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
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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 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.
@@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.
@@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!
@@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?
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.
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....
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.
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
I forgot to mention - Greg Davis (aka The Naked Photographer - ruclips.net/channel/UCUcaft-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.
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!
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.
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.
@@panelsandbars thanks! I’ll have to see about price fluctuations. Especially since I bulk roll my black and white. Honestly either would work great for me. Just up to price.
Funny how I was so keen as a hobbyist photographer until the 2000's when digital came in which I hated. I'm now spending my golden years in retirement rediscovering film photography. Many thanks Kyle for this inspiring and informative video.
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.
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.
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!
There are so many variables to achieving your desired characteristics in bnw film to make a decision based solo on the actual film (at box speed) seems crazy simplistic. I’ve been trying for years and don’t feel half way there. Film/speed/developer/ agitation/printing/..........thousands of permutations. Good luck Kyle.
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
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.
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.
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..
My all time most loved Kodak Tmax 100 for fine grain landscapes and TRI-X 400 for more grain and contrast when shooting street. Right now I am trying Ilford Delta 100 and have 4 rolls of FP4 coming just for fun.
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.
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.
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.
I was shooting Kodak Tri-x 400 for almost ten years and loved it but shot Ilford Hp5 here and there and just fully made the switch to it at the end of 2020. I loved the tighter/different grain structure and the contrast was a bit better.
Dude. I was watching this video and thought that the video is pretty enjoyable, but haven't yet really caught my attention properly. Then I heard blues. I was like I don't know who this guy is but a photographer who's playing blues on his channel has earned my sub. Sick shots too.
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 (:
I dig this video.... As a printer, HP5 is amazing. When printing, maybe some would disagree, but adding contrast is so much easier than calming it down.... hands down Hp5 is my go to.
I just picked up my first film camera(Nikon F3 hp from 81) a few days ago. So thanks for the recommendations. Because I’ve decided I’m exclusively shooting B&W only. I just love the look.
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 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.
TMax is just so clean and doesn't need much editing if you get the exposure right. Glad you are getting into B/W looking forward to seeing more shots from you!
Kyle, your exposure test of hp5 locked me in to it. Plenty forgiving for street, modest contrast I can control in post, nice size grain in 35mm. I shoot and develop at 1600 and combine that with a yashica mat tlr loaded with ilford 3200 also shot at 3200 keeping exposure simple between the 2 cameras and film stocks. I do more precisely meter 3200 but both cameras can be set up about the same. You do some wonderful testing. Thanks.
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
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
Adox CMS 20 II is an underrated low ISO, practically zero grain high resolution black and white film stock. It has very high contrast though but I find it perfect for landscapes.
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
I always dig HP5 for the lower contrast and versatility. It's the easiest to scan a flatter image as well. But in large format I absolutely love TMax 100 and Ilford FP4. The grain is almost non-existent and I always get a fabulous rendition of the scene. Also TMax 400 is great when pushed to 1600 and pulled to 100 once you get into processing yourself 😉
For sure. Also, the cost of HP5 is super appealing. Especially here in the UK. I just bought a box of 25 4x5 sheets for £40. In comparison, TMAX 400, 10 sheets, is £50! But yeah, looking forward to home developing in the near future when I'm finally settled over here.
For someone like me who works in the screaming sunlight and contrasts of the desert, HP5 is a great choice. But, my all time favorite for 40 years is good 'ole Tri-X.
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!
Cool! That’s interesting. TMax 400 is my go to 400 film in 120. FP4 is my go to 100 ISO. I specially like the way it looks on cloudy days. I also like Retro 400 for the same reasons you have👍🏼
I shoot B&W 6x6 and my favorite films are Ilford FP4+ rated at 100 or 80 and Tri-X pulled to 200. I occasionally shoot Tri-X at box speed, but I like the slightly lower contrast that comes from pulling it.
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.
Love this video and love to see your migration into bnw! I had the same experience when I first started using Tmax 400 as well and now it and Hp5 are my two everyday bnw stocks. A tip about Hp5, it needs to be pushed if you want a more dynamic image right out of camera, that being said you can get there with edits shot at 400.
Sadly not available in 120 yet, but I really love Ferrania P30 on 35mm. It's not the most practical at 80iso, but it's gorgeous. Fairly high contrast with inky blacks, shots almost have a painterly look to them. Love how it renders skin tones when metered right. Brilliant for landscapes with a red or yellow filter. Blows highlights at the drop of a hat, so metering is a must, but it's just wonderful.
i went the HP5 way, the reason is because of the “blank canvas” look. But like you said it’s a little too blank. I use a yellow filter and add 1 stop for compensation and by that you won’t have to crank up the contrast so much. But the t-max does look good i have to admit!
Ilford FP4 and PanF, love it when home developed with rodinal. The 400 ASA is a bit of a toss up between HP5 and Kodak tri x to me, but it bepends on subject and how i like to put down contrasts. Tri x is just a bit more "graphic", especially pushed, but pulled two stops it can do some magic too. Love the ilford tones!
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
I really like using Bergger 400 these days, and dev in D-76 in 1+1 at 18C to keep the grain in check. I love Pan F, but it really needs contrast in the scene to make it shine.
My favorite black and white films in 120 are Tri-X (rated at 320, dev'd at 400 in Kodak HC-110 dil B) and Delta 3200 (rated at 1000 and dev'd at 3200 in Ilford DD-X). In 35mm, still Tri-X, but also Kodak Double-X (Cinestill rebrands this as BWXX) and TMax P3200. I've been thinking about trying TMax 400 for a bit, and I think this video convinced me. Nice stuff, Kyle!
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
For C41, there's one developer and that's it. Independently from brand/maker, they all end the same. Not so with black and white. You have an infinite amount of possibilities, not only with the amount of developers, but with pushing/pulling, agitation and so on. And then when you pair that up with different from stocks, there's clearly no limits. Exploring different film stocks without considering development techniques is extremely limiting. It's like only one dimension of the beauty of shooting black and white.
I hear ya on the HP5. It's loved in so many ways, but I'm not convinced it's the one for me. When it comes to less grain, and punchier highlights, the Ilford XP2 Super is what I enjoy the most. You can also shoot different ISO settings on the same roll. Verrrrry interesting. Check out Ilford's site for more specifics on this. I've had a TON of success taking the XP2 out during the day and finishing the roll at night. Give it a shot. You might be happy with the results.
HP5 was the starting point for so many of us. After a while though I got a bit bored with it. TMAX400 is beautiful but my favourite B&W film so far has been FP4, has stunningly rich shadows.
To me a b/w film stock has to be paired with a developer to suit my taste and my work flow. I mostly use two film stocks; HP5+ and Delta 100. HP5+ because of it's versatility and Delta 100 because I really like how it develops in Rodinal and I almost always get good result in the enlarger. I tend to stick to HC110 and Rodinal because I like that they last long on the shelf, are cheap and they are easy to handle. Great video!
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.
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.
I think it would be interesting to try HP5 pushed 1 stop for additional contrast and higher ISO if needed. It seems like it can hold details pretty well in the shadows even when underexposed a bit. It would also be interesting to see how grainy the negatives get on 6x7.
Any of the Ilford Delta films are ones you might like. Fairly fine grain in my opinion and lend themselves to post processing digitally. Agfa APX 400 is also one worthy of checking out. Of course, a lot of what you see on the negative is a result of the developer etc. All of the processing chemicals can be changed etc along with developing times etc and with all of those variables it is a never ending quest for the best combination. There will always be someone who will swear that x film developed for x time in x developer etc is the best ever.
Great video, Kyle. Have always used HP5 over TMax for no reason that I can really explain. Although I enjoy adjusting the scans to make them more interesting, I think I'll shoot some more TMax as the unedited look of your images is beautiful. Great stuff.
You do the best film test/ comparisons on RUclips! Very well presented. Thank you for all this work. I just bought some Bergger Pancro 400 35mm to go with my FP4. Also I'll try Fomapan 200 and 400.
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 ✌️✌️✌️😎😎😎😎
I love Ilford delta 400 for portraits and Kodak Tri-X for street. I haven't tried T-max but seeing your results, I think I'll like it a lot 😆 Great photos as usual!
Tri-X has been my go to. Mainly because i'm shooting live music, in a small, sweaty venue, often with a flash. The contrast of TRi-X adds to the atmosphere and mid tones tend to get lost so they aren't super important to me in this context. I really like that intense detail that the Rollei Retro 400 produces in your video, so I might have to give that a try next.
The old land rovers :')
Love the video Kyle!
🙏 Yeah man, would love to get one of those back on the road!
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
Interesting, I haven't heard that before. Gotta learn darkroom printing finally.
Yeah, honestly only like HP5 when I push it. Gives it more contrast.
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.
A comparison between TMax and Tri-X would be interesting.
Tri-X is on order.
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!!
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.
Oh yeah. I'm all for the XP2. I don't see too many people talking about it (at least here in Tokyo).
"Too much character" , don't hear that much these days. Picking and choosing the film that matches the shoot, love it!
HP5 and Tri-X! 💪
Also, lesser known, Fomapan 100 for that 1960s French nouvelle vague cinematic look!
I love Fomapan esp 200asa
@@cameronwheatley7065 Me too, it has that dramatic look
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.
@@nilzthorbo5437 I agree. It's an underrated, hidden gem!
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.
That's the plan! Just waiting to move into my new space.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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!
@@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?
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.
Tmax 100 has always been my favorite. Incredible dynamic range, incredible detail, but very smooth tonal transition
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....
I love the T-Max look, from this shoot out, its the clear winner for my eyes
My favourite as well!
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.
Thanks to everyone who commented. A bit overwhelming to respond to! Haha. But great info for the community. I appreciate you all. 🙏
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
Looking forward to testing it out!
I forgot to mention - Greg Davis (aka The Naked Photographer - ruclips.net/channel/UCUcaft-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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Agree 100%.
T-Max 400 has always been my favorite. Love the contrast and sharpness.
I’ve been debating over tmax and delta.
@@nathandewey1801 Depending on your location T-Max is usually pretty affordable. I’d definitely recommend it if you can get your hands on some.
@@panelsandbars thanks! I’ll have to see about price fluctuations. Especially since I bulk roll my black and white. Honestly either would work great for me. Just up to price.
@@nathandewey1801 Kodak just increased prices again. Better to stick with Ilford.
@@mpk33 Ilford put their prices up too people just didn’t cry as loudly about it.
Funny how I was so keen as a hobbyist photographer until the 2000's when digital came in which I hated. I'm now spending my golden years in retirement rediscovering film photography. Many thanks Kyle for this inspiring and informative video.
Tmax is incredible. It makes such beautiful large print portraits.
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.
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.
IMO Fomapan is the best budget friendly option. The grain is a bit... noticeable, but hey, $5 per roll is a steal!
Oh my, I'm buying foma for 2.90 a roll from fotoimpex. Or try foma's website for better prices ✌️
I'd like to add that the price is when buying in bulk
@@cccompressor Aaah, really? Welp, that's what I get for not looking outside B&H haha.
Thanks for the info, tho!
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 👌
Now you need to get into self development, as you can control additional qualities of the processed negatives by choosing different chemistry!
That's the plan as soon as I move into my new space.
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.
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!
Thank you!
There are so many variables to achieving your desired characteristics in bnw film to make a decision based solo on the actual film (at box speed) seems crazy simplistic. I’ve been trying for years and don’t feel half way there. Film/speed/developer/ agitation/printing/..........thousands of permutations. Good luck Kyle.
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
Definitely still have to try both of those.
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.
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.
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..
My all time most loved Kodak Tmax 100 for fine grain landscapes and TRI-X 400 for more grain and contrast when shooting street. Right now I am trying Ilford Delta 100 and have 4 rolls of FP4 coming just for fun.
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.
Fomapan 200 is my favorite! With a good developer, like Xtol, DD-X or just D76, it looks like "cool" vintage cinema material.
Ilford FP4 for me hands down. Of course film photography is very subjective but FP4 really does it for me.
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.
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.
I love Delta400. It is so often underrated in my opinion. Delta 100 and 400 is always in my Bag
I was shooting Kodak Tri-x 400 for almost ten years and loved it but shot Ilford Hp5 here and there and just fully made the switch to it at the end of 2020. I loved the tighter/different grain structure and the contrast was a bit better.
Dude. I was watching this video and thought that the video is pretty enjoyable, but haven't yet really caught my attention properly. Then I heard blues. I was like I don't know who this guy is but a photographer who's playing blues on his channel has earned my sub. Sick shots too.
I appreciate that.
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 (:
Your videos are actually the best on RUclips for film photography. Keep it up buddy.
Thanks man. Glad you're enjoying them.
You're right about the Rollei as being akin to a high Clarity slider. That's literally what it was designed for as an aerial photography film.
I dig this video.... As a printer, HP5 is amazing. When printing, maybe some would disagree, but adding contrast is so much easier than calming it down.... hands down Hp5 is my go to.
524 likes and 0 dislikes! A testament to the quality and viewer appreciation. Well done Kyle! 👏🏾👍🏾
You jinxed me! 😂 But thank you!
@@KyleMcDougall Lol to be real, those are actually super fans 😉😁
I just picked up my first film camera(Nikon F3 hp from 81) a few days ago. So thanks for the recommendations. Because I’ve decided I’m exclusively shooting B&W only. I just love the look.
Haven't been shooting BW a lot recently but after trying a couple of brands I now stick to T-Max 100 and 400.
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.
For sure, definitely something to take into account. I could see HP5 being more appealing with a scene with a little more contrast.
@@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.
have to get my hands on some TMAX after seeing the results, loving the contrast it brought to the photos
I've fallen in love with the grain structure of Tri-x on a nice baryt print 15 years ago - using it ever since
TMax is just so clean and doesn't need much editing if you get the exposure right. Glad you are getting into B/W looking forward to seeing more shots from you!
Kyle, your exposure test of hp5 locked me in to it. Plenty forgiving for street, modest contrast I can control in post, nice size grain in 35mm. I shoot and develop at 1600 and combine that with a yashica mat tlr loaded with ilford 3200 also shot at 3200 keeping exposure simple between the 2 cameras and film stocks. I do more precisely meter 3200 but both cameras can be set up about the same. You do some wonderful testing. Thanks.
Cheers, Bob! Glad to hear that you've found these helpful.
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
FP4 is a must to try for b&w shooting.
Agreed, if hp5 is too flat then fp4 is the ticket as long as you don't need a faster film.
@@MrCodyswanson Kyle uses tripods a lot, so no problem if the shutter speeds get too slow to hand hold.
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
Jch street pan is definitely my fav b&w film. I prefer it on 35mm than 120
Hi Kyle, I've always loved your work, but some of these shots in this video are really remarkable. Really nicely done.
I appreciate that, John. Thank you!
Adox CMS 20 II is an underrated low ISO, practically zero grain high resolution black and white film stock. It has very high contrast though but I find it perfect for landscapes.
I've used Carmencita here is Lisbon and I gotta say that I loved the results! Really insightful video, Kyle!
Cheers! And yep, they're awesome!
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
My personal fav in medium format is Ilford FP4, and for 135 - Agfa APX400.
I always dig HP5 for the lower contrast and versatility. It's the easiest to scan a flatter image as well. But in large format I absolutely love TMax 100 and Ilford FP4. The grain is almost non-existent and I always get a fabulous rendition of the scene.
Also TMax 400 is great when pushed to 1600 and pulled to 100 once you get into processing yourself 😉
For sure. Also, the cost of HP5 is super appealing. Especially here in the UK. I just bought a box of 25 4x5 sheets for £40. In comparison, TMAX 400, 10 sheets, is £50! But yeah, looking forward to home developing in the near future when I'm finally settled over here.
For someone like me who works in the screaming sunlight and contrasts of the desert, HP5 is a great choice. But, my all time favorite for 40 years is good 'ole Tri-X.
In medium and large format, my favorites are FP4+ and Tri-X. Tmax 100 and Acros when I want grain to a minimum.
....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
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!
Cool! That’s interesting. TMax 400 is my go to 400 film in 120. FP4 is my go to 100 ISO. I specially like the way it looks on cloudy days. I also like Retro 400 for the same reasons you have👍🏼
I shoot B&W 6x6 and my favorite films are Ilford FP4+ rated at 100 or 80 and Tri-X pulled to 200. I occasionally shoot Tri-X at box speed, but I like the slightly lower contrast that comes from pulling it.
I love midtones and slow film. Usually shoot Fuji Acros II, Ilford Delta 100, and Ilford Pan F 50.
Looking forward to testing out some of the slower stocks next.
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.
Love this video and love to see your migration into bnw! I had the same experience when I first started using Tmax 400 as well and now it and Hp5 are my two everyday bnw stocks. A tip about Hp5, it needs to be pushed if you want a more dynamic image right out of camera, that being said you can get there with edits shot at 400.
Sadly not available in 120 yet, but I really love Ferrania P30 on 35mm. It's not the most practical at 80iso, but it's gorgeous. Fairly high contrast with inky blacks, shots almost have a painterly look to them. Love how it renders skin tones when metered right. Brilliant for landscapes with a red or yellow filter. Blows highlights at the drop of a hat, so metering is a must, but it's just wonderful.
I love seeing you photograph England!
Thanks! Looking forward to getting out to explore here.
@@KyleMcDougall Are you in Reading? I recognise a few of the spots
i went the HP5 way, the reason is because of the “blank canvas” look. But like you said it’s a little too blank. I use a yellow filter and add 1 stop for compensation and by that you won’t have to crank up the contrast so much. But the t-max does look good i have to admit!
Ilford FP4 and PanF, love it when home developed with rodinal. The 400 ASA is a bit of a toss up between HP5 and Kodak tri x to me, but it bepends on subject and how i like to put down contrasts. Tri x is just a bit more "graphic", especially pushed, but pulled two stops it can do some magic too. Love the ilford tones!
For sure. Shooting some Tri-X today. Looking forward to seeing what it's like.
Ilford FP4+ for 120. I won’t be told otherwise! Classic looking grain and tons of detail in the shadows.
Have been really loving Ferrania p30 and Bergger Pancro 400! You should definitely try them!
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
you can always try to develop your own bw, it's the fastest and most fun :)
I really like using Bergger 400 these days, and dev in D-76 in 1+1 at 18C to keep the grain in check. I love Pan F, but it really needs contrast in the scene to make it shine.
Just ordered some!
My favorite black and white films in 120 are Tri-X (rated at 320, dev'd at 400 in Kodak HC-110 dil B) and Delta 3200 (rated at 1000 and dev'd at 3200 in Ilford DD-X).
In 35mm, still Tri-X, but also Kodak Double-X (Cinestill rebrands this as BWXX) and TMax P3200.
I've been thinking about trying TMax 400 for a bit, and I think this video convinced me. Nice stuff, Kyle!
Got some Tri-X on the way! Looking forward to checking it out.
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
Really great video! Thanks for your work.
For C41, there's one developer and that's it. Independently from brand/maker, they all end the same.
Not so with black and white. You have an infinite amount of possibilities, not only with the amount of developers, but with pushing/pulling, agitation and so on. And then when you pair that up with different from stocks, there's clearly no limits.
Exploring different film stocks without considering development techniques is extremely limiting. It's like only one dimension of the beauty of shooting black and white.
I hear ya on the HP5. It's loved in so many ways, but I'm not convinced it's the one for me. When it comes to less grain, and punchier highlights, the Ilford XP2 Super is what I enjoy the most. You can also shoot different ISO settings on the same roll. Verrrrry interesting. Check out Ilford's site for more specifics on this. I've had a TON of success taking the XP2 out during the day and finishing the roll at night. Give it a shot. You might be happy with the results.
HP5 was the starting point for so many of us. After a while though I got a bit bored with it. TMAX400 is beautiful but my favourite B&W film so far has been FP4, has stunningly rich shadows.
To me a b/w film stock has to be paired with a developer to suit my taste and my work flow. I mostly use two film stocks; HP5+ and Delta 100. HP5+ because of it's versatility and Delta 100 because I really like how it develops in Rodinal and I almost always get good result in the enlarger. I tend to stick to HC110 and Rodinal because I like that they last long on the shelf, are cheap and they are easy to handle. Great video!
Thanks! Yep, learning that the search goes beyond just the film and also has to take into account the developer. Too used to C41!
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.
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.
I think it would be interesting to try HP5 pushed 1 stop for additional contrast and higher ISO if needed. It seems like it can hold details pretty well in the shadows even when underexposed a bit. It would also be interesting to see how grainy the negatives get on 6x7.
Ilford FP4+125 @ 100 and developed in Caffenol CM. Ilford XP2 Super 400 @ 100 developed in Kodak HC-110 dilution "H".
I love using T-Max P3200 for some night time street photography
Any of the Ilford Delta films are ones you might like. Fairly fine grain in my opinion and lend themselves to post processing digitally. Agfa APX 400 is also one worthy of checking out. Of course, a lot of what you see on the negative is a result of the developer etc. All of the processing chemicals can be changed etc along with developing times etc and with all of those variables it is a never ending quest for the best combination. There will always be someone who will swear that x film developed for x time in x developer etc is the best ever.
Great video, Kyle. Have always used HP5 over TMax for no reason that I can really explain. Although I enjoy adjusting the scans to make them more interesting, I think I'll shoot some more TMax as the unedited look of your images is beautiful. Great stuff.
Thanks Richard. Looking forward to working with both of these more, but definitely loved how the TMAX looked!
@@KyleMcDougall Rollei IR400 next? :-)
You do the best film test/ comparisons on RUclips! Very well presented. Thank you for all this work. I just bought some Bergger Pancro 400 35mm to go with my FP4. Also I'll try Fomapan 200 and 400.
Two favourites are Tri-X (handles well pushing to 1600) and Ilford Pan F 50. But I use Tri-X as my everyday film.
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 ✌️✌️✌️😎😎😎😎
I love Ilford delta 400 for portraits and Kodak Tri-X for street. I haven't tried T-max but seeing your results, I think I'll like it a lot 😆 Great photos as usual!
Ilford Hp4+...My all-time Favorite
I much prefer hp5 especially for portraits. I like that I can edit it to my exact specifications and the latitude is really nice
Tri-X has been my go to. Mainly because i'm shooting live music, in a small, sweaty venue, often with a flash. The contrast of TRi-X adds to the atmosphere and mid tones tend to get lost so they aren't super important to me in this context. I really like that intense detail that the Rollei Retro 400 produces in your video, so I might have to give that a try next.
I was surprised to see those cars in the front garden, the Finchampstead Road - just down the street from me!