The 'un-love' of b/w

[Andre Reinders]

The reverse of the other thread - any b/w film anyone hates out there?

I bought about 10-15 rolls of APX400 20 exp. because it was cheap. $2.50 per roll. (Canadian). and after shooting about 5-6 rolls and always developing it in Ilford DDX, I really don't care much for it - exspecially for people/portraits.

Please let me know if anyone likes or gets good results with this film.....

[titrisol]

Try shooting it at EI200 it improves greatly.
I bought a bunch (as silvergrain) and after exposing it as 200 it looked great in Rodinal

I used to hate Fortepan 400

The reverse of the other thread - any b/w film anyone hates out there?

I bought about 10-15 rolls of APX400 20 exp. because it was cheap. $2.50 per roll. (Canadian). and after shooting about 5-6 rolls and always developing it in Ilford DDX, I really don't care much for it - exspecially for people/portraits.

Please let me know if anyone likes or gets good results with this film.....

[Dean Williams]

I have a hard time finding any fault with APX 400.  This is shot at box speed, devved in PC-TEA.  D76 gives a similar look, less grain.



I think Major Black has also done some great cemetery stuff with it.

[r-brian]

For me, the film that I just can't get a good negative from is HP5+.  Just one of those things.  Luckily, I don't shoot much 400 speed film and as long as there is Tri-X, I'll be happy.

Brian

[Julio1fer]

I could never process TMX or TMY satisfactorily.

[Glenn Thoreson]

APX 400 and TMY are two films that get more controversial comment than just about any other. Folks either love 'em or hate 'em. When you get this one nailed down, it really shines.
Geez, Dean, that is one helluva photo!

[jake]

Yeah, the Tmax films. I had a lab that used to do beautiful things with Tmax. Then I tried myself and it was horrible. I asked what they used - Tmax developer, the same as I did.

The only complaint with Agfa is that it can be curly, but I was taught the trick of running the shower in the bathroom before hanging it up to dry (counter-intuitive no?) and no problems since.

FP4 is not my favorite either.

I pretty much shoot TriX at 400 and Acros at 100. That's about it. Boring I suppose, but I can make it work with a set of reels and a couple hours in the bathroom.

J Ake :twisted:

[ImageMaker]

The only B&W films I've used in the past four years that I've really disliked were microfilms in my Minolta 16 cameras -- and then only because they were too darned slow for hand holding with a relatively slow (f/2.8 ) lens; find the right developer, and they've got incredible resolution, sharpness, and tonality, but it's just a crapshoot trying to get a shot that isn't riddled with motion blur or all-over fuzzy from opening up too far trying to prevent motion blur.

[Todd G]

I really like TMax 100, especially in Rodinal, but HC-110 is close.   TMax 400 is a different story.  I try to avoid it.

The more recent APX 400 seems to do pretty well.  Earlier Agfa 400 always came out with a dull gray caste to it.  Never could get a decent soup out of Rodinal with.  HC-110 or D76 do better for me.

[LarryD]

I have not tryed enough to let you know what I hate. I do though Dislike TMY and TMZ. APX-400 well I have about 200 feet of it I got for almost nothing I like it at 200 in D-76 400 in HC-110 and 800 in Diafine.

Larry

[Dean Williams]

I forgot to mention the film I don't like.  Like it seems with quite a few folks, I can't do much good with TMY 400.  I know it's just me, though.  If you go to
http://www.heylloyd.com
you can see what it can do.  The guy knows his stuff as a portrait photog, and he knows his TMY, too.
The films I use most are Tri-X and FP4.

[ImageMaker]

I like TMY a lot -- it was the first film to receive my extended time, low agitation development, and looks great with that process.  Where a lot of people have trouble with it is that it has no shoulder, especially in PQ developers like HC-110 -- it'll continue recording increasing density for 12 or 14 stops above the toe, making a negative that's extremely difficult to print without a lot of dodging and burning, or such low print contrast that it looks flat.  Solution: compensating development, in the form of high dilution and low agitation so you don't give up toe speed.  The compression effect of high dilution, low agitation produces a shoulder almost like the one Tri-X gives naturally in D-76.  I routinely get negatives that can be printed with good shadow detail, visible clouds in the sky, and still don't look "flat".

[Dean Williams]

Lloyd Erlick gets supurb results using TMY for his portraits, but he doesn't use a compensating developer.  He does use the best developer in the world though, and I guess that helps.  Plain ol' D76.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Yep, good ol' D-76. I wonder if they had to try 75 other times before they got it right, but they did.

[ImageMaker]

Yep, and TMY has an almost normal shoulder in D-76; as far as I can tell, the "no shoulder" curve really comes up mainly in "modern" developer, most of which are PQ type.  Even with D-76, though, the T-grain films are picky about how they're developed, got to get them pretty close to just right.