Wich film should I pick and why?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I did shoot a roll of tri-x 400 and developed it in Rodinal 1:50 (35mm) last spring and both scanned and printed it in the darkroom later, I've also developed a couple of rolls in TMax developer.
To me the Rodinal result looked washed out and very very grainy (A4), I did shoot some from the same roll outside as well, those were better in the contrast department, but I still feel that tri-x isn't my cup of tea.

I've really tried to like both tri-x 400 and Delta 400, but some films just doesn't sit right for me, while other are "immediately
right" when you see the first results, I suppose that differs from person to person, also 120 might be another story.

Not saying I am some kind of wizard at all, just sharing my opinion.

I'm no wizard either, just challenging what you say, which I think is OK. Your opinion is perfectly fine, and I respect it of course as I hope you would respect mine.

My point is that Rodinal doesn't have to be the 'grainy' one, while it possesses so many other wonderful qualities. Does it reveal more grain than Xtol? Yes. More than D76? Yes. More than PMK? No. Pyrocat? About the same. Rodinal, to me, is middle of the road grain wise.

I also understand your notion about the film not 'sitting right' with you. That's OK too. However, my personal view is that if you get great results immediately with a film you were lucky. Nobody gets to know a film inside and out in one single roll. Not a dozen either. Maybe a 100 rolls later you'll know enough to be dangerous.
Contrast, for example, you control. It's almost impossible to say that a film doesn't have enough contrast, unless it inherently builds contrast really poorly when you instruct it by changing either how you agitate or how long you develop the film. A low contrast film needs to be developed longer to feature normal contrast, or agitated more. A high contrast film needs to be developed less, or agitated less (or both). Either way, you target a normal negative contrast that fits the paper you print on, and you subsequently shoot and process the film to exhibit that contrast. Whether the film is high or low inherent contrast doesn't matter - when you control negative contrast you end up in the same place anyway, and it takes a while to understand a film, where its limits are, what it looks like when you exceed the limits, how to avoid that or how to benefit from it. It doesn't happen overnight.

[Helinophoto]

I know that you know so much more than me on the subject of film - developing - paper and processing and such. ^^
I've read tons of post from you and have learned/still learning a lot from your well of knowledge, so I cannot really argue with you Thomas.

I don't know, I've found 3 films that really "fit the bill" for me from the get-go and that is Foma (100) and Acros (100) and HP5+ (Hp5+ wasnt a "wow", but it's close to what I like than the other 400's tried). I also find the Rollei films interesting, but I haven't tested much with them yet. Generally, they've just looked "right" and just what I was looking for off the bat. I simply followed the massive dev chart and bam! Just what I have been looking for, or very very close.
- My personal taste may change though, but the initial results from MDC with these films has been very nice to my eyes.

On the other hand, tri-x hasn't (for me), the delta 100/400's neither (the deltas render red too bright somehow, something is "missing", I'm sure that can be fixed by using filters....or by using a different film ^^ ).
I am aware that you can, trough the developing scheme, alter things like contrast and grain, but after trying out tri-x and the delta films a few times (Rodinal, TMax, XTol, Ultrafin) and every time get the "neeeeh...." feel, I'd opted to stick with the films that "wow" me instead.

Personally I like Rodinal, both Acros and Tri-x 320 looked great in it in 1:50 and it keeps forever ^^

[Roger Cole]

What you say about clicking with some films is spot on, but I too am mystified at the results with Tri-X. It's different from HP5+ but not THAT different. If you like HP5+ Tri-X is close enough in grain and can be made to match in contrast.

I confess I tried Rodinal decades ago and couldn't get it to work for me, so I have a similar experience with something others think is magical, albeit a developer in my case. I've concluded they all, including Thomas, can't be bonkers, so I have another bottle of Rodinal to try out.

But Tri-X just isn't a hard film to like, and even less difficult to get it to respond. Don't like it, fine, but can't get enough contrast or too much grain, something is wrong there.

[Jeff Kubach]

I like using HP5 in D-76. TMX 3200 is good

Jeff

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I sincerely hope I never stop learning either, and I do learn something almost every time I print.

Like I said, it's ok to not like a film off the bat. Now that you have a couple of favorites you should really sink your teeth into them. Over-expose (a lot), under-expose (a lot), under-/over-develop, subject it to vigorous agitation, or slow agitation, different types of lighting, long exposures, etc. and every time you print those negs you will learn something important about your film.
You will learn to fully exploit it, and you can really start to work with it.
Having done all those things, and printed the resulting negs, you will have learned an awful lot.

Keep up the great work.

I know that you know so much more than me on the subject of film - developing - paper and processing and such. ^^
I've read tons of post from you and have learned/still learning a lot from your well of knowledge, so I cannot really argue with you Thomas.

I don't know, I've found 3 films that really "fit the bill" for me from the get-go and that is Foma (100) and Acros (100) and HP5+ (Hp5+ wasnt a "wow", but it's close to what I like than the other 400's tried). I also find the Rollei films interesting, but I haven't tested much with them yet. Generally, they've just looked "right" and just what I was looking for off the bat. I simply followed the massive dev chart and bam! Just what I have been looking for, or very very close.
- My personal taste may change though, but the initial results from MDC with these films has been very nice to my eyes.

On the other hand, tri-x hasn't (for me), the delta 100/400's neither (the deltas render red too bright somehow, something is "missing", I'm sure that can be fixed by using filters....or by using a different film ^^ ).
I am aware that you can, trough the developing scheme, alter things like contrast and grain, but after trying out tri-x and the delta films a few times (Rodinal, TMax, XTol, Ultrafin) and every time get the "neeeeh...." feel, I'd opted to stick with the films that "wow" me instead.

Personally I like Rodinal, both Acros and Tri-x 320 looked great in it in 1:50 and it keeps forever ^^