My all time favourite is FP4, developed in either DD-X or D76.
Next in line is Technichal Pan in Technidol, lovely film!
I use both films for landscape images and details in nature.
Have recently tried my hand at Scala B/W slide film. If you get the exposure exactly right (very essential with this film), it is the "fibre print" quality in slide films. Lovely for landscapes!
I was thinking of this ... Some of the early Kodak Color Negative films were pretty harsh...
However, my all-time chioce fo BAD films are *most* of the Polaroid "amateur" films - and their 66* - 67* and "Polapan" "proofing" films. To me. there is nothing of much value in *any* of them as "savable" image film.
I use them a lot in the Polaroid back for the Hasselblads .. because that is the only choice I have. Still ... the "reliablity" of the system is not the best. One *must* clean those damned rollers every time, or suffer the potential loss of the entrie remaining film pack. They are also unresonably expensive.
Every time I use them, I mumble the mantra: "I HATE Polaroid film, I HATE Polaroid film...
For me, 'instant' film is just a tool and essential for location shooting. However, I prefer Fuji 100FPC for proofing purposes, far more stable and constant than Polaroid materials in my experience.
Ddoes anyone remember the Polaroid "instant" 35mm films? They didn't have grain, they had lines...
I've never got good results with any "advanced grain shape technology" film. Whether its Ilford or Kodak or someone else, they just don't behave like I'm used to.
For an all time high, try Delta 400 in monobath developer...
I dont get it, everybody dumps on the TMX films and for me they are the best I have ever used. People complained that "new films" had no latitude like the old super xx etc, that you could not change the curve etc, etc. So Kodak goes and makes a film that you can change to fit your requirements, high contrast, low contrast...etc etc...and what do people do? they complain, ah is too hard to use, to finicky, I get too much contrast, I dont get enough contrast.....lol..go figure.
For me the worst film goes back to my 35 mm days and it is tech pan....sure I got fine grain, but those grays where among the ugliest I have ever seen. The highlights and the shadows were fine, but them middle tones...ugh! the ugliest I have ever seen, looked like mud seen through a dirty glass.....
I would almost agree on Tech pan. Except that my photos don't tend to have a lot of mid tones anyway, just bright and dark... But the few TP negatives I have that actually have greys in them - yes.
LOL...well yes I guess I forgot to mention if you could get the &·$·" thing to give you middle grays....
Once you get the "hang" of Tech Pan, it is actually a lovely film. I do agree that it takes some doing, and lots of trial and error, to understand how to work that film. Once I figured it out, I fell in love with it.
On the few occasions I have used TechPan I have used a very highly diluted Rodinal with vigorous agitation. I believe Barry Thornton has formulated a new developer for this film.
I went through a Tech Pan phase, almost 20 years ago. I processed in Technidol, and I still have a few favorites among those negatives, but eventually I came to the realization that for fine grain it's better and easier just to use a bigger camera.