kennethcooke wrote: Ornello wrote:
kennethcooke wrote:Keith- I hear what you are saying regarding Rollei Retro 100 and yes I am very happy with Ilford Pan- f Plus which I have usually developed with Ilfosol S 4 mns but I was rather impressed with the price of Rollei Retro 100 at £28.00 foe 20 rolls. My main film usage is Kodak Tri-X 400 asa and Ilford Pan--F-Plus 50 asa. Adox is another interesting film as I quite like low speed films and they produce a 25 asa film which I have rated at 12 asa and cut development by 25%
Based on extensive testing a couple years ago, Fuji Acros 100 is just about the best all-around slow film. Its speed is closer to 50/64 than to 100, but it is easier to develop than Pan-F Plus, has greater latitude, and better color sensitization (i.e. greens are lighter). Sharpness and graininess are basically indistinguishable.
I see no reason to use the Adox or Ilford materials given how good the Fuji film is, and it is about a stop faster than Pan-F to boot.
It is better than T-Max 100 or Delta 100 too.
Can I ask, on who's extensive testing you are referring to? You see speed is unimportant as I will use a tripod and I find Pan-F so easy to process. The main criteria, as I intimated was price and Rollei Retro 100 is coming out at about £1.30 for a 36 roll compare to over £3 for your Fuji recommendation. I must say, from my own experience I don't like Japanese colour reversal film I find it far too trippy
My testing. I tried all the major B&W films on the market. I used the Adox materials in the past so I knew what they are like already. I was curious about Acros and the other Fuji films. I ran tests on them to get them all to the same contrast so that speed and grain could be compared. My conclusions were that most of the 400 speed films were similar (I did not test the original T-Max 400 because I didn't like its curve; the new one may be better). Of them I preferred the Neopan to Tri-X, HP5 Plus, or Delta 400, based on tonality and color sensitization.
I tested Delta 100, Pan-F Plus, FP4, and Acros 100. Did not test Plus-X Pan.
FP4 Plus was grainier by a small margin, and I suppose Plus-X Pan would be similar. The Neopan Acros 100 was basically indistinguishable from Pan-F Plus as far as graininess and sharpness were concerned. It's about a stop faster. Processing is easier (longer times). Delta 100 was slightly grainier and slightly faster. From my experience I knew that T-Max 100 was similar so I didn't bother with it.
After the testing I was persuaded to use the Neopan films exclusively. Didn't see the point of using any of the others. The color sensitization is noticeably different. Most B&W films render greens too dark. The Neopans don't.
The list below is provided to help you compare the films. Graininess scale is my own invention. Grain 5 is all but invisible in a print at 8x. Grain 6 is just slightly observable. Grain 8-9 is still very fine but just observable at 8x. The 400 speed films show hardly any grain at 8x in my tests. Grain 11 is beginning to be more evident, and grain 12 is clearly visible in 8x enlargement.
Here's how I would rank the films:
Fuji Neopan Acros 100, Grain 5, Speed EI 50-64
Ilford Pan-F Plus, Grain 5, Speed EI 32-40
Not tested: Adox KB14, Grain 4, Speed EI 20 (Based on previous experience)
Ilford Delta 100 Grain 6, Speed EI 64-80
Not tested: Kodak T-Max 100, Grain 6, Speed EI 64-80 (Based on previous experience)
Ilford FP4 Plus, Grain 7, Speed EI 80-100
Not tested: Kodak Plus-X Pan, Grain 7, Speed EI 80-100 (Based on previous experience)
Fuji Neopan 400, Grain 8.9, Speed EI 250
Ilford Delta 400 Pro, Grain 8.9, Speed EI 250
Ilford HP5 Plus, Grain 9, Speed EI 250
Kodak Tri-X Pan, Grain 9, Speed EI 250
Not tested: Kodak T-Max 400 (Type 1) Grain 8, Speed 250 (Based on previous experience)
Ilford Delta 3200, Grain 12.5, Speed EI 1000
Kodak T-Max 3200, Grain 11, Speed 800
Fuji Neopan 1600, Grain 9.5, Speed EI 650