Great video! My only critique... quit doubting yourself & offering apologies. You know what you're talking about, are providing valuable info, and did the work to substantiate it. Thanks!
would love to watch a colour version for iso 160/200, and 400 and then 800/1600. amazing video, brand new subscriber. And the 120 episode you seem to be working on will be great!
My man this is the best film review comparison on TH-cam. You say you're an amateur and that the big boys might talk smack but anyone who criticizes your knowledge in this video needs a smack cross the mouth. If Wikipedia had a page on black and white film this should be the definitive video for them to link to. Respect
This video was very well done. Years ago (in the 1970's) I was in the Air Force and worked in the Photographic Squadron. All we had was film (digital didn't exist). We did TONS of picture taking on all sorts of film and developed B&W and Color by hand. We spent HOURS in the darkroom developing film and prints. It got to the point that after the military I was sick-and-tired of taking and printing photos. Now, today, after using digital for a few years, I like to return to the antique and vintage film cameras. I use old 116, 120, 620 (with 120 film) and 35mm film cameras. I collect them, clean them up inside and out, and use the cheapest B & W film I can find to test them. I have found that many of the antique cameras still can take very nice photographs. I just HAVE FUN! You guys are working too hard to find the "perfect film". JUST HAVE FUN! Stop trying to be so "intellectual" about it. Find what you like and stick with it. Don't compare yourself or your prints to others. Also, after working in a film/print film lab in civilian life - and comparing notes with others who have also done so - we concur that different people like their photographs to have a different "look". Some like all of their prints DARK, some like all of their prints on the LIGHT side. Some like it very contrasty, and others don't, etc... It is what YOU LIKE. Again, JUST HAVE FUN! It's not a competition. Help save antique and vintage cameras - that still work - from ending up in the trash, or just sitting on someone's display shelf as a "decoration piece" or turned into a lamp, when it still has plenty of picture taking life in it. I gotta go, the light is just right...
I watched this video before buying my first roll of film a year ago, almost to the week. I came back to it today as I branch out into developing my own films. What a ridiculously useful piece of content, Andrew. Thanks so much for making it.
UPDATE TO MY UPDATE: Hey everyone on this thread. I'm updating the update I made in regards to Ultrafine Extreme Pro. Awhile back I heard from a source I trusted that Extreme Pro was just a rebadge of other film stocks through the years and I believed that source. However, I just had a great conversation with Jeff over at Photo Warehouse regarding Ultrafine Extreme Pro. He assured me that Extreme Pro is NOT rebadged and that it has been sourced from the same supplier since it was improved over regular Ultrafine eight or so years ago. The emulsion is also not available in any other name anywhere else. This is very encouraging to me and I've never been more glad to be wrong, as I really love this film.
Do you know if this is the case for the 400 as well as the 100? I have had very consistent results with the film although I've only shot 200 feet of it.
Hey everyone on this thread. I'm updating the update I made in regards to Ultrafine Extreme Pro. Awhile back I heard from a source I trusted that Extreme Pro was just a rebadge of other film stocks through the years and I believed that source. However, I just had a great conversation with Jeff over at Photo Warehouse regarding Ultrafine Extreme Pro. He assured me that Extreme Pro is NOT rebadged and that it has been sourced from the same supplier since it was improved over regular Ultrafine eight or so years ago. The emulsion is also not available in any other name anywhere else. This is very encouraging to me and I've never been more glad to be wrong, as I really love this film.
In 1980 I was a US soldier stationed in Germany and I had heard about this new Ilford film, XP. It came in a demo kit with some rolls of film and the chemicals to develop it. It was fantastic. I guess the true test is to dig out my negatives and scan them. Because that was the biggest argument among HP5 users like me, that the film would fade over time like color film.
I'm six years late to the party, but this is one of the best comparison videos I've seen about any topic / product. You've inspired me to buy some FOMA and Kentmere.
Excellent video and test results! I went with Ilford HP5+ for the following reasons in no particular order: 1. Popularity 2. Film quality 3. Good test results 4. Good sharpness, grain, tonality, highlights, shadow detail, and latitude 5. Non-digital look 6. Readily available; decent price 7. Easy development 8. Pushable (looks good at ISO 800) For film development, I will be using Patrick Gainer's FX 55 and 510-pyro, both of which can be mixed at home. The downside of Ilford HP5+ is that it's a low contrast film. Post processing and darkroom manipulations (dogging, burning, or filtration when variable contrast paper is used) are required to boost overall contrast. Grain can be an issue when making big prints. For me, that's prints larger than 5x7 inches from a 35mm negative.
This is EPIC! Thanks for all the work you put into this. There's a book called FLAVR that breaks down all the B&W films, but I found your blind tests really helped me look at things more objectively. Great stuff.
Don't bother. I've read it and didn't think much of it. It doesn't go into anywhere near enough technical detail even for an amateur/enthusiast like me. Spend your money on film and chemicals, or buy your best-behaved kid for the week a large ice-cream. ;)
Don't often comment on YT but definitely felt compelled to say that this video is brilliantly put together and must have taken an insane amount of work. I've been shooting film on and off for almost 10 years now and my top 5 were surprisingly similar to the stock I shoot regularly, although I had an upset for #1 which came out to be Tri-X. I remember shooting it years ago and not being particularly impressed with the results but I'm definitely going to have to get some and try it again off the back of this. I've always been a HP5/Delta 400 shooter personally so this was a surprise! Cheers for this!
Yikes! This is very in-depth. I appreciate all the hard work here. It may not be super technical and I'm a technical guy, but I really like your approach here. When I shoot a film I am more concerned about the aesthetics rather than tech specs for the most part, save for pushing. You just gave me a very concise way to evaluate one film over another. Thanks.
Really appreciate the efforts that went into this comparison. And it was a good idea to put the disclaimer first so that the haters could just keep quiet and watch. I look forward to seeing one on B&W 100 film.
Most certainly the best film comparison I have seen on TH-cam and I have seen many .... thank you for that short movie, I am sure a lot of work went in this
Nice guide! I spent a few hours of my weekend watching, taking notes, and figuring out what I liked. I especially loved the historical aspect of your study. For many people, shooting film is not just about the aesthetics but the historical aspect of the process. In that regard, knowing more about each film makes the process more interesting for me. I learned a lot about films that I would have never thought twice about in the past. Except for two (streetpan and pancro), all the film you used is available at my favourite camera store here. Like you, Ultrafine Xtreme, AGFA APX, and Kentmere ranked in my top 4, along with my old favourite, the TriX400. The results of my blind test have convinced me to look into the Xtreme 400, as it is the cheapest film at my store.
Man, between this and the color film video; you've hit it out of the park. It's an incredible amount of effort I'm sure and the results speak for themselves. This was amazing. Thanks again for all your hard work!
I’ve talked to Rollei and they confirmed that RPX 100 and 400 are new emulsions based on the original Agfa Leverkusen APX formulas. They are produced by Harman for Rollei.
Thank you so much for adding the criteria of "curling." Had many challenges with Tri-X, as you noted. And learned from you video about Kenmere. Have tried it, and you are right. Perfectly flat when dry. Now scanning, but things look good. Jim
Thank you so much for making this. Admittedly, it probably took me over 2 hours to get through, pausing the video and such, but I could have spent many more hours reading about films, making bad comparisons, and hemming and hawing. This was awesome!
This was amazing! As someone who has been shooting film for over 3 years now, this is the first time I have actually challenged myself to find out what the differences in film are. You are definitely the only person that has done such a detailed comparison. Without seeing the images side by side as we have with here, it is virtually impossible to pick up on the nuances. This helped me so much, and I am equally surprised to see Kentmere rank highest for me, followed by ultrafine and delta. I am very excited to try these out and experiment with other films that didn't rank as high but were nonetheless very interesting - such as StreetPan due to its high contrast. Thank you for your time and effort, it goes a long way, even years later!
Impressive video, thorough and well considered. Thank you for taking the time to do all this. I simply rated the 4 pics from 0 (didn’t like) to 4 (liked a lot). I noticed that not all pics from the same film rated the same, Pancro rated consistently high for me though. Top 5 for me: 1.Pancro, 2. Ultrafine Extreme, 3. TriX, 4. TMax, 5.HP5.
I know it's been close to a year since this video was posted, but thank you so much for doing this and posting it! I just finished shooting my first two rolls of color film and have been curious about black and white. There's a surprising amount of options available and your video has been a great help to narrow down what I'd like to start with. Many many thanks!
Great work! I enjoyed watching all 52 minutes (+39s) of this video, and using your "black and white film decision tool". Certainly helped me decide! Thanks for sharing this informative content with us.
Denae & Andrew Kentmere 400. I really liked how the images turned out and it's readily available where I'm from. I think cost per frame is around 7 cents. Thanks again!
How men that is the most dedicated and extensive test I've seen, thanks a lot for this effort and well the coments of a lot of people (some) complement the answers of my curiosity, any way ia have to finish of procesing all your information and compare my results....pff there is a lot of talking about.....awesome...greetings.
Wow. First of all, i applaude you! You are doing a great job with these videos! Thank you so much. Now, to my scores. I took your last test and Rollei RPX was the clear winner. So i bought some sheets of 4x5. I never even got finished loading the sheets because they were SO thin! I was so maaaaad.. that just goes to show that the look of the film is not all that matters. So thank you for elaborating this time around. I wanted T-max to be up there so bad, but my favorite was Kentmere, followed by Foma, Delta and Tri-x. And at the bottom - you guessed it - Rollei RPX 400. Again, my hats off to you for doing this, sir
Haha. Well thank goodness for second chances. :) I'm really glad this helped you out. Sorry I mislead you with v1. I was also surprised that those cheaper films seemed to compete so well with the expensive stuff. It's also interesting that people keep saying that Foma and Delta are the top of their preference lists. Of course, that could always be because these two films just do great when developed in HC 110. Lots of variables. Cheers!
So much effort has been put into this. For apples to apples comparison, though, an even playing field would have to occur by developing each film to match an 18% gray. (similar to what the background appears to be.) The digital images you currently have could be manipulated to appear this way, but that manipulation would falsely skew the range of any particular film's tonal range and texture capabilities. So, a full honest test for each film using the same film developer would best be done developing at home to match each film's processing time needs. To determine each films processing time, a gray card image could be the initial subject, shot at different recorded iso exposures, and develop so as to match each film's medium gray density to each other. This would provide a basic fair playing field, with the only other fine-tune adjustment being to avoid push / pull processing, which is going a 2nd step further. An efficient approach is to divide a 36 exposure roll into 3 identical sections, and cut the roll into 1/3rds to be developed at different processing times. for greater efficiency, it is possible to tape the sections of different film brands together and process them at the same time on the same spool. Use a tape that can handle processing in BW Chemistry without coming loose. This part takes patience because it is done in the dark, and is difficult because the alignment needs of my paterson spools require near perfect alignment accuracy, especially difficult if placing tape on both sides of the adjoining films. I can't remember the brand of tape I use. It is redish brown almost transparent tape that can handle chemistry. Each 1/3rd could be exposed with identical series of shots (maybe as many as 8 exposures: 4 being shots of gray card at different ISO's, and 4 shots of the main subject at different ISO's.) Divide each 1/3rd with blank shots as spacers maybe 6 of them. (place a lens cap to 'blacken' the exposure during these spacer exposures.) So, shots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are an identical series as 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and are also identical to shots 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36. with this method: shot#1 is exactly identical to shot#15, and shot#29 shot#2 is exactly identical to shot#16 and shot#30 ... and the shots with the lens cap on are #'s 9,10,11,12,13,14, and also #'s 23,24,25,26,27,28. this is getting awfully wordy, but with the above method, developing 3 different spools at different processing times, the results would provide a lot of information, including some push processing and pull processing results. I've probably lost 99% of readers in this digital age, so I'll stop here.
Yes. That does sound like a much more scientific way to conduct a comparison. Also, probably beyond my ability to produce. I would happily push my audience to a test conducted this way though.
Interesting and informative, thank you! I learned on TriX in the 70s and shot almost nothing else for quite a while. Later, I didn't have the space or time (or want to, really) to process my own, I started using BW400CN and used that as long as it was available. When Kodak discontinued that film, I needed to settle on another BW film. I didn't approach my choice quite as methodically as you have...but I did buy some of every available BW film I could and shot (I think) 3 rolls of each. And, ended up back with TriX as my primary 35mm BW film. That choice was made in large part because the lab I use returned consistent results that I've learned and so have a better chance of getting the results I want. But, I have just started processing some of my own film again: 4x5 sheet film using the Stearmann daylight tank. For that use, I settled on HP5 and HC-110. I am shortly going to be moving to a new house and will have the space and, now, desire to process 35mm as well. So, I will need to revisit my choices for 35mm film. Thank you again for this info and methodology, they will be very useful! I tend to stick with one film for BW and one film for color. This lets me remove that variable, as it were, and helps me get what I intend on the frames. Nice work!
I can´t believe what you did with this video :0 :0 :0 This is probably the most complete B&W film comparison ever made in the digital era. Thank you for sharing all of this. I appreciate the Spiderman touch BTW.
I know I'm late to the game... but what an awesome video! Thanks for the hard work, and now I can confidently shoot new films, some I've never even heard of. Subscribed!!
I'm really glad you did this because I'm someone who hasn't touched b&w film in over 15 years and back then I was a TMAX diehard. I used ILFORD occasionally, but I was never a technically skilled photographer and I never developed my own film. I did develop large sheet film at a printing plate making company, so I at least had a basic understanding of developing challenges. What I never thought about was scan-ability (I used to send that out to be done back in the stone ages), how fragile the emulsion was from film to film and I honestly had no idea so many films existed, ergo the range in grain, tone and even the IR element. I thought I was going to fall in love the Rollie Retro film, too! Was surprised by the outcome. I learned a lot that will help me pic film for a vintage first generation Kodak Pony 135 camera I just inherited that I want to play around with. This was VERY helpful! Thank you!
Very comprehensive comparison presented in an enjoyable and informative manner. Thanks for taking the time and and making the effort to cover all these different great emulsions, and ecstatic to see Ultrafine Xtreme so highly regarded!
Great video still useful in 2022. I'm just getting back into film photography. I just bought 100' of hp5 and fomapan. The reason being from what i've seen with other TH-camrs is that Foma is good if shot at 200 - 400 Iso, but can't be pushed too far. The Hp5 will be more for pushing as it seems to do well for that. Also the latitude you get with the hp flat seems like a good fit if you NEED to get the photos (special events, birthdays, people you won't see often, etc) THANKS GREAT RESOURCE.
Genius video..truly. Thank you a ton, just got into film photography and was trying to figure out how to replicate my taste into this new formfactor, you easily helped me find the visual style I enjoy. For my taste the winners were Kodak T-Max and Ilford XP2 Super, love the slighly gentle and lifted blacks, without the in-your-face punch to it, find it works best for how I like to shoot portraits.
I agree with much of what you found. Your JCH Streetpan shadow comments are spot on. It's what gives that film its punchy/gritty look; it's not an everyday film. I'm not a big fan of HP5+, but I respect that a lot of people like it. Diversity is one of the great things about analog photography! I find Fomapan scratches too easily. But hey, it's cheap, and it's an adequate film. My personal favourite is probably Rollei IR400 shot as normal film, but that's because I want a dramatic look. For general use (a milder look), I get nice results from Bergger Pancro 400. The fact is, all films are good, any of them could produce an award-winning shot, and we're lucky to have them. Well done for taking the time to do this comparison.
First, kudos to all of the work and time you put into this. Thank you so much for the dedication to see it through until the end. Second, I too was suprised by Arista EDU. I have only used it in 100 speed, but it is really good! I guess I'm gonna have to give Arista 400 a shot now. Also, super excited to see what you do with that Bronica. That's the camera I chose when I jumped into Medium Format.
Loved it, especially how you made your images available for review. Which I did, and changed my film order to FP4 based on what I saw, looking at grain, sharpness, overall contrast, highlight & shadow detail. Thanks.
Thanks for the review , very professional in my opinion and these are the results for me based only on the picture qualities i like, and sorry if they are quite obvious brands thats how it came out. 1- HP5, 2 Trix 400, 3 -XP2, 4- AGFA(Do they still make this) and TMAX on the same points, 5 - Kentmere 400, 6 - Delta
Great video! Went through the whole thing. REALLY went blind by blacking out the columns I finished previously so they wouldn't influence my next rating. VERY surprising results! Films I had NEVER considered were top choices! I'm currently stocked with Ilford HP5 (because I've always used it) but Delta 400 came in FIRST on my results. Tri-X came in second and FOMA came in THIRD! Mind blown! My needs for a B&W film is a high contrast, great show detail, fine grain film. Delta's a bit pricey as well as Tri-X (if you use a lot of it) So, Fomapan 400....winner winner. Thanks so much for this fantastic video. Well-worth the time.
Probably the most comprehensive test out there and massively helps a novice like me! Also love your thorough and (data based) approach of scoring! Cannot thank you enough 🙏. Like some other comments have mentioned...don't apologise as you are really thorough and knowledgeable, and there will always be "self-proclaimed experts" who may always disagree...but I consider any critical comment as peer reviewing 😀. Thanks once again for your stellar effort!
Un gran test con una buena metodología. Realmente práctico y de gran ayuda para decidir qué opción elegir. Ya no solo para elegir la mejor (por uno mismo), también para elegir en función del resultado que se busque para cada trabajo/proyecto. No siempre “la mejor” es la más apropiada para según que uso. Muchas gracias.
Thank you for such a thorough test. Good sample photos, good system. Appreciate your work. I found it very helpful to consider before I buy a bulk roll to load myself.
Thank you for your investment of time and money to produce these comparisons. So many of this type of comparison videos suffer from defective technique, that it is wonderful to find one which explains its procedures and qualifies any short-comings. Congratulations on a fine effort. I'm subscribing now and look forward to exploring your other videos in the near future.[I have used HP-5+ for a number of years, and I felt a pull to explore one or two of the high-score films. Then, I remembered how much time and effort I invested to set processing standards for HP-5 in my preferred developer and how reliable the results have been. I think I'll just make some more prints and let others explore what is left of the brave new world of film photography.
Absolutely incredible. Thank you Andrew! Very illuminating. I’ve always loved Tri-X but it scored way low and my absolute least favorite film HP5 was the highest rated for me! Haha. Great content Andrew! Would love seeing more film work of yours!
My fav in all 4 shots was surprisingly K (best grain, contrast and texture imo) all the way, I have to shoot more of it ! Also E was really great and versatile, loved the results (maybe unconsciously because that's the film I shot the most and am the most used to). Finally "I" rendered really well in portrait, soft pleasant look.
Massive, tremendous and most comprehensive film review i've ever seen! Even in "film era"the photographic society hadn't seen anything like that! Many thanks and appreciation for your hard work. Regarding the films themselves I probably would disagree on RPX. It's my favorite BW film, but on your review I looks kind of blotchy, especially in shadows, with little or no details. However I found this film has a great total and dynamic range, deadly sharp (all RPXs are), easy to scan but unfortunately, too expensive in USA. No surprise on Agfa - a great film too.
Oh Yeah! That was crazy! I did the whole thing! Got involved in the video, even if at the beginning I was doubting about it... Totally Worth it! Thanks so much for all that job you have been trough to get to those results! Really... chapeau! I am also a bit surprised with a couple the films that came out on the top5 after the Blind Test... 1_Ilford Delta 400 Pro 2_Kentmere 400 (?????) 3_Kodak Trix 400 4_Ilford HP5+ 5_FOMA (?????) It looks like I need to buy new stuff. I am also very interested about this cheap Ultrafine Xtreme 400--- I think it's hard to find it in Europe, though... uhmmm. Let's see. Thank you so much! You got a new follower!
Thanks Óscar! A lot of people have been reporting Delta as their winner. That's really interesting. And yeah, sadly, I don't think Ultrafine is available in Europe. It's too bad because I really think it's a solid and cheap film.
I remember using Kodak HC-110 during my film days when Ye Ancient Nikkormat FTN was my chosen "light chopper." In time, I "went back to powder," since D-76 could process nearly any kind of monochrome 35mm film past or present. My cheapest film was East German ORWO, bought in bulk from Freestyle Sales. Other "foreign films" were Ilford, Agfa and Fuji Pan, found here and there. I used a wide range of monochrome films in ISO/ASA 32-1600, and found that film developers could have significant impact on specific films. (Agfa film did a tad better with Rodinal, along with Ilford and ORWO.) These days, digital cameras have replaced Ye Olde Nikon FM-2, and I haven't had a reason to select the "monochrome" option...so far.;) The one film/developer combination that turned everything upside down was the H&W Control system. I ran across this in Camera 35 magazine, and found that while this combo didn't exactly "create large format results in 35mm," it had me doing high magnification enlargements. As I found out later, the film was Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, a microfilm emulsion, and the developer was Phenidone-based. This film/developer combo had me reaching for the sturdiest tripod I had and taking "deep depth" photos, such as vehicular traffic on a curving road. At "ASA 80," this had me looking at car license plates with my most powerful loupe or using my slide duplicator setup to magnify small sections of the 35mm frame. I quickly found out which of my lenses were the sharpest and quelled desire for a Qiuestar telescope.;)
Thank you for putting in all that work! I took the test and I too was surprised: hurray for blind testing. I bounced off of Tri-X originally but it scored really well, I will be giving it another go.
I appreciate the effort you put into these videos. I also watched the color film blind comparison. They are very informative. What I learned: My preferences lean toward the more expensive films. Damn.
I really learned a lot from your video. It must have taken tons of work to do this, I appreciate your efforts. I find most TH-cam videos either incredibly boring or incredibly obnoxious, yours is neither, it's both informative and interesting. I tend to be the opposite of you when it comes to decision making, I tend to fly by the seat of my pants and make mostly emotional decisions. To try (a modification of) your methodical and more objective process was enlightening. Thank you!
Sorry to be late to this discussion. It’s now almost 2022 and lots of these films are out of stock due to the pandemic supply chain problems. I’ve recently renewed my film hobby, and I’ve been using this video to expand my acceptance of new film stocks. I’ve probably watched this video twenty times. Skipping around, having a favorite then finding something different after more time and more film reviews on othe channels. I’ve not done the spreadsheet yet. You asked for suggestions. I have one. After the reveal it would be helpful to see a contact sheet for each film showing the the four pictures. I like how your choice of photo subject helped distinguish special characteristics I wouldn’t normally consider. The constrasty steel camera, how the film handled the haze and clouds in the distance of pic 3. The mid tone separation of the helmet pics. The skin tones in the portrait. It was all good. Thank you for this effort. It would also be interesting to see how these films behaved pushed to 800 or 1600. But maybe that’s my job, you’ve presented good tools for me to do my own evaluation
You did film proud! Just shot my first roll of the Bergger Pancro. Very nice tonality but I felt the edge sharpness somewhat lacking for my needs, (D-76 1-1) still very nice film. The Agfa and the Rollie films sound really interesting. I'm a hp-5+ Guy, a little bit of tri-x. Been meaning to try Delta 400 for the longest time. Huge thumbs up great work.
This is a great film test, very seriously performed. I've made screen shots of the two best you're recommanding, that is ultrafine and foma, and I could'nt agree more with you. And yes, ultrafine is the best of both, with a much finer grain, and cherry on the cake, it's cheap. I just bought a bulk roll of film 30,5m on Ebay. Thanks for all this useful work !
You're right about one thing: different developers at different dilutions, temperatures and times.can make all the difference in the results. That's absolutely true .Nice work here though. I use 3 different dilutions of D-76 with Tri-X, myself, depending on the image ad what Iwant to get out of it. Stock for when I want a hard look (for, say, architecture),1:1 to boost sharpness and 1:3 to boost contrast. Since I don't like mixing up a gallon at a time, I think I'm going to try out Adox FX-39. Supposedly,it[s "legendary" for the amount of control it gives you.
Very nice comparison made by you :) Just watched it before going out shooting today and it actually made me change a few thoughts on what type of film to go in the situations im going to be in today. Also the scanning part was very useful for someone just getting back into scanning film again, a huge part of course to make the final image better in the end and something that would take a lot of trial and error finding out otherwise. So cheers! You made a new subscriber today:) /Martin.
One thing about developing times that's often overlooked: most of us don't use water baths to maintain a constant developer temperature. Thus, if your starting temperature is 68 degrees, but the temp when the developer is emptied is 71, then you should find the median temperature - which would be 69.5 in this case and check the time/temp adjustor on the massive development chart and find the new shorter development time, for more accurate results - or starting point. Thanks for all the background information.
I've shot film before and the 3 B&W films i love the most are tx400, HP5+ and tmax400 in this order. Blind test result gave the same order. really awesome haha
I know you’re working on one, but think about doing color 35mm. This was so informative. I watched every second. Winner for me was rollei rpx, gonna have to give it a try.
I'm used to shoot hp5+ pushed @1600. HP5 was ranked second using your method, fomapan was first. I heard fomapan give good result @200, I'll give it a shot. Hope it scans as good as you say it does ! Cheers
I found this really interesting as hc-110 is my main developer. My fav film turned out to be foma, but I have used it before and didn’t like the inconsistency. My fav film with hc-110 is tmax 100 for landscape usually at 5x4 inch sheet or 6x6 cm 120 roll film.
GREAT TEST! You've put in soo much work! Thanks! I've been shooting T-Max for at least ten years up until now, but after this blindingly excellent blind test I think I will go back to Ilford Delta again!
I swear I did this blind , but my favs were Ilford Delta 400 Pro, HP5+, Kentmere 400, AGFA APX & JCH StreetPan. I have only shot HP5+ & Kentmere 400 before so that might be why I like the look. With the 1st image, they all had great contrast, nice grain and very sharp. Will have to check out AGFA APX & JCH soon!
I learned (although not strictly following your test) that I mainly like high contrast films like the AGFA APX 400 (as I have actually noticed before - even against the feeling that it's one of the cheapest out there) and won't really have a need, at least not in the near future, for the high priced delta for example, contrary to what my taste in design was telling me. It also taught me to look more into cheap-end films; in Berlin there's this store which produces something pretty similar to the Ultrafine Extreme Pro 400 (which doesn't seem to be available in Europe, or a at least Germany) on its own at an incredible price - it's called "CHM 400" (and also has a 100 speed version). I was def sceptical before but will now have a look into it as first research results show wide acceptance and praises by critics... Thanks!
Rollei 400s is possibly the worst in terms of longitudinal curl but is the flattest horizontal curl making it a dream to scan. No annoying newtons rings ! Thanks for the great content.
Great video! My only critique... quit doubting yourself & offering apologies. You know what you're talking about, are providing valuable info, and did the work to substantiate it. Thanks!
There are so many ignorant hatters out there, you kind of have to cut them off with a few disclaimers...
I don’t think he was overly-apologetic or self-doubting. I just think he’s very earnest, which is not a bad quality at all
Do this again with more Niche B&W films then colour because NO ONE has done this other than yourself!
Bravo on such a great video!
would love to watch a colour version for iso 160/200, and 400 and then 800/1600. amazing video, brand new subscriber. And the 120 episode you seem to be working on will be great!
My man this is the best film review comparison on TH-cam. You say you're an amateur and that the big boys might talk smack but anyone who criticizes your knowledge in this video needs a smack cross the mouth. If Wikipedia had a page on black and white film this should be the definitive video for them to link to. Respect
Wow, you put a LOT of work into this. Thank you so much. You've done a great service for your fellow B&W film lovers.
Great review 👍 Shortcut tips:
@2:38 - Methodology
@5:34 - Film histories & characteristics
@17:57 - Blind test
@41:14 - Final analysis & conclusions
This video was very well done. Years ago (in the 1970's) I was in the Air Force and worked in the Photographic Squadron. All we had was film (digital didn't exist). We did TONS of picture taking on all sorts of film and developed B&W and Color by hand. We spent HOURS in the darkroom developing film and prints. It got to the point that after the military I was sick-and-tired of taking and printing photos. Now, today, after using digital for a few years, I like to return to the antique and vintage film cameras. I use old 116, 120, 620 (with 120 film) and 35mm film cameras. I collect them, clean them up inside and out, and use the cheapest B & W film I can find to test them. I have found that many of the antique cameras still can take very nice photographs. I just HAVE FUN! You guys are working too hard to find the "perfect film". JUST HAVE FUN! Stop trying to be so "intellectual" about it. Find what you like and stick with it. Don't compare yourself or your prints to others. Also, after working in a film/print film lab in civilian life - and comparing notes with others who have also done so - we concur that different people like their photographs to have a different "look". Some like all of their prints DARK, some like all of their prints on the LIGHT side. Some like it very contrasty, and others don't, etc... It is what YOU LIKE. Again, JUST HAVE FUN! It's not a competition. Help save antique and vintage cameras - that still work - from ending up in the trash, or just sitting on someone's display shelf as a "decoration piece" or turned into a lamp, when it still has plenty of picture taking life in it. I gotta go, the light is just right...
I watched this video before buying my first roll of film a year ago, almost to the week. I came back to it today as I branch out into developing my own films. What a ridiculously useful piece of content, Andrew. Thanks so much for making it.
UPDATE TO MY UPDATE: Hey everyone on this thread. I'm updating the update I made in regards to Ultrafine Extreme Pro. Awhile back I heard from a source I trusted that Extreme Pro was just a rebadge of other film stocks through the years and I believed that source. However, I just had a great conversation with Jeff over at Photo Warehouse regarding Ultrafine Extreme Pro. He assured me that Extreme Pro is NOT rebadged and that it has been sourced from the same supplier since it was improved over regular Ultrafine eight or so years ago. The emulsion is also not available in any other name anywhere else. This is very encouraging to me and I've never been more glad to be wrong, as I really love this film.
Yikes. I’ve had good results with the UFEX. So now I’m confused. Any idea about which stocks they draw from?
Addendum to my last comment: I’m shooting 120. Same repacking?
Addendum to my last comment: I’m shooting 120. Same repacking?
Do you know if this is the case for the 400 as well as the 100? I have had very consistent results with the film although I've only shot 200 feet of it.
Hey everyone on this thread. I'm updating the update I made in regards to Ultrafine Extreme Pro. Awhile back I heard from a source I trusted that Extreme Pro was just a rebadge of other film stocks through the years and I believed that source. However, I just had a great conversation with Jeff over at Photo Warehouse regarding Ultrafine Extreme Pro. He assured me that Extreme Pro is NOT rebadged and that it has been sourced from the same supplier since it was improved over regular Ultrafine eight or so years ago. The emulsion is also not available in any other name anywhere else. This is very encouraging to me and I've never been more glad to be wrong, as I really love this film.
Andrew, you are highly regarded for your work on this guide, & deservedly so. Thanks
In 1980 I was a US soldier stationed in Germany and I had heard about this new Ilford film, XP. It came in a demo kit with some rolls of film and the chemicals to develop it. It was fantastic. I guess the true test is to dig out my negatives and scan them. Because that was the biggest argument among HP5 users like me, that the film would fade over time like color film.
Very interesting! Would love to hear what you discover.
I'm six years late to the party, but this is one of the best comparison videos I've seen about any topic / product. You've inspired me to buy some FOMA and Kentmere.
Excellent video and test results! I went with Ilford HP5+ for the following reasons in no particular order:
1. Popularity
2. Film quality
3. Good test results
4. Good sharpness, grain, tonality, highlights, shadow detail, and latitude
5. Non-digital look
6. Readily available; decent price
7. Easy development
8. Pushable (looks good at ISO 800)
For film development, I will be using Patrick Gainer's FX 55 and 510-pyro, both of which can be mixed at home.
The downside of Ilford HP5+ is that it's a low contrast film. Post processing and darkroom manipulations (dogging, burning, or filtration when variable contrast paper is used) are required to boost overall contrast. Grain can be an issue when making big prints. For me, that's prints larger than 5x7 inches from a 35mm negative.
This is EPIC! Thanks for all the work you put into this. There's a book called FLAVR that breaks down all the B&W films, but I found your blind tests really helped me look at things more objectively. Great stuff.
Thanks Matthew. I've not heard of that book. Definitely going to check it out.
Don't bother. I've read it and didn't think much of it. It doesn't go into anywhere near enough technical detail even for an amateur/enthusiast like me. Spend your money on film and chemicals, or buy your best-behaved kid for the week a large ice-cream. ;)
Don't often comment on YT but definitely felt compelled to say that this video is brilliantly put together and must have taken an insane amount of work. I've been shooting film on and off for almost 10 years now and my top 5 were surprisingly similar to the stock I shoot regularly, although I had an upset for #1 which came out to be Tri-X. I remember shooting it years ago and not being particularly impressed with the results but I'm definitely going to have to get some and try it again off the back of this. I've always been a HP5/Delta 400 shooter personally so this was a surprise!
Cheers for this!
Thanks Chris!
Yikes! This is very in-depth. I appreciate all the hard work here. It may not be super technical and I'm a technical guy, but I really like your approach here. When I shoot a film I am more concerned about the aesthetics rather than tech specs for the most part, save for pushing. You just gave me a very concise way to evaluate one film over another. Thanks.
Thanks :) Yeah not the most scientific review, but I'm glad you found it helpful.
Apart from how informative it was, I really adore your attitude man. Excellent!
Really appreciate the efforts that went into this comparison. And it was a good idea to put the disclaimer first so that the haters could just keep quiet and watch. I look forward to seeing one on B&W 100 film.
Most certainly the best film comparison I have seen on TH-cam and I have seen many .... thank you for that short movie, I am sure a lot of work went in this
Nice guide! I spent a few hours of my weekend watching, taking notes, and figuring out what I liked. I especially loved the historical aspect of your study. For many people, shooting film is not just about the aesthetics but the historical aspect of the process. In that regard, knowing more about each film makes the process more interesting for me. I learned a lot about films that I would have never thought twice about in the past. Except for two (streetpan and pancro), all the film you used is available at my favourite camera store here.
Like you, Ultrafine Xtreme, AGFA APX, and Kentmere ranked in my top 4, along with my old favourite, the TriX400. The results of my blind test have convinced me to look into the Xtreme 400, as it is the cheapest film at my store.
Man, between this and the color film video; you've hit it out of the park. It's an incredible amount of effort I'm sure and the results speak for themselves. This was amazing. Thanks again for all your hard work!
I’ve talked to Rollei and they confirmed that RPX 100 and 400 are new emulsions based on the original Agfa Leverkusen APX formulas. They are produced by Harman for Rollei.
Thank you so much for adding the criteria of "curling." Had many challenges with Tri-X, as you noted. And learned from you video about Kenmere. Have tried it, and you are right. Perfectly flat when dry. Now scanning, but things look good. Jim
Pleased you found it helpful Jim. Happy shooting!
Thank you so much for making this. Admittedly, it probably took me over 2 hours to get through, pausing the video and such, but I could have spent many more hours reading about films, making bad comparisons, and hemming and hawing. This was awesome!
This was amazing! As someone who has been shooting film for over 3 years now, this is the first time I have actually challenged myself to find out what the differences in film are. You are definitely the only person that has done such a detailed comparison. Without seeing the images side by side as we have with here, it is virtually impossible to pick up on the nuances. This helped me so much, and I am equally surprised to see Kentmere rank highest for me, followed by ultrafine and delta. I am very excited to try these out and experiment with other films that didn't rank as high but were nonetheless very interesting - such as StreetPan due to its high contrast. Thank you for your time and effort, it goes a long way, even years later!
Impressive video, thorough and well considered. Thank you for taking the time to do all this.
I simply rated the 4 pics from 0 (didn’t like) to 4 (liked a lot). I noticed that not all pics from the same film rated the same, Pancro rated consistently high for me though. Top 5 for me: 1.Pancro, 2. Ultrafine Extreme, 3. TriX, 4. TMax, 5.HP5.
Woah! So much appreciation for this. I don’t know if people know how much work this is. Thanks so much for this comparison!
I know it's been close to a year since this video was posted, but thank you so much for doing this and posting it! I just finished shooting my first two rolls of color film and have been curious about black and white. There's a surprising amount of options available and your video has been a great help to narrow down what I'd like to start with. Many many thanks!
Great work! I enjoyed watching all 52 minutes (+39s) of this video, and using your "black and white film decision tool". Certainly helped me decide! Thanks for sharing this informative content with us.
Awesome! What film did you decide?
Denae & Andrew Kentmere 400. I really liked how the images turned out and it's readily available where I'm from. I think cost per frame is around 7 cents. Thanks again!
How men that is the most dedicated and extensive test I've seen, thanks a lot for this effort and well the coments of a lot of people (some) complement the answers of my curiosity, any way ia have to finish of procesing all your information and compare my results....pff there is a lot of talking about.....awesome...greetings.
Great video - the blind test confirmed the films that I prefer. Thanks for the test, it really helped a lot
Wow. First of all, i applaude you! You are doing a great job with these videos! Thank you so much. Now, to my scores. I took your last test and Rollei RPX was the clear winner. So i bought some sheets of 4x5. I never even got finished loading the sheets because they were SO thin! I was so maaaaad.. that just goes to show that the look of the film is not all that matters. So thank you for elaborating this time around. I wanted T-max to be up there so bad, but my favorite was Kentmere, followed by Foma, Delta and Tri-x. And at the bottom - you guessed it - Rollei RPX 400. Again, my hats off to you for doing this, sir
Haha. Well thank goodness for second chances. :) I'm really glad this helped you out. Sorry I mislead you with v1. I was also surprised that those cheaper films seemed to compete so well with the expensive stuff. It's also interesting that people keep saying that Foma and Delta are the top of their preference lists. Of course, that could always be because these two films just do great when developed in HC 110. Lots of variables. Cheers!
SUPERSUPERSUPER!!!! Thanks! Totally did this blind and it was clearly HP5+ for me.
wonderful and thorough review!! :) very helpful. Hope you make an updated video to include more films like those from Astrum/Svema
I appreciate all the effort. I just bought 100 ft of the Ultrafine 400.
I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT CAME INTO PRODUCTION OF THIS VIDEO !!!!
This is one of my favorite videos on TH-cam....ever. Thank you.
So much effort has been put into this. For apples to apples comparison, though, an even playing field would have to occur by developing each film to match an 18% gray. (similar to what the background appears to be.) The digital images you currently have could be manipulated to appear this way, but that manipulation would falsely skew the range of any particular film's tonal range and texture capabilities.
So, a full honest test for each film using the same film developer would best be done developing at home to match each film's processing time needs.
To determine each films processing time, a gray card image could be the initial subject, shot at different recorded iso exposures, and develop so as to match each film's medium gray density to each other. This would provide a basic fair playing field, with the only other fine-tune adjustment being to avoid push / pull processing, which is going a 2nd step further.
An efficient approach is to divide a 36 exposure roll into 3 identical sections, and cut the roll into 1/3rds to be developed at different processing times. for greater efficiency, it is possible to tape the sections of different film brands together and process them at the same time on the same spool. Use a tape that can handle processing in BW Chemistry without coming loose. This part takes patience because it is done in the dark, and is difficult because the alignment needs of my paterson spools require near perfect alignment accuracy, especially difficult if placing tape on both sides of the adjoining films. I can't remember the brand of tape I use. It is redish brown almost transparent tape that can handle chemistry.
Each 1/3rd could be exposed with identical series of shots (maybe as many as 8 exposures: 4 being shots of gray card at different ISO's, and 4 shots of the main subject at different ISO's.) Divide each 1/3rd with blank shots as spacers maybe 6 of them. (place a lens cap to 'blacken' the exposure during these spacer exposures.)
So, shots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are an identical series as 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and are also identical to shots 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36.
with this method:
shot#1 is exactly identical to shot#15, and shot#29
shot#2 is exactly identical to shot#16 and shot#30
...
and the shots with the lens cap on are #'s 9,10,11,12,13,14, and also #'s 23,24,25,26,27,28.
this is getting awfully wordy, but with the above method, developing 3 different spools at different processing times,
the results would provide a lot of information, including some push processing and pull processing results.
I've probably lost 99% of readers in this digital age, so I'll stop here.
Yes. That does sound like a much more scientific way to conduct a comparison. Also, probably beyond my ability to produce. I would happily push my audience to a test conducted this way though.
Interesting and informative, thank you! I learned on TriX in the 70s and shot almost nothing else for quite a while. Later, I didn't have the space or time (or want to, really) to process my own, I started using BW400CN and used that as long as it was available. When Kodak discontinued that film, I needed to settle on another BW film. I didn't approach my choice quite as methodically as you have...but I did buy some of every available BW film I could and shot (I think) 3 rolls of each. And, ended up back with TriX as my primary 35mm BW film.
That choice was made in large part because the lab I use returned consistent results that I've learned and so have a better chance of getting the results I want.
But, I have just started processing some of my own film again: 4x5 sheet film using the Stearmann daylight tank. For that use, I settled on HP5 and HC-110.
I am shortly going to be moving to a new house and will have the space and, now, desire to process 35mm as well. So, I will need to revisit my choices for 35mm film.
Thank you again for this info and methodology, they will be very useful! I tend to stick with one film for BW and one film for color. This lets me remove that variable, as it were, and helps me get what I intend on the frames.
Nice work!
Great effort here, much appreciated. I grew up in a home with a darkroom, which I used every day, as a child.
I can´t believe what you did with this video :0 :0 :0 This is probably the most complete B&W film comparison ever made in the digital era. Thank you for sharing all of this. I appreciate the Spiderman touch BTW.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you found it helpful. :)
Denae & Andrew It's amazing thanks
I know I'm late to the game... but what an awesome video! Thanks for the hard work, and now I can confidently shoot new films, some I've never even heard of. Subscribed!!
This is one of the best and most comprehensive videos i have seen. Thank you so much and a great job!
For somebody getting back into film photography thank you for a great vlog ,I’m placing this one in my saved folder for future reference 👍
Bravo! What a lot of work this must have been. Thank-you! Foma 400 is my favourite.
I'm really glad you did this because I'm someone who hasn't touched b&w film in over 15 years and back then I was a TMAX diehard. I used ILFORD occasionally, but I was never a technically skilled photographer and I never developed my own film. I did develop large sheet film at a printing plate making company, so I at least had a basic understanding of developing challenges. What I never thought about was scan-ability (I used to send that out to be done back in the stone ages), how fragile the emulsion was from film to film and I honestly had no idea so many films existed, ergo the range in grain, tone and even the IR element. I thought I was going to fall in love the Rollie Retro film, too! Was surprised by the outcome. I learned a lot that will help me pic film for a vintage first generation Kodak Pony 135 camera I just inherited that I want to play around with. This was VERY helpful! Thank you!
DUDE! What an amazing video!! Thanks for all the hard work! I was actually surprised about my favourite film and I will try out some new favourites..
Very comprehensive comparison presented in an enjoyable and informative manner. Thanks for taking the time and and making the effort to cover all these different great emulsions, and ecstatic to see Ultrafine Xtreme so highly regarded!
Thank you so much! Some indications you provided may be subjective, imagewise, but others like scanability are objectively important to know about 👏👏👏
Great video still useful in 2022. I'm just getting back into film photography. I just bought 100' of hp5 and fomapan. The reason being from what i've seen with other TH-camrs is that Foma is good if shot at 200 - 400 Iso, but can't be pushed too far. The Hp5 will be more for pushing as it seems to do well for that. Also the latitude you get with the hp flat seems like a good fit if you NEED to get the photos (special events, birthdays, people you won't see often, etc) THANKS GREAT RESOURCE.
Genius video..truly. Thank you a ton, just got into film photography and was trying to figure out how to replicate my taste into this new formfactor, you easily helped me find the visual style I enjoy.
For my taste the winners were Kodak T-Max and Ilford XP2 Super, love the slighly gentle and lifted blacks, without the in-your-face punch to it, find it works best for how I like to shoot portraits.
Glad to hear it!
Thanks Andrew, really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. “Roll” on the 120 comparison!
I agree with much of what you found. Your JCH Streetpan shadow comments are spot on. It's what gives that film its punchy/gritty look; it's not an everyday film. I'm not a big fan of HP5+, but I respect that a lot of people like it. Diversity is one of the great things about analog photography! I find Fomapan scratches too easily. But hey, it's cheap, and it's an adequate film. My personal favourite is probably Rollei IR400 shot as normal film, but that's because I want a dramatic look. For general use (a milder look), I get nice results from Bergger Pancro 400. The fact is, all films are good, any of them could produce an award-winning shot, and we're lucky to have them. Well done for taking the time to do this comparison.
First, kudos to all of the work and time you put into this. Thank you so much for the dedication to see it through until the end. Second, I too was suprised by Arista EDU. I have only used it in 100 speed, but it is really good! I guess I'm gonna have to give Arista 400 a shot now. Also, super excited to see what you do with that Bronica. That's the camera I chose when I jumped into Medium Format.
Loved it, especially how you made your images available for review. Which I did, and changed my film order to FP4 based on what I saw, looking at grain, sharpness, overall contrast, highlight & shadow detail. Thanks.
Thanks for the review , very professional in my opinion and these are the results for me based only on the picture qualities i like, and sorry if they are quite obvious brands thats how it came out. 1- HP5, 2 Trix 400, 3 -XP2, 4- AGFA(Do they still make this) and TMAX on the same points, 5 - Kentmere 400, 6 - Delta
Great video! Went through the whole thing. REALLY went blind by blacking out the columns I finished previously so they wouldn't influence my next rating. VERY surprising results! Films I had NEVER considered were top choices! I'm currently stocked with Ilford HP5 (because I've always used it) but Delta 400 came in FIRST on my results. Tri-X came in second and FOMA came in THIRD! Mind blown! My needs for a B&W film is a high contrast, great show detail, fine grain film. Delta's a bit pricey as well as Tri-X (if you use a lot of it) So, Fomapan 400....winner winner. Thanks so much for this fantastic video. Well-worth the time.
Thanks for the excellent video. I watched it from start to finish and it helped me make some decisions about which films I want to try.
Nice. Very glad you found it helpful
Best widest test i have seen on b+w films, Thanks for taking the time to put it together :)
Probably the most comprehensive test out there and massively helps a novice like me! Also love your thorough and (data based) approach of scoring! Cannot thank you enough 🙏.
Like some other comments have mentioned...don't apologise as you are really thorough and knowledgeable, and there will always be "self-proclaimed experts" who may always disagree...but I consider any critical comment as peer reviewing 😀.
Thanks once again for your stellar effort!
Un gran test con una buena metodología.
Realmente práctico y de gran ayuda para decidir qué opción elegir. Ya no solo para elegir la mejor (por uno mismo), también para elegir en función del resultado que se busque para cada trabajo/proyecto. No siempre “la mejor” es la más apropiada para según que uso.
Muchas gracias.
Bergger Pancro, HP5+, Tri-X are my keepers.
Thank you for such a thorough test. Good sample photos, good system. Appreciate your work. I found it very helpful to consider before I buy a bulk roll to load myself.
Thank you for your investment of time and money to produce these comparisons. So many of this type of comparison videos suffer from defective technique, that it is wonderful to find one which explains its procedures and qualifies any short-comings. Congratulations on a fine effort. I'm subscribing now and look forward to exploring your other videos in the near future.[I have used HP-5+ for a number of years, and I felt a pull to explore one or two of the high-score films. Then, I remembered how much time and effort I invested to set processing standards for HP-5 in my preferred developer and how reliable the results have been. I think I'll just make some more prints and let others explore what is left of the brave new world of film photography.
Absolutely incredible. Thank you Andrew! Very illuminating. I’ve always loved Tri-X but it scored way low and my absolute least favorite film HP5 was the highest rated for me! Haha. Great content Andrew! Would love seeing more film work of yours!
Excellent video. I am just moving into film photography and processing and this is very helpful. Thank you.
My fav in all 4 shots was surprisingly K (best grain, contrast and texture imo) all the way, I have to shoot more of it !
Also E was really great and versatile, loved the results (maybe unconsciously because that's the film I shot the most and am the most used to). Finally "I" rendered really well in portrait, soft pleasant look.
do you feel that in the 3rd photo M and K were swapped?
Massive, tremendous and most comprehensive film review i've ever seen! Even in "film era"the photographic society hadn't seen anything like that! Many thanks and appreciation for your hard work. Regarding the films themselves I probably would disagree on RPX. It's my favorite BW film, but on your review I looks kind of blotchy, especially in shadows, with little or no details. However I found this film has a great total and dynamic range, deadly sharp (all RPXs are), easy to scan but unfortunately, too expensive in USA. No surprise on Agfa - a great film too.
Wow. Andrew. 52+ minutes? That, my friend, is impressive.
Haha. First draft was over 1:20 :)
Oh Yeah! That was crazy! I did the whole thing! Got involved in the video, even if at the beginning I was doubting about it... Totally Worth it! Thanks so much for all that job you have been trough to get to those results! Really... chapeau! I am also a bit surprised with a couple the films that came out on the top5 after the Blind Test...
1_Ilford Delta 400 Pro
2_Kentmere 400 (?????)
3_Kodak Trix 400
4_Ilford HP5+
5_FOMA (?????)
It looks like I need to buy new stuff. I am also very interested about this cheap Ultrafine Xtreme 400--- I think it's hard to find it in Europe, though... uhmmm. Let's see.
Thank you so much!
You got a new follower!
Thanks Óscar! A lot of people have been reporting Delta as their winner. That's really interesting. And yeah, sadly, I don't think Ultrafine is available in Europe. It's too bad because I really think it's a solid and cheap film.
I remember using Kodak HC-110 during my film days when Ye Ancient Nikkormat FTN was my chosen "light chopper." In time, I "went back to powder," since D-76 could process nearly any kind of monochrome 35mm film past or present. My cheapest film was East German ORWO, bought in bulk from Freestyle Sales. Other "foreign films" were Ilford, Agfa and Fuji Pan, found here and there. I used a wide range of monochrome films in ISO/ASA 32-1600, and found that film developers could have significant impact on specific films. (Agfa film did a tad better with Rodinal, along with Ilford and ORWO.) These days, digital cameras have replaced Ye Olde Nikon FM-2, and I haven't had a reason to select the "monochrome" option...so far.;)
The one film/developer combination that turned everything upside down was the H&W Control system. I ran across this in Camera 35 magazine, and found that while this combo didn't exactly "create large format results in 35mm," it had me doing high magnification enlargements. As I found out later, the film was Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, a microfilm emulsion, and the developer was Phenidone-based. This film/developer combo had me reaching for the sturdiest tripod I had and taking "deep depth" photos, such as vehicular traffic on a curving road. At "ASA 80," this had me looking at car license plates with my most powerful loupe or using my slide duplicator setup to magnify small sections of the 35mm frame. I quickly found out which of my lenses were the sharpest and quelled desire for a Qiuestar telescope.;)
Thank you for putting in all that work! I took the test and I too was surprised: hurray for blind testing. I bounced off of Tri-X originally but it scored really well, I will be giving it another go.
I appreciate the effort you put into these videos. I also watched the color film blind comparison. They are very informative. What I learned: My preferences lean toward the more expensive films. Damn.
That was a giant piece of work ....wow, good job and thanks for sharing!
I really learned a lot from your video. It must have taken tons of work to do this, I appreciate your efforts. I find most TH-cam videos either incredibly boring or incredibly obnoxious, yours is neither, it's both informative and interesting. I tend to be the opposite of you when it comes to decision making, I tend to fly by the seat of my pants and make mostly emotional decisions. To try (a modification of) your methodical and more objective process was enlightening. Thank you!
Thanks Andrew for such a thorough guide.
Great video!! Really helped me a lot. Appreciate your presentation style. Keep it going man!
I can't wait to try ultrafine extreme! I haven't shot film since the early 1990's, but I am back. This video was great info.
Sorry to be late to this discussion. It’s now almost 2022 and lots of these films are out of stock due to the pandemic supply chain problems.
I’ve recently renewed my film hobby, and I’ve been using this video to expand my acceptance of new film stocks.
I’ve probably watched this video twenty times. Skipping around, having a favorite then finding something different after more time and more film reviews on othe channels. I’ve not done the spreadsheet yet.
You asked for suggestions. I have one. After the reveal it would be helpful to see a contact sheet for each film showing the the four pictures. I like how your choice of photo subject helped distinguish special characteristics I wouldn’t normally consider. The constrasty steel camera, how the film handled the haze and clouds in the distance of pic 3. The mid tone separation of the helmet pics. The skin tones in the portrait.
It was all good. Thank you for this effort.
It would also be interesting to see how these films behaved pushed to 800 or 1600. But maybe that’s my job, you’ve presented good tools for me to do my own evaluation
You did film proud! Just shot my first roll of the Bergger Pancro. Very nice tonality but I felt the edge sharpness somewhat lacking for my needs, (D-76 1-1) still very nice film. The Agfa and the Rollie films sound really interesting. I'm a hp-5+ Guy, a little bit of tri-x. Been meaning to try Delta 400 for the longest time. Huge thumbs up great work.
This is a great film test, very seriously performed. I've made screen shots of the two best you're recommanding, that is ultrafine and foma, and I could'nt agree more with you. And yes, ultrafine is the best of both, with a much finer grain, and cherry on the cake, it's cheap. I just bought a bulk roll of film 30,5m on Ebay. Thanks for all this useful work !
Wow, what a great video! Thank you so much for putting it together.
You're right about one thing: different developers at different dilutions, temperatures and times.can make all the difference in the results. That's absolutely true .Nice work here though. I use 3 different dilutions of D-76 with Tri-X, myself, depending on the image ad what Iwant to get out of it. Stock for when I want a hard look (for, say, architecture),1:1 to boost sharpness and 1:3 to boost contrast. Since I don't like mixing up a gallon at a time, I think I'm going to try out Adox FX-39. Supposedly,it[s "legendary" for the amount of control it gives you.
Very nice comparison made by you :) Just watched it before going out shooting today and it actually made me change a few thoughts on what type of film to go in the situations im going to be in today. Also the scanning part was very useful for someone just getting back into scanning film again, a huge part of course to make the final image better in the end and something that would take a lot of trial and error finding out otherwise. So cheers! You made a new subscriber today:) /Martin.
Thanks Martin! Glad you found it helpful
One thing about developing times that's often overlooked: most of us don't use water baths to maintain a constant developer temperature. Thus, if your starting temperature is 68 degrees, but the temp when the developer is emptied is 71, then you should find the median temperature - which would be 69.5 in this case and check the time/temp adjustor on the massive development chart and find the new shorter development time, for more accurate results - or starting point. Thanks for all the background information.
I've shot film before and the 3 B&W films i love the most are tx400, HP5+ and tmax400 in this order. Blind test result gave the same order. really awesome haha
Thank you for sharing your work and methodology.
I know you’re working on one, but think about doing color 35mm. This was so informative. I watched every second. Winner for me was rollei rpx, gonna have to give it a try.
Glad you found it helpful! I love RPX. I will definitely do this with color eventually.
I'm used to shoot hp5+ pushed @1600. HP5 was ranked second using your method, fomapan was first. I heard fomapan give good result @200, I'll give it a shot. Hope it scans as good as you say it does ! Cheers
Best for me: Kentmere, Agfa, Tmax (looked good overexposed), Delta 400 pro
Thank you very much for taking the time to do this. Very much appreciated dude. :)
Thank you for testing all these films. My favorite is "F" Bergger Pancro 400 and "D"
Great Job Andrew! Your video and review is excellent!!! In my opinion better than any other review from the unhappy perfectionist experts.
Thank you so much for the video, I really enjoyed !!
Thank you for this. it looks like a lot of work and it is greatly appreciated
What an awesome comparison!!! Thank you for your great work :)
I found this really interesting as hc-110 is my main developer. My fav film turned out to be foma, but I have used it before and didn’t like the inconsistency. My fav film with hc-110 is tmax 100 for landscape usually at 5x4 inch sheet or 6x6 cm 120 roll film.
GREAT TEST! You've put in soo much work! Thanks!
I've been shooting T-Max for at least ten years up until now, but after this blindingly excellent blind test I think I will go back to Ilford Delta again!
After this, I definitely feel like Delta might be my top pick for when I need the most reliable film and price is less of an issue.
I swear I did this blind , but my favs were Ilford Delta 400 Pro, HP5+, Kentmere 400, AGFA APX & JCH StreetPan. I have only shot HP5+ & Kentmere 400 before so that might be why I like the look. With the 1st image, they all had great contrast, nice grain and very sharp. Will have to check out AGFA APX & JCH soon!
I learned (although not strictly following your test) that I mainly like high contrast films like the AGFA APX 400 (as I have actually noticed before - even against the feeling that it's one of the cheapest out there) and won't really have a need, at least not in the near future, for the high priced delta for example, contrary to what my taste in design was telling me. It also taught me to look more into cheap-end films; in Berlin there's this store which produces something pretty similar to the Ultrafine Extreme Pro 400 (which doesn't seem to be available in Europe, or a at least Germany) on its own at an incredible price - it's called "CHM 400" (and also has a 100 speed version). I was def sceptical before but will now have a look into it as first research results show wide acceptance and praises by critics... Thanks!
Rollei 400s is possibly the worst in terms of longitudinal curl but is the flattest horizontal curl making it a dream to scan. No annoying newtons rings ! Thanks for the great content.