But assuming you’re ok with my own set of criteria, what you’re going to want to do first is to go through each of these criteria and rate how important each one is to you personally on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being extremely important. The TTArtisan Light Meter is a small average light meter that slips into the camera’s shoe. Since Bronica hasn’t one, I have attached neodymium magnets on the camera and the light meter, magnets form a sturdy connection and I can remove and reattach the light meter easily. Metering is easy and fast, you just press the only button, it takes the reading and keeps it, so you can afterwards see all the combinations of speed/ aperture that make for a proper exposure. All the photos I took with it came out as well metered. Conclusion: At print sizes of 6x9 inches or 9x13 inches you will probably see very little difference in sharpness or grain among these five films. The best of these films with poor developing (especially overdevelopment) will look a lot worse than the worst of these films with good processing, especially with Xtol.

Fact is, we don't even know for certain about every minor change made to our favorite films, papers and chemistry because the makers don't notify us. Generally we find out when the grapevine starts buzzing about different results, which leads to methodical tests that either confirm or disprove the rumors. While we are talking about similar films to Kentmere 400 I should mention AGFA APX 400 vs Kentmere 400. My local lab as stopped selling the current APX 400 film as stated that is it just re-badged Kentmere 400. I have no evidence of this but it is a reputable source so I have no reason to doubt. What this means is if you also shoot with AGFA APX 400 film you probably don’t need to buy Kentmere 400 film too. Next up is Fomapan, which, is also Arista EDU Ultra, which, is also HOLGA. It’s all the same emulsion. Fomapan 400 has been produced for by Foma, Czech company, for almost a hundred years. It is Europe’s popular budget-friendly brand. I’ve found that prices vary between its various brands, so I’ll usually watch and compare these prices and get the version which happens to be the cheapest at any given time. We’ll start with the cheaper or what I would call the budget films. These are films typically used by students or the budget conscious photographer. And, weighing in at a pretty nine cents per frame (again, in USD), the cheapest of all of the films is Ultrafine Xtreme 400. I couldn’t find a lot of information on the history of this film. Though it is labeled as being produced in Europe, and many believe it to be another film simply rebranded, I can’t find any hard evidence to substantiate that claim.This review was done with a Canon EOS Elan 7, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and a Sigma 35mm f1.4 Ease of Use

The biggest difference I saw was in shadow separation - Tri-X and HP-5 were clearly better than the others at drawing out shadow details, with AGFA APX 400 right behind them. Based on shadow detail, I’d have to rate TMax and Delta 400 at 200, Tri-X and HP5 at 400, and Agfa 400 at 320 using this developer/meter combination. Before Agfa stopped production in Germany, enormous quantities of the APX 100 were still produced. This was sold as Rollei Retro 100 and under the AgfaPhoto brand (AgfaPhoto APX 100). Now the leftovers are probably used up, nevertheless it will pass on the APX 100 of AgfaPhoto, but just no longer from Agfa Leverkusen production. Once you’ve got a copy that you can edit, the first step is to rate your priorities when it comes to film in this second row here. Now keep in mind, I built this for myself and factors I consider when evaluating these films. You may have your own criteria and, as such, you may need to do some refactoring of this spreadsheet to get it to reflect this. But showing you to change the business rules on this spreadsheet is beyond the scope of this tutorial, so you’re on your own if you choose to go that route.Landscapes that are mostly stunning. I dislike aerial views. No idea, but I do! Burnt out highlights is the scourge of modern films. I think the emulsion and often base too thin.. Tri-X with it’s curls another film i no longer use. Yes! I’ve done darkroom since a kid. I am 78. I would never carry so many different films. Confusion. Films though are better, in the 60’s 35mm was NOT recommended for landscapes. (Kodak). 120 film is a Big jump in quality. Big means better, 4x bigger. TMax and Delta 400 were very slightly sharper than the “traditional-chemistry” films, resolving extremely fine detail like distant tree branches or clothing threads just a tad better than the others. They had grain that was extremely fine, but also very visible.

So I’ve given a lot of disclaimers so far, and I want to add yet one more, but this is probably the most important disclaimer. Except in the case of one film (which we’ll get to later), I used the same developer: Kodak HC 110. Like Kentmere, Ilford HP5+ is a product of the Harman technology company. It is a lower contrast film. It has good shadow detail and well-separated mid-tones with sharp grain. Although the contrast is low, there is a great deal of latitude in this film, which makes it great for pushing or flavoring the curves and contrast to taste, after scanning. Selling for about 14 cents per frame, currently, it might be less sharp than some films, but it will provide predictable and reproducible results. Like Kentmere, there is a bit more bounce to this film after drying. As a side note, I’ve found HP5+ fans to be some of the most loyal and enthusiastic in the community, more so, than perhaps, any of the other films that I’m talking about.

Shooting AgfaPhoto 400

Phew! That was a lot of work. So with the blind test out of the way, now comes the big reveal. Here are the film names associated to their letters: What I missed (personal opinion) were folks! Greek folks. The joy of Costa Manos photos entranced me and still do. He used Tri-X (original) and Rodinal original. Leicas which somehow have less grain and blown out highlights.. I see it in films exposed at same periods sharing Nikon/Minolta whatever. I use a Rolleiflex with Tessar. Yup. It was what Irving Penn used. He might have been somehow “better” if he’s used better! Look forward to more images/ photos. Photos are film. Images digital. Also, what can I improve in these tests? What would you like to see me change or do differently in the next one? I definitely have plans to do more of these, and I would love to hear what can make them better. Canon 5D Mark IV + 24-70mm f/2.8 vs Leica SL + 24-90mm f/2.8-4 - Battle of the Prosumer Mid-Zoom Kit

For this road trip I brought with me almost every film I had available. Ilford HP5 & Ilford Delta 400 on 120 format and Agfa APX 400 & Ilford FP4+ on 35mm. I came to some useful conclusions now that I had the chance to develop all of them with the same developer, Rodinal. Prespes lakes, Nikon FM, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, Agfa APX400, Rodinal 1+25 Ilford HP5 vs Ilford Delta 400 on 120 It is probably worth mentioning but for the photos shared above I shot the film both over exposed and under exposed. Sadly from a scientific point of view I was just winging it on the day and guessed the exposure. What I can say is some images were shot in very under exposed conditions with the light being probably -2 stops under. Highlights and shadow detail Leica M10 vs Leica M9 vs Fujifilm S5 Pro - A Comparison of Digital Rendering with Vintage and Modern Lenses You can now buy 35mm Kentmere film in the UK and Europe too. As mentioned, originally it was only available in the US.

Table of Contents

First Kentmere 400 portraits from Poland! I’m really impressed with the detail captured but the film scan showed blemishes from the developing (I think that is the marks though it is not visible on the film itself). Pan 400 vs Kentmere 400 vs Ilford Pan 400? Sony A7R Mark III - The Best Digital Camera for Image Documentation - Featuring the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS