[photolady95]

I haven't shot film since 2009 when I joined this forum. At that time I was still using a film Pentax. The other day I bought a good in shape, K1000 and it's in transit to me. I'd like to try a roll of B/W in it but not sure which film is best now days. I used to shoot two brands, Fuji and Kodak. Fuji was 100 and Kodak ran from100 to 200, and 400.


So, could you guys tell me about Ilford? Or what you are shooting?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[aslyfox]

I would love to read the opinions on this as well

[boriscleto]

I was thinking about picking up some Arista EDU 100. It's about $3 cheaper/roll than Ilford but there is no DX coding on the cartridge.

[pschlute]

Always used Ilford b+w film. Cant go wrong. Harman Labs (part of same group) can develop them too

To be honest your results will depend more on the lab you choose rather than the film

[TomB_tx]

I mainly switched from Kodak to Ilford for B&as mainly because the Ilford films seem to curl less and therefore scan sharper in my Epdon negative carriers. I like PanF+ (ISO 50) in Rodinal for tones and fine grain. (Decades ago my favorite was Panatomic-X - RIP)
FP4+ (125) can have extended tonal range and reasonable grain. HP5 (400) can be grainy - best results in DD-X.
I tried some fresh TriX recently in DD-X and really liked it again.
Lately I’ve been shooting Arista (Fomapan) 100 & 400, which are a bargain, and have almost no curl.
Lots of good films out there.

[blackcloudbrew]

I love Illford's Delta films, very fine grain for B&W images, but Illford's products are all good in my opinion. I try to stay away from Kodak T-Max though. I also like Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros. For fun I like to use Illford's SX 200 film. It's sort of a closer to infrared B&W film and gives nice tonalities for clouds and shadows with out filters, but it's not IR film.

[Parallax]

I haven't shot film for nearly 40 years. I used Tri-X almost exclusively, and Pan-X very occasionally. I bought the Tri-X in 500' rolls, and I developed in Microdol to minimize the grain.
I shot 1 roll of Ilford ASA (yeah, I'm old) 400(320, Maybe? Whatever was closest ti Tri-X) out of necessity when I was out of town once. The reason it stands out in my mind is that I remember thinking at the time, after developing it, that it seemed to have noticeably finer grain than the Tri-X.

---

Last edited by Parallax; 04-19-2020 at 12:49 PM.

[photolady95]

Well, Allen, looks like we got some good input.

Where would I find Arista (Fomapan?


Sounds most of you like Ilford.


I never liked Kodak T-Max in the 400 because it was too grainy.


And I'll be sending it out because I don't have a dark room any more. When my husband was still alive and I first started shooting film, he built me a darkroom on our property. I don't have that convince here even though I own this house with five other siblings. The one sibling closest to my age, said no. LOL

I know, I don't need a darkroom to develop the film, just a dark place with no light. I used to use an old black coat that had elastic on the sleeve openings, and tied the neck closed, after zipping it up, tied the bottom off too, then stuck my hands up the sleeves to load the film. Worked great.

[Alex645]

So, could you guys tell me about Ilford? Or what you are shooting?

There are around 36 different types of B&W 35mm films and ten of those are either Kodak or Ilford. They all have their pros and cons and most of it is subjective.

What I can tell you about Ilford?
I've always favored them because unlike Kodak or Fujifilm, black and white has always been there main film business. The devil is in the details. For example, it's much easier to pry open any metal Ilford film cassette vs. Kodak. Kodak puts an annoying tape to connect the film to the spool which is hard to remove, whereas Ilford has a small tongue that can be easily detached. The documentation with Ilford is also very complete and written in a less technical way for laymen to understand. And last, Kentmere is available as a less expensive Ilford-like film.

I shoot mostly 645 for film. What film I shoot really depends on what subject or results I'm after.

Going for a classic B&W film look: Then either Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-X (both 400 ISO)
Going for B&W shallow DOF and bokeh: Ilford Pan F (ISO 50)
Going for color shallow DOF and bokeh in high contrast lighting: Kodak Ektar (ISO 100)
Going for color shallow DOF and bokeh in low contrast lighting: Fujifilm Velvia (ISO 50)
Undecided default B&W or intended for scanning and not darkroom: Ilford XP2 (ISO 100-1600)
Undecided default color: Kodak Portra (ISO 400)

I no longer use the sharper, less grainy Ilford Deltas or the Kodak TMax because I find them too contrasty for my taste and to optimize results with them, I found I needed to use either Ilford DD-X or Kodak Tmax developers, which are more expensive. For B&W film developing, I prefer Kodak XTOL although Ilford ID-11 is a good general developer as well.

I know you're shooting 35mm, but one other reason I prefer Ilford as a 120 shooter? When you lick the Ilford tape to seal the roll, it tastes sweet and minty. When you lick the Kodak tape, it has a nasty toxic glue taste. Maybe Kodak separates the adults from the kids this way, but the Ilford adhesive makes me smile and the Kodak makes me grimace.

[photolady95]

I haven't shot film for nearly 40 years. I used Tri-X almost exclusively, and Pan-X very occasionally. I bought the Tri-X in 500' rolls, and I developed in Microdol to minimize the grain.
I shot 1 roll of Ilford ASA (yeah, I'm old) 400(320, Maybe? Whatever was closest ti Tri-X) out of necessity when I was out of town once. The reason it stands out in my mind is that I remember thinking at the time, after developing it, that it seemed to have noticeably finer grain than the Tri-X.

Thanks for the input, Jim. And you're not as old as me, sir.


And I figured you guys would know I meant 100 ASA so didn't add that part. LOL


Btw, guys, I used to buy rolls of film too, but these days I probably won't be shooting more than a roll or two. This is just to test the new to me Asahi K1000 to check it out, so I can find if it needs to be sent to Eric (who I have credit with). Bertwert says (he's the one sold it to me) the de-silvering isn't there on this one and the meter works, as does the shutter cock.

[Parallax]

And you're not as old as me, sir.

Thankfully!

[photolady95]

I know you're shooting 35mm, but one other reason I prefer Ilford as a 120 shooter? When you lick the Ilford tape to seal the roll, it tastes sweet and minty. When you lick the Kodak tape, it has a nasty toxic glue taste. Maybe Kodak separates the adults from the kids this way, but the Ilford adhesive makes me smile and the Kodak makes me grimace.

And why on earth would you like the tape?

I used a film tape to adhere my film to the roll, it was blue in color, kind of transparent but I never licked it. Actually, I bet I still have a roll of it here somewhere.


Thanks for your input Alex, it's appreciated. You must be younger than either I or Parallax as you refer to film speed as ISO, where we associate film speed as ASA.

[photolady95]

Thankfully!

Well, I'm not that much older than you, but I turned 70 in December.

[aslyfox]

Well, Allen, looks like we got some good input. .

I kinda figured we would

and I was correct

[Alex645]

And why on earth would you like the tape?
You must be younger than either I or Parallax as you refer to film speed as ISO, where we associate film speed as ASA.

After shooting a roll of 120, there is a tape on the light blocking paper that is provided by Kodak, Ilford, etc, for the photographer to moisten to stick and keep the paper from unraveling and exposing the film. In the field, the most convenient way to moisten that tape is my tongue.

And yes, I am 61 years young, but even I grew up with ASA, but as a lab manager, photographer, and now photo teacher, I started calling it ISO when it all switched over. Also I started teaching in Switzerland (early 90s) where the German DIN was more commonly used with Agfa films and labs, so I embraced ISO to avoid memorizing DIN numbers.