[abruzzi]

I thought the current Agfa APX films are manufactured by Maco, the maker of the Rollei branded films?

[Russell W. Barnes]

I commented because I shoot APX100, which I rather like. This is the new stuff, you understand, sold by Lupus. I'm told Rollei RPX400 is the nearest characteristic to the original Agfa APX400 but I've only shot Rollei Retro, and only in 120 format. After shooting a few rolls of APX100 I looked on AG Photographic for more and they don't stock it! They claim it to be identical to Kentmere, and suggest that instead.

So perhaps there's an element of 'badge-engineering' at work here? I can't comment further as I've never shot Kentmere. I'll be trying some of the 'new' Agfa APX400 in due course, but I tend not to shoot 400 ISO on 35mm, just on 120 film. That said, I like 35mm Ilford HP5+ done in ID-11, and have pushed Tri-X to 1600 (also done in ID-11) which I like too. I found Tri-X rather grainy on 35mm at 400 ISO but I think I was using it for the wrong subject matter (trees; old buildings...). Better for people, I think.

[Jonathan Mac]

It might be an Ilford/Harman film yes, and it not easy to get any of the original APX Leverkusen film nowadays!

I don't think the shots I've seen of APX400 look anything like Kentmere. APX400 does look kind of nice and definitely different from other mainstream films.

I have heard that the Kentmere 100 & 400 speed films are FP4+ and HP5+ respectively but with a little less quality control. I haven't tried either myself.

I have used APX 100 (the new one) and it's a very good film. When I went on holiday to Germany about five years ago it was easy to find everywhere, which amazed me in this day and age. It was very well priced too, around €4 a roll I think, so I stocked up. I still prefer FP4+ and Acros, but APX is great for the price. I must try the 400 version some time but these days I like Delta 400 so much it's hard to imagine liking another 400 speed B&W film more.

[Alex645]

I have heard that the Kentmere 100 & 400 speed films are FP4+ and HP5+ respectively but with a little less quality control. I haven't tried either myself.

As far as I know that's true. Harman owns both Ilford and now Kentmere and both are made in Mobberley, UK. When Kentmere was independent of Ilford, they were a notch below in quality. Now that both are owned by the same company made under the same roof, I suspect there is no difference other than perception.

Should FP4+ be rated at ISO 125, or was that just a number to compete with Plus-X?

I've shot both and honestly can't see or tell any difference other than Kentmere is less expensive.

Does anyone know who makes Arista? Or is that another repackaged Kentmere?

[Russell W. Barnes]

Does anyone know who makes Arista?

Isn't Fomapan known as Arista in the U.S.?

[pres589]

Arista is a store brand and can be a number of company's products. Clayton developers are sold as Arista, for instance, but I do think that Foma films are sold as Arista as well. There's darkroom equipment, like jugs and such, that are also sold as Arista.

As for Kentmere 400 being HP5, I don't know about that, it seemed pretty grainy in comparison, more like Fomapan 400. It's been a while since I touched it and I wasn't doing my own development then so grain of salt. If it really is HP5 in a cheaper container, that's good news, as HP5 is one of my favorite films.

[johnha]

As for Kentmere 400 being HP5, I don't know about that, it seemed pretty grainy in comparison, more like Fomapan 400. It's been a while since I touched it and I wasn't doing my own development then so grain of salt. If it really is HP5 in a cheaper container, that's good news, as HP5 is one of my favorite films.

The Kentmere 100 I've shot seemed lower contrast and more grainy than FP4+ (creating a different look I quite like), I was advised that Kentmere 400 was quite grainy so haven't tried any. I shoot mostly FP4+ or HP5+ (keeping it local).

[abruzzi]

Isn't Fomapan known as Arista in the U.S.?

Arista EDU is Fomapan, though no longer available there were other Arista films like Arista Premium (Fuji Acros) and others. I think Arista EDU is all that is still available.

[womble]

Yes. That and sheet film. It's a bit mystifying to me why anyone would be using 35mm film now.

Much cheaper! Enjoy using the gear? All sorts of reasons.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Yes. That and sheet film. It's a bit mystifying to me why anyone would be using 35mm film now.

Because last I checked they don’t make a Leica M2 or Pentax MX in medium format.

[OldChE]

I've got a dark room class coming in a week, on top of buying some nitrite gloves and a new battery for my Spotmatic I need to get some black and white film so I have something to process while I'm there.

But I admit I know next to nothing about the differences between 35mm negative film. These 3 are the ones I see talked about the most and was wondering what would be the pros and cons between them?

Sounds like you decided on Tri-X for the Spotmatic - good choice. I've used my Spotmatic since 1970, and back in the early days for me in the USA it was Tri-x or Plus-x or sometimes Panatomic-X for B&W, so you can't go wrong with Tri-X in a Spotty for traditional reasons!

Lately, though, I've used HP5 quite a bit, and now have a new bulk roll of TMAX400 and am looking forward to learning about t-grain. I've only used tmax a couple times (in 35mm and 120) but really liked the clean, fine-grained look. I like Tri-x too for that classic grainy high contrast image, it is quite distinctive, but maybe I'm growing tired of it.

By the way, I've read lots of reviews of films on the web, and I've found this one very good for comparing ISO 400 35mm emulsions.

Comparing The Most Popular Black and White 400 ISO Films

Good luck, hope you have great fun, and show us some of your results! --> Richard.

[Astro-Baby]

When I processed at home I always used FP4 or HP5 just so I could standardise on everything. I always found HP5 a solid and dependable stock with a good ability to push it out to the edge if needed. As I am coming back into this lark I currently have all my film cams loaded with either Tri-X or HP5 and can then make a call on which I prefer. Oddly I don't think I ever used Tri-X back in the day. I may have done and just forgotten - used to shoot a lot of film back then. There was a value in HP5 back in the day that any small local newspaper could get it developed pronto in their own darkroom so when I caught traffic crashes, arrests, humorous incidents etc I always knew I could get it processed super fast from the can and get the pics sold. Wretched iPhones have taken all the cash out of that line of work I think.

Back when I started HP5 was about as fast as you could go off a shelf at 400 as far as I recall.

[ChrisPlatt]

I have yet to finish my supply of Eastman 5222 35mm cine film.
It has become popular and sadly the price has risen quite a bit.

When I run out I will probably try Ultrafine Xtreme 400 or ORWO N74.

Chris

[degral]

400TX (Tri-X) and HP5+ are very similar films - get which ever is cheapest. Honestly if you're a beginner to the world of black and white films I really, really doubt you will tell the difference (despite how much forums like to agonise over these differences...).

Tmax is a different beast.

Probably the best advice given. I have never shot B&W. I am beginning with Tri-X. Only because I know and trust Kodak. Never heard of Ilford until recently.

[Vendee]

Only because I know and trust Kodak. Never heard of Ilford until recently.

Ilford have been around longer than Kodak