Which film do you prefer? About to buy another 100 ft bulk roll

[CMorris327]

As I have used up my stock of Legacy Pro ISO 100, I am about to purchase another 100 foot bulk roll of film. Freestyle's Legacy Pro was not bad, but I am going to try another kind.
I am debating between Ilford HP5, Ilford Delta 100, Tri-x, and Plus-X. Although I have used these many times in the past, I cannot decide which one will be worth investing in.
I shoot everything from landscapes to landmarks, and everything in between (night, indoor, portrait, etc.). I enlarge up to 11x14, and would like minimal grain, but want it to still possess the classic film appearance so the 11x14's don't appear to be a digital image converted to grayscale.
If there are any films that you recommend, please inform me of them. As it comes down, my main decision is based on buying ISO 100 or 400 film.
Thanks

[JohnMeadows]

Maybe it's just me, but for that traditional film look, I just love Tri-X; it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

[brucemuir]

I haven't used the legacy Pro 100 but do shoot a fair amount of the 400 and it's pretty clean for 400 speed. Its real cheap.

Next would be tri X but I mostly shoot that in 120

11x14 from 35mm takes a bit of doing imo but it all depends on your ascetics.

If you can deal with the grain you cant beat the Arista Premium 400 from Freestyle (they have the AP 100 speed short date special right now but it's not bulk)

[hpulley]

Ilford Delta 100 is finer grained but a little more digital than HP5+; can you not get FP4+? HP5+ or Tri-X would let you do some shooting indoors without flash while 100 will require flash obviously and even with flash may not offer the depth of field you need. I could probably get away with just shooting HP5+ and considered buying a 50 roll pack at B&H as it is about as cheap as bulk loading it. But I like using a few different films at times to suit my mood and the scene at hand so I usually like to have at least one fast and one slow film around.

I find HP5+ enlarges well to 11x14" when done carefully. My last rolls processed in DD-X came out beautifully. Delta 400 too really has just a bit more grain than Delta 100 even printed to 11x14". The grain will be most noticable in large areas of little detail like the sky.

[chrismoret]

Good ol' Tri-X! For sure! But got some Fuji Acros 100 (120rol) waiting in the fridge. Gonna have a taste of them very soon.

[photoncatcher]

For me it's always been Plus-X. I first discovered it when I was in the millitary, and have been using it ever since. I will shoot Tri-X if I'm looking for a more grainy look, but for 90% of my MF work' I love the fine grain, and great tonal ranfe of PXP. The one film I really mis in Panatomic-X. I shot some back in the day, and even though it was prety slow (ISO 32) I blew up a 35mm neg to a little over 11x14, and it was just about as good as any MF neg I've shot. I need to shoot some more Ilford though , just to get a feel for it.

[tkamiya]

I use PlusX/Tmax and Tmax100/400 combination depending on what I want. Even with Tmax100 shot in medium format - which renders pretty much grain-less, it doesn't look like digital conversion. In 35mm format at 11x14 enlargement, you can see some grain. It's sharp and smooth but looks unique. Little too punchy for some applications.

I think the only thing you can do is get a few rolls and try them out yourself. What I think is good and what you think is good are probably not the same. Anyway, this is my recommendation.

[jnanian]

neopan or foma

[Jeff Kubach]

In the past I prefer T-Max 100 or 400.

Jeff

[Trey]

PX 125 has been my favorite, but last time I went to B&H it looked like the price for a bulk roll had gone up to like $70.00. Yikes!