35mm B&W Film comparison chart / table

ian_s

ian_s

Well-Known Member
Registered
I am looking for a comparison chart / table for the different types of b&w film that can help explain how to choose one film over the other.
There appear to be a number of websites with wordy descriptions of films performance but without information that allows a direct comparison to other film.

I am interested in these characteristics:

Dynamic Range / Exposure Latitude
Shadow Detail
Grain size
Contrast
Sharpness

For these films :

Delta 100, 400, 3200
FP4
HP5
XP2
PANF+
Tri-X 400
T-MAX400
Kentmere 100, 400

Any suggestions were this my be accessible ?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Are the characteristics you mentioned not usually determined by other factors?

For example: Shadow Detail.
The amount of shadow detail recorded on the film is usually determined by correct metring techniques along with your personal EI for the camera/film of choice rather than a particular brand of film.
 
ian barber said:
Are the characteristics you mentioned not usually determined by other factors?

For example: Shadow Detail.
The amount of shadow detail recorded on the film is usually determined by correct metring techniques along with your personal EI for the camera/film of choice rather than a particular brand of film.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, of course, its likely there are multiple variables that contribute. However if the film itself influences the amount of shadow detail then it feels like its a factor in my choice of the film. I am struggling to understand which film to choose and wanted to understand how each film performs compared to the alternatives.

As I said a few resources have very wordy descriptions like "great exposure latitude" or "well controlled grain" which is interesting but doesn't help in deciding which film is better for the conditions I may want to consider.

A table or chart that provides relative scores for each film in each performance characteristic may be helpful. i.e. Delta 100 is 5/10 for grain and Delta 3200 is 3/10 etc etc
 
From what tests I have done, HP5 appears to well controlled grain and a good lattitude. I also little difference between 320 and 640 ISO
FomaPan is supposed to have a good lattitude but I haven't seen it with the FomaPan 200
For sharpness, I have personally found that it is the developer which makes a big difference, XTOL is very sharp, HC110 is a little soft, PyroCat is also sharp.
 
Gosh, this is real real Pandora's box. I have seen websites, usually American, where the photographer has directly compared films using the same subject. There's one in particular that I've stumbled upon from time to time, but haven't kept a record. I don't think the appraisals have included scores, though I might be wrong.

I suspect that the only way is to read what you can, speak to experienced film users, and experiment with different film and developer combos. You will also find that different developers yield some quite different results at varying dilutions - as I say, a real pandoras box, then of course there is the extra dimension of exposing for the shadows or mid-tones, and developing for the highlights, or vice-versa/underexposing & overdeveloping/overexposing & underdeveloping. Your first step on this journey has to be buying a dark bag and some chems, and start developing yourself, first off at box speed using a range of films, and with a single commonly used developer, say, ID11, at 'standard' dilution and developing time, and take it from there.

There's some excellent advice on the relevant sections of this forum, from Martin and Ian, Keith Haithwaite, John King and Alan Clark in particular.
 
Last edited:
I think you may be tilting at windmills to get what you want with the comparison table you wish for. Film is a medium where the characteristics can be changed at a whim, simply changed with temp, age, developer, time, and accuracy; It is so fluid I don't think a manufacturer will dare to give a definitive answer in case they get sued because someone has done something wrong on a vital job and messed it all up.
This is one reason I stick to 1 or 2 films (FP4+ and XP2) that I know work, one developer that I also know works, (obviously C41 for the XP2) and the recommended time time all at the recommended temperature, which gives me fairly consistent results. In other words I stick to the makers think is best for their product. They will have spent hours trying to get the best so why waste our time trying to improve on what they have achieved.
 
Last edited:
Ian / John / Toby,

Thanks for your replies. Perhaps I am approaching this from too much of an analytical approach risking analysis paralysis ! That's a perception that the digital age and rampant technological change has brought to choices far wider than film stock. The differences between films appear more nuanced than I expected, it also seems that many film photographers seem to have an emotional connection based on years of experience and stick with their choice.

When I agreed (with myself) to give film b&w photography a go I did decide that developing myself with all that goes with it wasn't something I would engage with, so its a variable I don't have to play with.

If I do find any comparison information I'll add it to this thread.
 
You can quite happily compare TriX, HP5, and Kentmere 400, or FP4+, Kentmere 100, and Foma 100, or any of the others so long as they are a similar or the same speed and using the same type/make of developer. But can I ask what is the point. I would much rather have the manufacturers do the testing for me and go by their recommendations instead of wasting film and time - for what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top