This post was inspired by another I made back in the early days of my website, a post from October 2017 titled Kentmere 400 | Budget B&W Film. Since that time I’ve come a long way with my film development techniques, the capability of my scanning equipment, the digital workflow I use to scan negatives, and my overall knowledge of photography. Looking back on that article I figured it was time for a redo. I loaded up my LowePro 400 AW II with my Nikon F100, 12-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 one foggy March morning before striking out through the streets of NYC to shoot some film.
First, a quick bit about the technical specs behind this comparison. Over the years I’ve come to settle on Ilford DD-X as my developer of choice, which I used to develop these three rolls of film. I do keep a bottle of Rodinal on hand for slower films (Ferrania P30 or Across 100) but DD-X is my go-to for everything else. I started off with HC-110 but found the dilutions impractical for most film I shot. All negatives were scanned on a Nikon D810 with the 60mm f/2.8 AF-S macro lens and a Nikon ES-2 adapter, which is a massive leap forward in quality from the V600 I used when I first started shooting film. Hopefully this will be apparent when you look at the images below, which you can click on to get a closer look.
After digitizing the negatives I import the files into Lightroom, do some basic exposure adjustment, then finish the editing process in Photoshop. All photos were given the same amount of sharpening and then inverted after cleaning up any lingering dust with the spot healing tool. Lastly, I converted the file to 16-bit Grayscale and added a curves layer to set the white/black points in Photoshop. I then used Lightroom for final adjustments and export.
Tri-X 400
Kodak Tri-X 400 is a classic, and was the first film I started shooting with back in college. As of October 2021, Tri-X will run you $9.95 a roll for 36 exposures. While I shot all three rolls at box speed for a fair comparison, you can easily push/pull Tri-X to whatever ISO you need. The same can be said for HP5 Plus.
I personally have a love/hate relationship with Tri-X because no matter what I do, the grain is always hit or miss when scanning. It provides a grittier look than other Kodak films (specifically T-Max 400). Sometimes this grittiness fits your subject - I’ll often choose Tri-X when shooting at former military bases because of the grain alone. The golden rule of film photography is to shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights, however I’d caution overexposing this film too much. I’ve found that when scanning, especially if you’re using something like an Epson V600, it can be very difficult to recover highlights from Tri-X without throwing off the whole image. Out of all the films I tested, I felt Tri-X had the best balance of contrast overall.
Kentmere 400
Working on a budget? Kentmere 400 is probably the film for you. Clocking in at $5.19 a roll for 36 exposures as of October 2021, this is the lest expensive film I shot for this comparison. I love Kentmete films for when I need to test a camera, lens, etc. because they’re reliable and inexpensive. Kentmere is a low contrast film which leaves you a lot of room to work in the shadows, and turns out great when developed in DD-X. I’ve shot numerous rolls of this film to test repairs I’ve made to my cameras, but not very many on what I’d consider serious work. I just don’t shoot enough film to make the price per roll very relevant, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a B&W film in this price range that performs this well. I’d also highly recommend Kentmere 100, which I didn’t test here but still make use of quite often.
One word of caution when scanning Kentmere films with flatbed scanners like the Epson V600 or V800 - be very careful with the Unsharp Mask. I actually like to leave this option on when scanning 120, but I think it’s too aggressive for Kentmere and leaves the grain looking chunky. I’d leave the sharpening to Photoshop.
HP5 Plus
At $8.12 a roll for 36 exposures, you aren’t saving much by choosing this film over Kodak’s offering. But HP5 Plus offers something different than Tri-X - stronger contrast and what I think is less pronounced grain, especially in the skies. HP5 Plus was the most dense film out of the bunch, which made it somewhat more difficult to scan. I don’t think this had anything to do with overexposure since my F100 is usually pretty consistent in matrix metering mode. I’d probably let it sit in the developer a little longer next time.Regardless of the negative density, the results speak for themself - just look at the detail in the chrome of the motorcycle pictured below.
The Verdict
So what does this mean to you as a photographer? If you need a budget film, Kentmere is your best choice. Otherwise I’d say it’s a tossup between Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5 Plus. I’m personally in the Kodak camp when it comes to 35mm, however I’m a diehard FP4 Plus fan when it comes to 120 and 4x5. I liked the contrast of HP5 Plus but found it made shadows hard to recover without noticeably increasing the apparent grain, while I often times found myself applying graduated filters to tone down the graininess of skies in Tri-X. I think I spent less time editing my Tri-X shots in Lightroom after applying a basic curve in Photoshop, but I wouldn’t say that’s a good indication of film performance. Both films are a solid choice - try both and see which you like better! There’s never a bad time to go out and shoot some film.