of the various films will give you an idea, you can't be sure how much tweaking has been done by the poster in PS unless it's straight scanning from the negative or print.

Best advice - choose some film, load up your camera/s and shoot what you love - only through practice will you get a "feel" for what works for you and your subject. Perhaps even more important though: Have Fun!!!

 

[John51]

Ask the lab which dev they use for b+w. Then do an image search for that dev plus a brand of film. With a few tabs open, you can skim through them to see which images you prefer.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fp4+xtol&atb=v153-1&iax=images&ia=images

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trix+xtol&t=chromentp&atb=v153-1&iax=images&ia=images

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hp5+xtol&t=chromentp&atb=v153-1&iax=images&ia=images


Mistakes can happen so check that the pics you like were taken with that film/dev combo.

 

[MattKing]

Harman Technology have stated on numerous occasions that neither Ilford nor Kentmere film is sold under any other name. Ergo Ultrafine Xtreme is not Kentmere 400.

Relatively recently, Harman stopped saying that.
They now say that Ilford film is not sold under any other name but, in response to a specific "Conversation" question from me about their policy with Kentmere, they said the following:
"We cannot comment on specific commercial arrangements with partners for obvious reasons but our underlying goal is to support the short and long term future of the photographic film community and that means giving photographers a choice. It is no secret we offer coating and converting services for selected brands, a practice which happens in many industries and in many day to day products you use, but while we can't comment on the specific examples, our policy remains that ILFORD films are not in anyone else's brand but our own."
For clarity, during our Conversation, they gave their consent to share their response.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Paul Howell]

Folks are recalling statement concerning Iflord films and papers, I don't recall Harman stating that Kentmere would not rebranded. And that before Harman was bought by the current owners. I bought a few rolls of Kentmere and compared to UFE and all I can say is that if walks like duck, acts duck, developers like and duck and prints like a duck it's rebranded Kentmere.

 

[MattKing]

Folks are recalling statement concerning Iflord films and papers, I don't recall Harman stating that Kentmere would not rebranded. And that before Harman was bought by the current owners. I bought a few rolls of Kentmere and compared to UFE and all I can say is that if walks like duck, acts duck, developers like and duck and prints like a duck it's rebranded Kentmere.

Simon Galley did at one time post that their policy was that they would not rebrand the Kentmere branded products that they were by that time manufacturing and selling. The statement above reflects a change from that policy.

 

[Bill Burk]

Indeed. I've spent a bit of time researching a lab in London that produces good scans. I believe I've found one based on good feedback on various Internet forums. In the meantime I've ordered one of:

• Foma Action Film 35mm B&W ISO 400
• Ilford HP5 Plus 400 B&W ISO 400
• Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm B&W Film

...to get me started. I'll see how things go and if they go well I'll order another set of B&W films to try out.

OK so all 400 speed films. The differences will be subtle. You will have trouble making up your mind between them. Do not worry - this will be a good way to learn that a bargain is not a huge compromise (and that's a good lesson to learn).

How cheap are the cameras you'll be trying and what kind of light meter do you have (built-in?). Will you be guessing at the exposure?
Some old cameras don't do well at their fastest shutter speeds. I have several which I will not go any faster than 1/250 with.
So even though my light meter might tell me 1/500 at f/16 I would still do 1/250 at f/16 because I know the 1/500 doesn't work. Also nothing would ever need 1/1000 at f/16 so if my meter ever says that I try to figure out what's wrong with the meter instead of just using what it says.

 

[Taz777]

@Bill Burk I have a Gossen Sixtomat Digital light meter (and a Zeiss Ikon Ikophot, although that’s mainly for show). Cameras are varied from things like a Minolta SRT-102 to old FSU cameras. I have two purposes in mind: checking the cameras can shoot film, and learning about manual photography. Some of the cameras have light meters built in, others do not.

It’s really all about getting started for me at the moment.

I’ve looked at the Flickr pages for some B&W films and they’ve really spurred me to get the cameras out of the display cabinet and actually use them!

 

[Taz777]

@John51 I’ll ask the lab about the dev they use.

 

[Agulliver]

Regarding Harman, it may be a case of semantics. There have always been those who insist - even when Simon Galley specifically said it was not so - that various films on the market are rebranded Kentmere. After the buy-out and Simon's departure the new management said their policy remained the same but didn't actually mention Kentmere, only Ilford. The chances are that they still don't actually offer Kentmere under other names and simply made a mistake in omitting the Kentmere brand from the statement.

But...there have been and always will be those who believe that half the 400ISO film on the market is actually Kentmere under another guise. The Harman Technology account here on Photrio could bet his house that it isn't and people would still say it is.

 

[CMoore]

Any film mentioned would be worth trying.
I think for most of us, something like HP5 and FP4 offer enough difference in Look, Grain and Speed, so as not to need much else.
In the end, sticking with two different speeds of film, and hopefully just one developer for both, will allow you to fine-tune your skills.
As a beginner myself, i have been able to concentrate on "perfecting" the basics of photography; while not having to worry about trying new Films/Developers.
I still have LOTS to learn with just HP5 and FP4..... i develop both in Ilfotec HC.
Good Luck wit whatever route and products you choose..!!!

 

[GLS]

As you are in the UK, Ilford films are available to you at a price typically lower than other pro-tier films. Take advantage of that where possible (I tend to buy mine by the brick from ffordes.com). FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100 and Pan F+ are all fantastic films. For a 400 ISO T-grain film though, I much prefer T-Max 400 to Delta 400; in fact T-Max 400 is probably my favourite 400 speed B&W film full stop.

Best thing to try when starting out though is just to buy an assortment of films of all kinds, and see what works for you. Also keep an eye out for the impending release of Acros II (the original emulsion is one of my favourites, and I still have a fridge full of the stuff).

 

[BMbikerider]

What evidence do you have that it is re-branded Kentmere??? Chinese whispers, or is there anything written down anywhere?

 

[markbau]

This thread reminds me of an interview Kenna many years ago. The interviewer asked, with bated breath, "what film do you use?" expecting the answer to unlock the greatness of Kenna's photos. Kenna simply said, if I'm in England, Ilford is easily available so that's what I use there, In Japan, Fuji is easy to get, in the US, there is lots of Kodak film. In other words, it's not the film that matters as much as the person behind the camera. The quality of light that a photo was taken under is way more important than what film you use.

 

[Colin Corneau]

...
HP5+ is probably the most versatile, along with Kodak Tri-X but the former is more available and cheaper in England. You might even find some at Boots. If you're in London, try popping into Process Supplies near Farringdon, they have just about every film on the market available to buy over the counter. I'd have a go with both HP5+ and FP4+, see how they differ. You might find you prefer one for portraits of people and another for landscapes.

This is great advice. Couldn't really say it better...if you're just starting out, or want to 'get your feet wet', HP5+ is a very versatile film, forgiving of beginner mistakes (assuming you have any, that is) and Ilford always makes a quality product.
Good luck!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

T-Max 400 is a brilliant product and for some reason more competitively priced in the UK as a 35mm film compared to the '120' roll film option.

 

[PGillin]

If the lab is doing all processing and printing then XP2 isn't a bad option. I often shoot it when visiting my parents, as they live near a good pro lab and it means I can simply pick up a few rolls when I arrive, easily share photos while I'm there, and carry back processed film. (Much easier than taking 5-10 undeveloped rolls to the airport and telling everyone I'll send scans in a week or two....)
C41 is usually less expensive than true B&W processing. It also scans reasonably well and can always be reprinted in a traditional B&W darkroom (generally with quite good results). The three main considerations are that it's a more expensive film, the lab prints (which are on color paper) will have a substantial color cast, and if the lab is using roller transport, rather than dip & dunk or tanks, you may get scratches on the film base that can show up when printing to B&W paper.

If you are going the traditional B&W route I would recommend shooting Kentmere 400 initially. It's inexpensive, consistent, and generally capable if a bit grainy and not terribly useful at a 2-stop push. Overall an excellent student film. I often buy it in 100' rolls, usually for 40-50 USD, and use that as my walkabout/general purpose film. Quality of light, content of the shot, processing, and print or scan results are usually far more influential than the differences in film stock (at least in my work), so I'd rather have a little more film to play around with and Kentmere's price point gives me that. For someone who is new to B&W film I suspect that having more film to experiment with would be similarly beneficial.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well Ultrafine 400 is somebody's film i.e. some film maker makes it. It is then a question of who makes it and there would appear to be some evidence from various users' tests that Kentmere fits the bill. Ilford recently has the opportunity to re-iterate Simon Galley's "no-rebranding" statement in an unequivocal form but chose not to do so. At least that's my reading of Ilford's statement which Matt has kindly reproduced

Those who are interested in what film Ultrafine actually is can only weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusions. Somewhat strangely for Photrio I cannot recall seeing any assertions that it is not Kentmere but is instead from maker X's stable. Usually there are counter assertions on most subjects

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Well Ultrafine 400 is somebody's film i.e. some film maker makes it. It is then a question of who makes it and there would appear to be some evidence from various users' tests that Kentmere fits the bill. Ilford recently has the opportunity to re-iterate Simon Galley's "no-rebranding" statement in an unequivocal form but chose not to do so. At least that's my reading of Ilford's statement which Matt has kindly reproduced

Those who are interested in what film Ultrafine actually is can only weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusions. Somewhat strangely for Photrio I cannot recall seeing any assertions that it is not Kentmere but is instead from maker X's stable. Usually there are counter assertions on most subjects

pentaxuser

No offense, but that really isn't the issue.
The question is: "Is the film just re-branded Kentmere 400, or is it a film that Harman (or someone else) manufactures to Ultrafine's own specifications?"
All the film manufacturers contract coat many things - including photographic film - to their customer's specifications.

 

[Agulliver]

Ultrafine Xtreme 400 may well be coated by Harman at the same Mobberly site where Harman also make Ilford and Kentmere films....but there is no evidence that it is identical to Kentmere - rebranded Kentmere as some posters have been claiming for years. The two films don't have the same development times for ID-11 or D76, probably the two most popular developers for B&W negative films.

Plenty of people enjoy using the Ultrafine films so I've no doubt they're good. But OP is in England and therefore cannot easily get hold of them.

 

[destroya]

the film may not be kentmere. we will never know. But I have tested it against the rpx 100 and rpx 400 and to me they are the same film. and those films are made in 120. so it could be similar to kentmere but not the same. But does it really matter? try the film. if you like it keep using it, if not, then find something else. the Xtreme just seems to be a quality product finished by harmon tech, but with a lower silver content than more professional films like fp4, trix and hp5, at least thats how I find them

 

[Wallendo]

My simple suggestion would be ANY Kodak or Fuji B&W film and MOST Ilford films (SFX and Pan-F 50 are probably not good starter films). UltraFine Xtreme (make sure it is the Xtreme version) and Kentmere are extremely similar to each other and are value priced..

There are good values among other brands, but there are also a lot of specialty films, repurposed films, and relabelled films; so I would generally avoid them - although I am fond of Foma 100.

 

[Agulliver]

the film may not be kentmere. we will never know. But I have tested it against the rpx 100 and rpx 400 and to me they are the same film. and those films are made in 120. so it could be similar to kentmere but not the same. But does it really matter? try the film. if you like it keep using it, if not, then find something else. the Xtreme just seems to be a quality product finished by harmon tech, but with a lower silver content than more professional films like fp4, trix and hp5, at least thats how I find them

The whole point is that OP resides in England and cannot easily try Ultrafine Xtreme film because it's not sold here. The only ways to get it are to accept huge postage costs from the USA or it OP happens to be visiting the USA himself (or has friends/family going and willing to bring some back). It's not much use advising the OP to try that specific film.

At this point I don't think there is any bad film on the market. The repurposed stuff like Rollei Retro 400S (Which we know is Agfa Aviphot 200) is a little tricky to tame but it's actually nice film. That said, as OP will be using a lab, something more "standard" and from a major brand is probably better. Anything from Ilford, Kentmere, Kodak or Foma should be fine in the hands of a competent processing laboratory.

 

[John51]

If you have more time than money, a cheap trick is to test multiple cameras with the same roll of film.

Work out a sequence of say 10 test shots. Bracketing to establish an asa setting for the camera, focus checks etc.

After the test shots, rewind the film, LEADER OUT and load another camera with it. A dozen shots with the lens cap on and then go shoot another test sequence.

Make sure that you take notes.

 

[tezzasmall]

I'll be honest and say as I'm really busy right now, that I've only read about the first 5 posts, but here's my bit...

Over the decades, I have finally settled on Ilford HP5, having tried it in both 35mm and 120 size, in various slr's, MF, point and shoots and most recently Kodak Box Browies.

The films have been developed in various developers, to see what they all offer, but having used it in the past and again right now, I will be using ID11 / D76 @ 1+1, as it gives me a good tonal range, unnoticeable grain and good speed for our lovely changeable UK weather. Any lab should be able to offer it to you but I don't know if it's been mentioned, but scans of films from labs are very hit and miss. I'd suggest going for the highest scan res that they can offer, and see if you like the results. If not there are plenty of other labs out there to try, including Ilford itself, who out of everyone should know how to develop their own films well.

As a final thought, I've also used and like XP2 very much. I had the film developed at Snappy Snaps and a good job they did too! It should be noted that I print at home so don't ask for scans the occasional time I use this film.

I'll try to read the other posts later on.

Terry S