Searching for the best B&W film stock - Part One

Part one of my search for my favourite black and white film stock. In this video, I’m testing out Kodak TMAX 400, Ilford HP5, and Rollei Retro 400s.
Film developed and scanned by Carmencita Film Lab: carmencitafilm...
►*DISCLAIMER*
Some of the links below are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
GEAR USED IN THIS VIDEO(*these are affiliate links):
Pentax 67ii: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
Pentax 67 105 f2.4: ebay.us/m5PTvK
Pentax 67 75mm f2.8: ebay.us/YLnduS
Kodak TMAX 400: ebay.us/gqBOoF
Ilford HP5: ebay.us/8ulbEW
Rollei Retro 400s: ebay.us/vYOv4f
My '35mm Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/2JrGhFs
Videos on this channel are filmed using the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K: bhpho.to/2SWPBqO
And the Fuji X-T4: bhpho.to/3n91yYk
My go-to for music (FREE Trial with this link): bit.ly/35aQELa
►GEAR(*these are affiliate links):
My go-to medium format camera: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
My FAVOURITE medium format lens: ebay.us/m5PTvK
My favourite 35mm film camera: ebay.us/82WyVI
My favourite 35mm film lens: ebay.us/u0V817
The BEST medium format travel camera: ebay.us/FVcfWk
The film scanner that I use for my work: ebay.us/RwKM4c
Best entry-level film scanner: ebay.us/Qp3ZEz
The film camera that started it all for me: ebay.us/qewXkD
My go-to light meter: ebay.us/QIFXF0
My favourite film stock: ebay.us/orbudp
My favourite 645 medium format film camera: ebay.us/ydY4HK
Awesome strap for large cameras: ebay.us/pY8mV2
Rope style strap for smaller cameras (cheap but great!): amzn.to/33hrRDO
Camera I use to film my videos: bhpho.to/3gY9yak
Camera that I use for vlogging: bhpho.to/3n91yYk
The gear I use for KZbin: bit.ly/3j5vd1L
My favourite film cameras: bit.ly/3hm6MN6
Essential film photography accessories: bit.ly/34o3Uvt
→Instagram: bit.ly/2GuYV21
→Website: kmcdougall.com
→Podcast:
..................................
DISCLAIMER
Some of the links above are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.

[@WillemVerb]

The old land rovers :') Love the video Kyle!

[@KyleMcDougall]

🙏 Yeah man, would love to get one of those back on the road!

[@MaxLamdin]

the thing worth remembering with all of the Ilford films is that they’re designed to be flatter in order to cater to the photographer, so they can be the one that determines contrast rather than having it imposed by the film stock, and bare in mind that this is also why ilford make multi grade darkroom papers and make their own contrast filters for darkroom work so the photographer has the most amount of flexibility so it always comes across as quite flat

[@peterlukac8458]

Interesting, I haven't heard that before. Gotta learn darkroom printing finally.

[@FramesPerSecond]

Yeah, honestly only like HP5 when I push it. Gives it more contrast.

[@snapsnappist4529]

I agree. HP5 straight out of the camera is extremely flat, and can look kind of grey and boring the first time, but the advantage of this flatness is that it captures a huge range of highlights and shadows, and is hard to expose incorrectly. I don't think scanning does it justice, and for best resuts needs to be wet printed. Roger at Shoot Film Like A Boss uses HP5 extensively, and gets outstanding results that in no way lack punch.

[@PaulTimlett]

A comparison between TMax and Tri-X would be interesting.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Tri-X is on order.

[@renepirolt]

Kyle, you should really consider developing your own b&w film. You'll have much better control over contrast. My personal favorite films are the modern tabular grain films such as Acros, Tmax 100/400 and Delta 100, primarily for the small grain and smooth tonality. The published development times turn out pretty contrasty, so for normal shooting I over expose these by 2/3 of a stop and then underdevelop slightly using Kodak d76 1+1. Best advice, pick one film and one developer, and experiment with exposure and development.

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's the plan! Just waiting to move into my new space.

[@MichaelDFarrellJr]

@@KyleMcDougall Can't support Rene's suggestion enough. There is so much flexibility in your results depending on how you shoot, develop, and digitize your work. You can definitely go down the rabbit hole of sensitometry getting the right workflow for what you want to get out of specific conditions. Recommend beyond the zone system books and the Adam's book The Negative for ideas and direction. Personally, Delta 100 for tabular films, decent push pull with diluted 1:1 or 1:2 X-tol is the way I've gone for years.

[@whateverrandomnumber]

@@MichaelDFarrellJr If you truly want to go down the rabbit hole with black and white film development, I can't recommend "The Film Developer's Cookbook" enough. I plan on testing rodinal with ascorbic acid. Also I had great results with Kodak films and cafenol-C-M. Ilford's seem to need quite more development time then "the massive developer chart" recommends, so my ilfords on cafenol-C-M (and xtol for that matter) came out too thin.

[@MichaelDFarrellJr]

@@whateverrandomnumber ;-) that's where the sensitometer comes in. Let's you establish the the true speed of your film when you consider you chemistry and process. All the best in your art-making!

[@whateverrandomnumber]

@@MichaelDFarrellJr Actually I just noticed I quoted the wrong person, but that's fine. I'm in the market for a sensitometer and densitometer duo. Recommend some?

[@Ukuleleloki94]

As someone who doesnt have the capacity to develop their own film yet, Ilford XP2 at a regular camerastore is a godsend, especially since its C41, ISO400 and very punchy!!

[@edshotsdotcodotuk]

V underrated film! It shouldn't be too punchy. A deep black and a fine grain for 400 is why the lab I work at when we had a dedicated b&w technician used it. A guy in his 60's he'd shot almost every film out there and loved how flexible it is.

[@TokyoGritandGrain]

Oh yeah. I'm all for the XP2. I don't see too many people talking about it (at least here in Tokyo).

[@mihaidascalu4639]

HP5 and Tri-X! 💪 Also, lesser known, Fomapan 100 for that 1960s French nouvelle vague cinematic look!

[@cameronwheatley7065]

I love Fomapan esp 200asa

[@mihaidascalu4639]

@@cameronwheatley7065 Me too, it has that dramatic look

[@nilzthorbo5437]

I really love Fomapan. It's a total sleeper. The results are bad ass if pushed three stops and processed in rodinal stand development to control contrast.

[@mihaidascalu4639]

@@nilzthorbo5437 I agree. It's an underrated, hidden gem!

[@seimurasaki2777]

IMO Fomapan is the best budget friendly option. The grain is a bit... noticeable, but hey, $5 per roll is a steal!

[@cccompressor]

Oh my, I'm buying foma for 2.90 a roll from fotoimpex. Or try foma's website for better prices ✌️

[@cccompressor]

I'd like to add that the price is when buying in bulk

[@seimurasaki2777]

@@cccompressor Aaah, really? Welp, that's what I get for not looking outside B&H haha. Thanks for the info, tho!

[@StayNerv]

I was using Ilford hp5 for a while and I was quite impressed by the output of Fomapan 400 Action after giving a try. It's my roll to go now 👌

[@michaelsifford8755]

All the films you mentioned have different potentials. Over the last 40 plus years of doing B&W photography, I have found that developing has a greater potential to affect the negative, and correspondingly the print, over that of the choice of film stock. Not to mention pushing or pulling the exposure/development. Also the final print type will lend itself to a particular film stock: digital pigment prints are much different than silver gelatin darkroom prints and palladium prints are another species altogether. I have found Ilford HP5 and FP4 to give me the greatest latitude when a digital editing step is involved in the workflow. I guess it really depends on how complicated you want to make the process, I try to make it as simple as possible. By the way, nice images....

[@Raychristofer]

Hello Kyle how are you? Good job on this comparison. For 35 mm I also love T-Maxx 100 and 400. I feel my recommend you try that is flying under the radar is called Ars Imago 320 ISO. I've only shot one roll but I love it because I couldn't blow out the highlights outdoors easily and in low light indoors it beautifully renders the shadow area. This film actually comes from the company that makes the lab box but unfortunately it looks like they stopped importing it into the US but if you get a chance you may be very surprised I couldn't find fault with it

[@708photog]

I forgot to mention - Greg Davis (aka The Naked Photographer - kzbin.info/door/Ucaft-3hNIuB1L1IgARPoQvideos) is currently producing a series on his channel about comparing all available black and white film stocks. He plots film curves and controls for the various variables - really good and objective testing.

[@ivofreeman1999]

Washi films are great if you want to go off the beaten track a bit, I prefer washi F, Wash W is a bit novelty and I don't think you can get it in 120mm, if they made Washi A in 120 it would be great but I think it's only in 35.

[@bramvanderhorst1996]

I've been shooting Fomapan 200 and 400 over the last year. Its quite contrasty and prices haven't risen that much over the last year or so. Opposite to what Ilford and and Kodak have done in the last year. I'd recommend PanF50 as well, but since it has an iso of only 50 its quite niche in its application if you want to handholf the photo's.

[@afrikabb]

Fomapan 200 is my favorite! With a good developer, like Xtol, DD-X or just D76, it looks like "cool" vintage cinema material.

[@samtenthije2419]

I personally really love Rollei RPX, it's allows for the contrast of tri-x, but the character of a classic cubic grain like HP5. Plus, it pushes really well

[@KyleMcDougall]

Looking forward to testing it out!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks to everyone who commented. A bit overwhelming to respond to! Haha. But great info for the community. I appreciate you all. 🙏

[@actionimagesphotography]

"Too much character" , don't hear that much these days. Picking and choosing the film that matches the shoot, love it!

[@darrenwall5439]

Good old fomapan 100 is my b/w film of choice for 4x5. Its ultra cheap and it's actually really nice. The 120 is a little grainy compared to the 4x5 but half the price of Kodak

[@odukar2315]

I tried out all of the presented film stock. My favorites are HP5 for daily use and medium grain and Delta 400 for best sharpness. In general, the used developers have a remarkable influence on the tones and the graininess.

[@stephenperera7382]

....it is all very dependent on developers.......thanks for the videos.....I use Tmax 400 and Fuji Acros mainly in Kodak Xtol.....then Tri-X

[@MrRay645]

never shot much black and white outside, but inside I liked Ilford for harsher light set ups and TMAX for softer huge soft box shots..... wonder if in harsher sunlight your preferences would change? late to the party but great video, having a blast shooting film again and your videos have been great.

[@billebdon4338]

Have a look at The Naked Photographer for a very thorough evaluation of B&W films, developed consistently and all printed the same way. In my experience of several decades using B&W film you will see significant differences in grain and contrast between rolls of the same film depending on how they are exposed and developed and the contrast of the scene. If you use different makes of film and get them processed by others it is difficult to know what effects are the film characteristics and what are due to the processing. You can best assess the results by developing it yourself and keeping records until you tune the film to the effect you like for the lighting that you meter. I use HP5at 200asa in Perceptol or 400asa in ID11 (both at 1+3 dilution) depending on the lighting and tend to under-develop about 10 -20% compared to Ilford's recommended times and still get good contrast for printing typically at Grade 2. I also use Rollei Infra Red film developed in stock ID11 which is a lot of fun. Anyway enjoy the journey. Bill

[@Theeuanshields]

Problem with black and white film is the developing. You can get completely different looks with different developers and dilutions. But for me I love TMAX 400 and xtol

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. Learning quickly that this is quite the rabbit hole.

[@parispijuan8259]

Love the video and all the work you do! In my opinion, black and white is all about pairing with the right developer! HP5 may look bad in one developer but shine in another. Labs typically have one set developer that is a good general purpose developer, such as Kodak D-76. I personally prefer Ilford Pan-F and Ilford Delta 100 both using DD-X 1:4 in their respective standard recipes at 68F pulled back on time just a bit 15-30 seconds or so. Delta 400 is great for high ISO in DD-X as well. Increased sharpness and finer grain develop all in Ilfosol-3 at 1:9 or 1:14 for softer tones. Adox HR 50 in Adox HR-Dev is another good option. Cheers (:

[@honkhonkler7732]

Tmax is incredible. It makes such beautiful large print portraits.

[@jumptactic]

Ilford XP2 400 and Tri-X 400 are my personal faves - the XP2 is insanely smooth, and the grain of the Tri-X is beautiful. I’ve never been particularly happy with HP5 - it’s always felt too flat

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely still have to try both of those.

[@zenden6564]

Hi Kyle - the result character of each type of B&W film is extremely responsive to the particular developer chemistry. E.G., FP4 is particularly synergistic with PMK, but the long list of developers as you doubtlessly know is impressive, XTOL, HC-110, D76, Acufine, Rodinal, Perceptol, ID11, etc., plus all the other made up chemistry but especially in the category tanning developers. Even with Rodinal there are 3 versions of it, plus all variations of development agitation to stand and the various dilutions/time all having large effects. In short a lifetime's work in there for you to explore....😊 If you (understandably) say, well I've settled on this developer/lab for convenience and I'm looking for the best emulsion I can for my aesthetics using them, well that sort of is a big caveat to your explorations. Then there is the whole world of printing, wet or digital is a big difference. For example you might find when printed digitally, that HP5 on Hahnemuhle rag actually is more to your taste than Tmax100 after all, even though on the edit screen it seemed the other way around. All good fun. Best wishes and respect from Australia.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, it's all a bit overwhelming! Haha. Having fun with it though and excited to see where it all goes.

[@zenden6564]

@@KyleMcDougall Hi Kyle, xa matter of interest, what developer was used for these films shown?

[@jdebultra]

I agree with your experience on all 3. I prefer TriX at 320 and 800 because I don't like editing. Tmax P3200 at 1600 and 3200. I use a fair amount of FP4+ for a industrial look. HC110 B for TriX, and FP4+. Tmax dev for the P3200 at both 1600 and 3200. Tmax dev makes a difference with Tmax. Acros 2 is amazing but pricey, super clean with a graphite look, HC11 B or Rodinal 1:25.

[@FramesPerSecond]

Tri-X, Acros and Delta 400 are my current favourites. HP5 is too flat for my tastes. T-Max almost looks digital to me at times.

[@edshotsdotcodotuk]

If anyone needs developing during lockdown in the UK the place I work at does mail order. The Brighton Film Lab. We do E6, C41 and B&W. 35mm, 120, 5x4, 110 and even APS. TMAX and Delta are a similar kind of thing. Flatter and less grain than TRI-X and HP5/FP4 from my experience dev'ing and scanning. HP5 at 1600 is my fave high ISO option. Moreso than Delta 3200.

[@barrycooper9364]

My experience, I find FujiFilm Neopan Acros is great for black & white film. Amazing contrast for street photography with a Roleiflex 2.8f or Pentax 67II

[@Machster10]

Cool. HP-5 is great for hand held street work...Like to see a comparison of ISO 100 4x5 films for the budget ARISTA edu, Foma and the Shanghai brands.

[@alexandermalitsky6771]

My favorite film is Fomapan 200 - Nice and contrasty but not over the top. Also quite sharp and dries VERY flat - a joy to scan with any kind of scanner. It's a T-grain film as opposed to their 100 and 400 stocks which are calssic cubic grain. Also, its among the cheapest on the market. Ilford Delta 100 and 400 are also nice - clean, sharp, have much less tendency to curl than Kodak films. I develop everything in D-76 Stock. I've heard good things about Bergger Pancro 400. It has some kind of special mixed emulsion or something. Analog Insights did a video on it couple of years ago.

[@geogi_bodies]

Rollei Superpan 200 (and Retro 80s too) looks very similar to Retro 400s because they are all aerial films and designed to provide that crazy contrast. Some even says the contrast couldn't be tamed no matter how you expose or developed them. That being said, they worked very well on low contrast subjects. I had some very nice photos from these films. But I think Rollei's QC is no good. I had quite some rolls of Superpan 200 and Retro 80s that turned out with 10 or 11 photos only, or backing paper markings on negatives, or both. I think the film is misaligned with the backing paper. Kodak and Ilford film stocks are going to be safer bet if you prefer to stick to one single film stock for a whole serious project. Tri-X is just as flexible as HP5 but you have a slight uptick in contrast. If developed and scanned right, the grain can be very fine and smooth too, quite close to T-Max 400.

[@Pentax67]

My favorite is Kodak Tri-X 400, very beautiful with character @1600 iso. Rollei retro 400s is superb . I personally hate HP5 , so flat .

[@stefanol9272]

Hi Kyle my 3 all time favorites 1 Ilford delta 400 and 100 and then the mighty Tri X 400. I have to say I am more appalled to 400 films because I am grain fanatic but yes the Ilford Hp5 is for me more for portraits even if I already mentioned a Ilford delta 100 ! Do remember Ilford has all 7 tones Kodak Tri X do not have it has 5 tones. I know many over hyped Fuji across but I prefer delta 100 because the white balance is better and it cost less. But I guess its about taste. But I currently shoot with Ilford delta 100 on my Nikon F3 Have fun ✌️✌️✌️😎😎😎😎

[@richardt1792]

I have mostly used Agfa APX professional 100. Good contrast, fine grain. Agfa stopped making it a while back. It seems as though it's back on the market. I am in Los Angeles so I like Freestyle Photo in Hollywood. They have been around forever and carry a considerable variety of film.

[@maits18]

Try the Fuji Neopan, one of the great B&W film especially on night if you buy Neopan 1600 aside from Ilford of course. Haven’t try it but Neopan Acros II has nice colors from the sample images that I see

[@ploufbadaboum2221]

Hi, the film developer you use and the times/temperatures are as important as the choice of film. you can get high contrasty hp5 or flat tmax 400, depends on the developer and the time... so i don't understand your point, or your goal is just to test the way your lab process your films? But you can't make any global statement for a film this way. I use HP5 exposed at 400iso with HC110, dilution 1+31. 5minutes, 20°C, one cuve rotation every minute, don't forget to hit the cuve on the table after every rotation. hope that might help :)

[@dubhd4r4]

Now you need to get into self development, as you can control additional qualities of the processed negatives by choosing different chemistry!

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's the plan as soon as I move into my new space.

[@stevedylandev]

I was going to say the same thing! If you’re going to be working with one film stock for a large project, and you’re just not happy with the stocks available, it’s definitely worth looking into different developing recipes. Personally I use HP5, and I push it while using a diluted developer which adds just a little extra contrast.

[@jimsimon5706]

HP5 @ 200 developed in neat Perceptol is fantastic! Incredible detail and works through the midtones with great separation. Has to be neat though, as even 1+1 makes it look like bare bones HP5 again. I also like Tri-X at 200 in HC-110, slightly underdeveloped and with minimal agitation. FP4 in HC-110 at box speed also very much worth a look; FP4 grain in the dark areas is wonderful. That's three films. If I had to pick one it'd be HP5/neat Perceptol, especially as Tri-X is so expensive now. FP4 in HC-110 is very cheap, and excellent too.

[@unpocodeluz_atill]

I like Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak Tmax 100. It would be nice a comparision between both...

[@AdrianBacon]

My favorite film is fomapan 200, followed closely by HP5+. If you found HP5 flat, you can ask the lab to add processing time to boost the negative contrast. Fomapan 100 is incredible with skin tines. For medium format, delta 3200 shot at 1600 and processed for 3200 is magical.

[@eksund1900]

You should really start developing your b&w yourself. It will give you a lot more control using different techniques and different developers. And of course, a lot more headache :-)

[@HennessyPatrick]

Ilford FP4, Delta 3200 are worth checking out, as well as Fomapan.

[@jacobkaplan1170]

Try pushing Hp5 to 1600

[@undeadcatman]

The best B&W film was/is Acros 100, they switched the formula up a bit to give a bit more midtone range, but I shoot high contrast with a red filter so it doesn't matter that much anyways.

[@jonnoMoto]

May favourite is Neopan 400, but they don't make that. Today, my favourites are fp4+ & rodinal for 120. Delta 400 & ddx. Fomapan 200 pulled to 125 in xtol for 35mm.

[@michaelhulland2915]

I agree with HP5 being a bit flat but I've found using an orange filter can make it a bit punchier and that's usually what I'll do.

[@vikmanphotography7984]

Black and white film- the developer choice and methodology is just as important as the film stock, if not more so.

[@darekdziadek]

My personal fav in medium format is Ilford FP4, and for 135 - Agfa APX400.

[@TheFilmFellow]

Ilford FP4 for me hands down. Of course film photography is very subjective but FP4 really does it for me.

[@johnjbh7089]

I've tried many over the years but always return to HP5+ and FP4+. As others have mentioned, you can control so much with exposure and development when you process your own negs. Great video!

[@aliwhitwell]

Back in the day when I shot in B&W film I always used FP4 and for low light stuff I used HP5 usually uprated to 800ASA (ISO). I found I got the best results with those two options.

[@nerdbot4629]

I love using T-Max P3200 for some night time street photography

[@aidansciortino982]

T-MAX is where it's at in my opinion. Most high-tech black and white film on the market today, and while HP-5 will always hold a special spot in my heart as the first film I tried, T-MAX is mostly what I shoot now.

[@brineb58]

I have been an Ilford guy since the 70s, love HP5+, it's my go to film .. my second is Tri-X ... personally didn't care to T-Max, but haven't tried it since the 90s. The Rollei looks interesting, but not sure if it would be a go to film!!! I made a commitment to Kentmere 400, bought a bulk loader and a 100' roll .... gonna try the tiny format for a while, I usually only do 120 or 4x5!!!

[@xTiteux]

if you are looking for soft highlights and a good amount of contrast maybe ilford xp2 super could suit your preferences

[@n1cholas.w]

Try FP4. I feel that many don’t use it. I don’t like it, but it would still be worth the try for you.

[@Nijensikkens]

You should try out Begger Pancro 400, though it's not the most easiest to develop when you do it right you get some great images.

[@roberthennings]

Try shooting HP5 at 800 or 1600 and develop with xtol or microphen.

[@tomprice1911]

I really like the original Acros 100 now that it is discontinued, I think I'm going to move into using FP4 which I've heard is similar. I definitely want to try Tmax now though as it has a really nice look and I'm always after a bit more sharpness compared to the HP5

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, I was a big fan of how TMAX looked!

[@Reversefilms]

HP5+ Just saved you a whole bunch of time searching.. ;)

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's no fun.

[@martinvonstoll4839]

I love the T-Max look, from this shoot out, its the clear winner for my eyes

[@KyleMcDougall]

My favourite as well!

[@gperpetuo]

The first BW film I shot was T-Max. Been shooting Fomapan 100/200/400 due to price and some HP5 in medium format but... everytime I look at the first roll I shot I always love it... definately have to buy some T-Max again.

[@tallaganda83]

Tri X is the best, it is dark, its moody its grainy it is how black and white film is supposed to look.

[@marcomasetti2260]

Hey Kyle, another great video, thank you so much. My 2 cents here: T-max looks a bit punchier than HP5+ as it's a "T-grain" film, meaning the silver halides emulsion is much thinner than in a tradition film. This also brings less mid tones shades and less grain overall. Delta are the "T-grain" film from Ilford, and you could compare them with T-max. Maybe next time you could add some details on how you developed the films (develper/diluition/times/...) or if a lab did, ask them which developer they used. Great stuff, looking forward to the next episodes!

[@chriscorey5164]

Definitely agree that developer/times/dilutions are really critical to provide accurate comparisons.

[@neilmorgan6620]

I was surprised to see those cars in the front garden, the Finchampstead Road - just down the street from me!

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

My go to b&w film is Agfa apx 100, often overlooked but veeeery good in my opinion, fine grain and deep contrast, sadly (that i know about) only made in 35mm, but if you want to try b&w on 35, definitely give it a try.

[@peterlukac8458]

I recently shot 30 years expired Agfa Pan 100 and I was very surprised. Fine contrast, good grain, and very sharp. Especially since it was an 30 years expired film, that has been stored in unknown conditions.

[@dave1070]

I've been using Caffenol for development since getting back into film photography 3 years ago. Love how FP4 and Delta 400 look using it. Delta 400 is much cleaner and sharper than the Kentmere 400 I first tried, with great tonal range. FP4 is my favorite when the light is brighter. Ilford and Foma dry flatter than Kodak's films, making them easier for scanning..

[@mpk33]

FP4 is a must to try for b&w shooting.

[@MrCodyswanson]

Agreed, if hp5 is too flat then fp4 is the ticket as long as you don't need a faster film.

[@mpk33]

@@MrCodyswanson Kyle uses tripods a lot, so no problem if the shutter speeds get too slow to hand hold.

[@BraeHunziker]

Wish there was cinestill bwxx in 120 😔

[@KyleMcDougall]

Did they discontinue it?

[@BraeHunziker]

@@KyleMcDougall I believe they only make it in 135

[@craigmalm1558]

Great work Kyle. I’ve been shooting primarily TriX 400 for many years, developing film (D76) and scanning. Medium format, 120. Happy with results, but haven’t tested a lot of films like you are. Keep it up!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@Harlequin565]

HP5 in DDX is my go-to at the moment. I've found HP5 to look pretty awful in Rodinal and slightly less bad in HC-110, but in DDX it sings. Very much a marriage made in heaven much like Tri-X in HC-110 (again as opposed to Rodinal). I have found that developer is just as much an influencing factor on how I see the film, so don't write a film off because of its look because it could be that the developer isn't the best for that emulsion. Using a lab makes this much trickier as it is likely they will use the same developer for all their B&W film which means the only choice you have is which film to use. So for me, for general purpose "push it 'till it drops" I'll take HP5 and shoot it all the way to 3200. For high quality, super fine grain, digital-esque clarity I'll shoot either (Ilford) Delta 100 or Ortho 80 depending on the subject. Plenty of light needed for those films though and as I'm sure you're finding here in the UK, we don't have much of that at the moment! Great video as always.

[@nikolarudic5349]

Thank you for that info 🤗

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for that! Planning to do some developing at home as soon as I have the space. So lot's more testing to do still.

[@hapg93]

I have shot HP5 almost exclusively the last few years, this inspired me to try out some different stocks as well - especially the t-max!

[@jessrobson3029]

Tmax is my true love but hp5 is what I can afford 😅

[@alexpugh-harris3387]

Tmax p3200. It’s super grainy but I love it

[@graemewoodward9200]

Jch street pan is definitely my fav b&w film. I prefer it on 35mm than 120

[@brunomartelli8163]

I like Fuji Acros

[@CC-hg9un]

TMax all the way. 100, 400. 120, 35mm - it's the best.

[@Morinaka25]

I went through a similar journey 10 years ago trying all manner of B&W films and the one that really caught my attention was Fuji ACROS (ACROS II is just as good i've heard), that just has a look all of its own, amazing smooth tones, contrast and sharp as hell; it also has insane reciprocity with no adjustments needed for a 2 minute exposure, and only half a stop until 1000 seconds. Runners up for me, Fomapan 100 has a contrasty classic look, Ilford Pan F+ has sublime mid tones.

[@chriscorey5164]

Agree 100%.

[@AlexLuyckxPhoto]

When it comes to B&W Films, I'm a little all over the place. TMax 400 and 100 are great for smooth results, usually use these for testing lenses. My goto for the fast film is Tri-X 400 but I'm a fan of HP5+ also, but not always my first choice. I agree with Retro 400s, it can be a little too contrasty at times for my tastes. JCH Streetpan 400 can be the same way, but worth trying out also. I'll suggest that you give Rollei RPX 25 a try it's the spiritual successor to Agfa APX 25. Also, the Fomapan line is excellent 400 and 100 being my two favourites. Other Favourites are Ilford Delta 100, FP4+, RPX 400, RPX 100, Pan F+. Also, love those old Land Rovers.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Alex. Have some Fomapan on order.

[@GeoffreyEduard]

Love the video as always. I do have a few things that came in my mind. You didn't mention how these were metered. The reason I ask is because some of these films look a bit different then in my personal experience. I've shot these films numerous times. As with Portra these films can really benefit from some extra light. So I was wondering if you already compensated for that. And depending on how it was shot some images might also have been counterbalanced by the scanner. Some scanners that are excellent for colour work are not always the best for bnw. I wouldn't solely base on these results to pick your go to bnw film. Also the results from overexposing, pulling and pushing can give more results you might like. With a good bw film you have your 160, 200, 400, 800 and 1600 speed film all in one. A bit like having the Portra variety in one roll. And then we didn't touch the developers or agitation subjects yet.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Geoffrey, yeah, learning that there's still a lot more testing to do. Hoping at the very least from these results I can get a general feel for a film, and narrow it down from there. As someone who has almost always ever shot colour for his work, it's an exciting new world to dive into and learn.

[@owainshaw]

Interesting to hear your thoughts on black and white films, especially as a new UK resident. I'm originally from the UK but have lived in Spain for almost a decade (I walk to Carmencita lab to drop off my film) and have found that prevailing light conditions are a big consideration when choosing black and white film. In the often overcast UK weather (especially the winter months), I much prefer a more punchy film from Kodak over HP5, whereas over here with cloudless skies and plenty of natural contrast from the bright sunlight, HP5 works quite well for keeping the contrast in check and leaving me able to decide later. I might not love the look of HP5 straight off the scanner, but I can always get it to something I do like, and for making work around here, it has become my go to. When I can travel to the UK again to visit my family, I'll load up on Tri-X or T-Max, though.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure, definitely something to take into account. I could see HP5 being more appealing with a scene with a little more contrast.

[@owainshaw]

​@@KyleMcDougall It definitely works well with high contrast scenes. There are a lot of those here so I've found myself using HP5 more and more. Also, for such a quality film stock, it's very wallet-friendly compared to professional grade colour stocks.

[@justinconnaher8868]

Great comparison between stocks giving people who might be looking for a black and white film a nice resource. Personally, my favorites are Kodak TriX 400 developed in D76 (1:1) for all around shooting, and Ilford Delta 100 developed in DDX for portraits. There are many great films out there though-enough for every situation and taste.

[@Sreybk]

I just put some HP5 in my 1970 Miranda Sensomat. I like it best. I will probably have to start getting my black and white developed at an online lab like The Darkroom. Walmart does mine right now but it takes over a month to get them back. They usually give you a disc with color film but you only get your negatives back with your prints. I gave Walmart a roll of Dracula ISO 50 a few months ago and still haven't gotten it back.

[@brankokosteski]

you can always try to develop your own bw, it's the fastest and most fun :)

[@allenwolfkill2781]

Delta 100 @ 50 ❤❤❤

Really great video! Thanks for your work.

[@matthewsteinle5268]

my fav is kodak tri-x , ilford hp5 + foma 100 , t-maxx 400

[@Mparker394]

Man, the music in this was such a good change of pace from most videos! Seems like most photographers use the “out of tune jazz/hip hop” garbage.

[@mrca2004]

hp5 reminds me of shooting digital to the right so I have the most potential in post.

[@nathan_woodgate]

Great video and pictures, however I do feel sorry for those poor cars........especially the Toyota MR2 Mark 1 T-Bar (A classic hair dressers car). Out of those films HP5 is my favourite pushed to 1600

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

Hey Kyle, I can recommend testing out Ilford XP2 400. It's unique since it is a monotone c-41 film which is really sharp and similar to t-max. I made a video with my M3 with it if you want to check it out and see if you would give it a shot. 😀 T-max would be my favorite of the three.

[@SilkySkillsUnited]

Fuji Acros. Nothing compares.

[@anthonycvitkovic9866]

You should try the cinnestill b&w it has a super nice punch to it

[@norbertsteinkamp9380]

I like your comparison of these three quite different films. Without having read all the comments (and therefore hoping not to be all too redundant), I'd assume from my experience of developing and both scanning and wet-printing film, that it's easier to postprocess an HP5+ negative into the direction of TMax-punchiness than it is to flatten the tonality of a Rollei Retro 400s toward HP5+ flexibility. Meaning you can rather increase contrast than add detail to the peripheral zones that hasn't been there in the first place.

[@dandyroll7610]

Hi. I like the Rollei Retro (80S and 400S)

[@doriangasseling]

Haven't finished watching the whole thing yet, but HP5 is my go to - its hella versatile, you can push it to 1600, pull it to 100 or shoot as is. You get a great flat image on purpose so that you can add as much contrast as you desire in the darkroom or photoshop etc. Otherwise I usually go for TMAX100 in medium format. Hope you're doing well Kyle!

[@Xingqiwu387]

IMHO, nothing beats Tri-X.

[@allensphotographyvideo]

i love Tri-x 400 not a big fan of hp5 ilford fp4 is a good stock

[@F9FCJ429]

Best comments ever, it’s going to take awhile to process what others are saying. I process in stock XTOL, camera scan with the Sony A7Riv, then finish up in NLP/Lightroom. I want the film’s character to smack me in the face, probably a result of staring at Ansel Adams art print books early in life. If you’re familiar with Andreas Feininger’s 1947 shot of US-66 through Seligman, AZ: that’s both the subject matter and the look I want from BW film. My favorite film is XX-5222 shot through an orange filter for an even stronger kick in the teeth! I also discovered I really like Fomapan 100 after trying it in the form of Kosmo Foto, which I freely admit I bought because the package art was cool. Yeah, I know. I really will try anything once. Finally, I really want to see P3200 in 120 so I can walk around with my medium format hand held at night. Something kinda cool about that. About those grays? With a good scanning setup I find NLP can lift the shadows of contrasty films right where you want them. So don’t write off Retro 400 just yet.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Haha, yeah man, a bit overwhelming tbh, but awesome! That's what I love about this film community. People are always happy to share their experiences.

[@allenwolfkill2781]

Sounds as though you aren't using B&W filters? Red, Green, Yellow, Orange, Blue, Polarizer?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nope. Have a few here to try though.

[@jonasbanta7017]

Tmax 100 has always been my favorite. Incredible dynamic range, incredible detail, but very smooth tonal transition

[@zzAx3zz]

Awesome video, would also like to see your thoughts on Bergger Pancro 400, faster films from Ilford, and Fomapan 100

[@KyleMcDougall]

Just ordered some Bergger.