My History With Films (Film Friday)

I'm an American, so with me it was Kodak. If you're British you probably shot Ilford, continental European and you might have leaned toward Agfa. (Those of you who grew up in Europe can tell me.)

I started out, in the "very very" beginning, in a tiny darkroom under the basement stairs, with Kodak Verichrome Pan film [CORRECTION: See John Shriver's comment below], Kodak D-76 developer, Kodak Medalist paper, and a little condenser enlarger with a crappy triplet. Call it sentimentality, but I loved that FDP combo (FDP means film-developer-paper, the three materials that determine the look of a handmade print more than anything else). I still have a soft spot for those materials.

It didn't take me long at all to replace that triplet.

In those days, ASA 125 film was medium-speed, not slow. Panatomic-X, at ASA 32, and Kodachrome 25 were slow. I very much wanted to "get past" technical issues and get down to work, so I worked hard and made decisions quickly. First I carefully compared the medium-speed and fast (ASA 400) films from Kodak and Ilford and settled on Kodak Plus-X. Then I made a similarly careful comparison of D-76 and several other Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa developers. It came down to a choice between Agfa Rodinal and D-76 1+1, and D-76 won. I didn't know some important things about D-76 when I was starting out, but I didn't know what I didn't know.

Based on my own ring-around tests, I shot Plus-X at E.I. 80. ASA, always pronounced "ay-ess-ay," one letter after another, was a standard that was officially determined by the American Standards Association using rigorous, highly repeatable standardized tests (the film was loaded into a tube and agitation was controlled by mechanically rocking the tube continuously back and forth). Exposure Index, abbreviated E.I., was any film speed that departed from an official ASA rating. 

I learned all this because I disliked the super-high-speed T-grain film P3200 in my first tests. Kodak explained to me that the "P" in P3200 stood for "push," meaning underexposure and overdevelopment and learned that the ASA/ISO speed for P3200 was actually 1000.  I was teaching photography and already writing for magazines when the T-Max films came out, and was asked to be a beta-tester for those then-new films. I got the first two rolls of Kodak T-Max 400 in North America outside of Kodak, or so I was told. So I had a little bit of inside contact with the company. I switched to T-Max 100 for a while, but ended up switching back. I "heard" around that time, '85 or '86, that eventually Plus-X was going to be phased out and replaced by T-Max 100. That had a chilling effect on my commitment to Plus-X. Not that I liked the film any less; I just didn't want to be orphaned, or forced back to T-Max 100.

It turned out I needn't have worried: Plus-X made it all the way to 2011, well after I had switched to digital. One thing I didn't mention above is that not only did I shoot Plus-X at E.I. 80, I also used a K2 medium yellow filter, a.k.a. Wrattan No. 8. It corrected the spectral response of Plus-X in a very pleasing way, especially with regard to skin tones.

But also also cut out two-thirds of a stop more light. So I effectively was using a slow film, and it told in everyday shooting—I really could only shoot freely in good daylight. So I worked long and hard to master T-Max P3200, shooting it at E.I. 800 with no filter. I felt liberated by P3200, freed for the first time to work in "available darkness" handheld, which had more or less been closed off to me before. There were two troubles with it: first, that P3200 prints and Plus-X prints looked very different, and didn't go together very well; and second, that I always "stretched" to afford nice cameras and lenses, and couldn't afford two identical bodies and two identical lenses such that I could shoot both films at once with bodies that were set and ready to go. I didn't mind that P3200 negs were difficult to print. That challenge, I was more than up for.

Eventually I bit the bullet and surrendered to Tri-X 400, which was what more or less everybody shot in 35mm. I shot it with and without a K2 filter for about a year and eventually decided I could dispense with the filter—it had less effect on Tri-X than it did on Plus-X. The switch wasn't all bad; my skills had gotten very good by then and I quickly mastered Tri-X 400 and got comfortable with it. I was also getting more comfortable with grain as time went on. Grain in even highlight areas was initially my biggest problem with Tri-X, but it turned out it wasn't so bad.

Of course, then they changed the formulation of Tri-X 400, and the Tri-X I had grown up with, and mastered, was gone. What I had feared with Plus-X had eventually come to pass, only with a different standard film.

But that was 2007, and by that time I had been without a darkroom since 2000 and had just purchased my first DSLR, which was my third digital camera.

The last film I had a fling with was Ilford XP2. I had tried Agfa's chromogenic film when it first came out, and loved the look, but found it tough to afford commercial processing. I did process a few rolls myself. I was working two menial jobs and living in a group house at the time. XP2 mimics the tonal properties of color negative film, with highlights, especially, replaced by dye clouds, and XP2 liberated me to shoot strong highlights fearlessly. I was reviewing medium format cameras for Darkroom Photography magazine by that time, so I mainly shot XP2 in 120. Although I shot a fair amount of it with my M6, which was my main camera at the time.

If I were shooting film today, I would probably shoot with a particular Ilford film. And there's a good reason for that. But that's a topic for another column.

Good light and good luck,

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Shriver: "Verichrome Pan was never made in 135 size, only in paper-backed roll film sizes and in film packs. Too low acutance, not sharp enough. Verichrome Pan had incredible dynamic range due to the dual emulsion layers, tolerating wild mis-exposure in box cameras. Verichrome Pan also had fantastic shelf-life, I'm using VP122 from the last 1973 production run with just a little extra exposure and development. It was absolutely optimized for the snap-shooter."

Mike replies: Wow, you're right. I can't even claim that's a memory glitch, either, because I've believed it for eons. It must have been that I started out in 35mm with Plus-X or maybe even Tri-X. I didn't own a 120 camera till I started teaching in 1985, at the earliest—more probably 1986—and I got into photography in a serious way in 1980. So that can't have been it.

However, I had been photographing since 1965, when I was eight. I think this explains it, because Verichrome Pan was indeed available in 126 cassettes for the Instamatic cameras, and an Instamatic 104 was my first and only camera which I got either when I was eight or for my ninth birthday. I think I was eight, though. My father then loaned me his Zeiss Contaflex B because he never used it, but not until I was older. Probably what happened it that I've combined two separate memories—my first experiences developing my own film and making my own prints, c. 1980, and my use of B&W film in my Instamatic 104. I still have a few B&W Instamatic prints including some that are B&W. Here are a couple of examples from 1967.

Comments

[Kaemu]

Don't know how he obtained it, but my grandfather, who lived in Russian, then German then Russian occupied eastern Poland during WW2, shot mostly KodaChrome slide film. I learned photography from him and my father (who moved to western Europe before I was born), we mostly used Kodak film and maybe some fuji.

A sample of one, so...

It fell to me to scan and process my Grandfather's slides. I have to say that the colors are fantastic and they held up quite well. These slides were 60+ years old when I worked on them. I should check take them out their box, see how they look at 80 years of age.

[Larry]

XP2 shot at ISO 300 was remarkably good.

[William Lewis]

I used Plus-x, EI400, developed in Diafine right up until Kodak stopped making it.

I've used Ilford and Foma only ever since. I figure if Kodak doesn't want my money, they don't need to have it. I especially love XP2 as well.

[Rob de Loe]

I don't know why Ilford films were so readily available in Canada when I shot film, but the were and were my favourites in roll and sheet. When I convinced myself a few years ago that I could shoot 4x5 again, instead of Ilford I went with T-Max 400 and quite liked it. Film didn't last for me though.

[Gary Nylander]

When I first started my career as a photojournalist I was using 35mm Kodak Tri-X, (20 exposure rolls) which was the film that was supplied to me by the first newspaper I worked for. A couple of years later I moved to Brampton, Ontario and the newspaper there supplied me with 35mm Ilford HP5 which I bulk-loaded into reusable cassettes,(it came in 100-foot rolls). When I moved to Kelowna, B.C. The newspaper there also provided me with Ilford HP5 film, eventually the paper switched to all colour film photography and then digital photography. On my time off I shot my personal work, using a 4x5 view camera, I shot Kodak Tri-X 320 and Kodak T-Max films, 100 & 400. Later the Kodak films became too expensive, especially Tri-X then I started shooting Ilford HP5 because it was cheaper. My all-time favourite film was Tri-X paired with HC-110 developer.

[Nikojorj]

Here in France, Kodak had the upper hand as far as I remember (born 1973). Then there was Ilford in B&W and Fuji in color (especially after the Velvia Shock in the 90's, but I preferred Kodak's warmer tones), and then Agfa (which might have had more success in Germany).

[Jozef]

I recently read an article by a man who lived 10000 years ago. In his time, he was a real expert in making stone axes. He told me about what kind of stone to use, at what exact angle to work the stone, and with what material. I really do admire people with good and perfect craftsmanship. But I must admit that I was quickly bored with his whole explanation, the future of the stone axe is very, very limited, I suppose.

[Herman Krieger]

Kodak or Ilford are suitable for me, but I prefer Ilford because it's cheaper.

[Kodachromeguy]

Thanks for the hint / reminder about Plus-X. I still have a 5-pack of 120 Plus-X that has been in freezers for 20 years. It time to use it. I may expose at 64 to give it a bit of a buffer considering it's age. My experience with frozen 120 Panatomic-X is that it shows almost no age degradation.

[Tony Gale]

Funny - you basically went the opposite way I have.

When I first really started shooting film “seriously” in 2009, digital was already underway, and 400 ISO and higher were my standard. I started out with Fuji’s Superia, and then XP2 and Provia 400X when I finally decided C41 colour film was a whole lot of nonsense (free E6 developing through a friend at a photography lab was a major reason for the amount of Provia I got through in that period).

Those are two wonderful films, and I wish Provia 400X still existed, especially in 120. It was a really rare combination of incredible clarity, sharpness and colour with low grain and amazing reciprocity characteristics. I’d still shoot colour film on a regular basis if it hadn’t been killed off.

When I finally started developing myself (my friend left the photography lab!), I spent a lot of time working on push-processing, and one on my favourite combinations was actually old-stock Ilford Surveillance film, bought in bulk, and pushed from 400 ISO up to an EI of 800 or 1600 in Rodinal - an absolutely ridiculous combination! That shouldn’t have worked at all, but the grain was much lower than you would expect, and the tonality was far better than anything I got out of Delta 3200. HP5+ pushed one stop in LC29 was another standard.

Eventually I fell in love with APX 100 (back when that was still actual AGFA stock, and not Kentmere repackaged), and replaced that with Fomapan 100 when it didn’t exist any more. That made me think that maybe I could manage going slower, and now I’ll try anything rated 100 ISO or lower; Pan F+ in Rodinal is one of the most gorgeous combinations I’ve ever seen, and there’s an Eastman orthographic duplicating film I stumbled upon and figured out a development routine in Rodinal that gives lovely results shot at an EI of 6. Yep, six “ISO”. The prints are effectively completely grain-free at any size. It’s really something.

I think if you’re going to continue shooting film, this is the reason to do it now: modern sensors do high ISO better than any film stock ever made, but these low speed films have a look that’s hard to replicate with any digital camera. You definitely need a steady hand, though!

[Dan Khong]

Your journey in film-darkroom-print is very similar to mine. At one stage (circa 1970-1972), I was obsessed with getting minimal grain and ventured into Kodak Panatomix-X in Microdol-X developer. Otherwise, my favourite B&W film was Agfa (ASA 100) because it was much cheaper.

For colour film at that time, it was Kodak, Fuji and Sakura (now gone with the wind).

Yes, we used a f3.5 triplet in the school enlarger and got good sharpness three stops down. I did not know about lens designs and thought that all enlarger lenses were similar.

Today, I shoot B&W film with Fomapan 400, Kodak Tri-X and Rollei Retro 400S.

[Harry B Houchins]

Back in 1964, stationed in Germany, I bought a Konica Auto S at the Pirmensens PX. Unknowingly, I purchased a roll of Kodachrome. The colors blew me away! The reds especially. I photographed K64 exclusively till I returned to the US. I enrolled in the NY Institute of Photography. They insisted I switch to Tri-X. I also got a Hasselblad and shot Plus-x for the fashion jobs.
But, my favorite film was K64. The slides I made then are as brilliant as the day I got them from the processor. I miss that film. I truly do...sigh...

[Kodachromeguy]

I used Verichrome Pan in the 126 cartridge in my Instamatic 500 in the mid-1960s. I had no idea what I was doing photographically back then. Nevertheless, the negatives survived:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/01/athens-in-1964-with-instamatic-500.html

[janekr]

In Eastern Europe we had neither Kodak, no Agfa.
BW films were produced probably in all coutries (in Poland it was FOTOPAN by FOTON).
The color films supplied by East Germany ORWO (both negative and slides) dominated the market.
In fact it was a factory, which earlier belonged to AGFA. ORWOCOLOR films were old version of AGFACOLOR. The quality could be very good, but developping was more difficult than it was with newer AGFA films.

[Neil Swanson]

Mike, our trajectories and the dark room are probably extremely similar. I started getting my hands wet in about 1968. Over the years I learned a lot about development time and how the development time made a difference depending on what kind of enlarger head you were using. Eventually, I was with a cold light and adjusted my development times accordingly. I was working with and printing for a photographer who also had his hands on early roles of T max. Very shortly after we started using it we were to Kodak event that was probably an official launch of some sort. I mentioned to a Kodak rep that we’ve been using it And when he asked my opinion, I said well it’s a great film if you ignore your recommended development time. I think it was nine minutes and it was a much better negative to print at about 7 1/2 minutes of development. He actually nodded and said yes you’re correct and I asked why didn’t they just print that somewhere. I never really got an answer. In the end, I’m much prefer a Triax and plus X anyway so it really didn’t matter.

[Len Metcalf]

Ilford FP4 was my favourite in ID11 or D76

Later moved to HP5 when I switched to large format.

Orange filter was my favourite.

Today I love the extra contrast. Then I was always reducing it.

Looking forward to why you’d use Ilford today.

For some reason I love these posts. Thanks.

[psu]

When I shot B&W film I mostly shot Tri-X and HP5, with some dabbles into Plus-X and whatever the ISO 100-ish Ilford film was called. Always D76. Mostly 35mm but a bit of 120 near digital transition.

I did do a unit in a B&W class around getting the maximum grainy grain out of P3200... somewhere in Pittsburgh there might still be the 5 foot wide print I made of this picture, shot on extra pushed P3200 so the snow and the grain balls mix together. I liked the effect.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/26292277426/in/album-72157666390389780

The building where I shot this picture was renovated as condos about 15 years later, and I think the place where I stood to take it is some shops and a parking deck now. Alas.

[David Brown]

Over the years, I’ve used much of what Kodak made:
Tri-X,
TMax, (all 3)
Ektachrome
Panatomic-X,
Plus-X,
Verichrome Pan,
High Contrast Copy Film,
Kodacolor,
Vericolor,
Kodachrome,
and some I can’t remember.

[William Giokas]

The good old days as a student at Bu . I shot trix in acufine pushed to 1000 ASA. Now with digital I can go to 2000 ASA as my normal.
Bill

[Omer]

When I started processing B&W film(late ’70s) I had a decidedly lackadaisical approach resulting in negatives that had a, well, pre-aged quality. But after some years and realizing that some nice images had been ruined by my easygoing approach I searched and found an article that you had written on how to properly process B&W film. I think it was the late '80s or early 90s in a photography magazine I can’t remember the name of. I think it was a one page article that included your photo and was specific to Tri-X, D-76, other stuff, and your preference for inversion to agitate the developer.

So thanks to you Mike, as my film negs made a turn for the better.

[Howard Sandler]

For those of us who follow a hybrid imaging process and scan our black and white negatives, the question is what film-developer-post technique combination works. I recognize hybrid isn't your bag, but I think it is for a significant number of your readers who work with film.

I grew up using mainly Ilford films, so when I rediscovered film photogaphy about 2010, that's what I used. I don't like grain and found that scanning seems to emphasize grain, or at least the aliasing of grain, which may not represent actual grain. I standardized on Delta 100 and, after reading your advice about "pulling" began shooting it at EI50. But then I discovered Fuji Acros 100. I think this shot of peppers in the market (Bronica SQ-A) was from the first roll of Acros that I ever shot. It was at box speed of ISO 100 and developed in XTOL. What I like about Acros is the super fine grain and the tonality is usually about right straight off the scanner. For developers, I wonder how important the choice is when you are scanning. I've gone back to good old D76, mainly for economy and availability in Canada.

[Stelios]

When I first started with B&W everyone in my camera group hated Ilford products (especially HP5). Don't know why. Kodak was king and Agfa a legend, so I shot APX (it was just about available) and whatever else I could get my hands on (including Ilford). Then I switched to Tri-X for years because that was the thing to shoot. In the beginning at EI 2000 (because the internet said so) which worked ok. Developing in Xtol or Rodinal. In the meantime I moved to the UK. I then came to my senses and switched to 400ASA. When Kodak decided to gold plate the films instead of using silver making them too expensive, I switched to Ilford, Delta 400 at first, and then HP5 developing in HC-110.
For the first time I now have a dedicated darkroom, so I'm sticking to HP5 (with the occasional FP4 or PanF), ID-11, multigrade RC, and the LPL 7700. I wish I had done that from the start.

[Ned Bunnell]

“I quickly mastered Tri-X 400 and got comfortable with it. I was also getting more comfortable with grain as time went on. Grain in even highlight areas was initially my biggest problem with Tri-X, but it turned out it wasn't so bad.”

Not sure if it was still available when you started using Tri-X, but I found Edwal Super 20, a fine-grain liquid developer, really helped minimize the grain.

Two quick photos using my trusty GR of 11x14 prints from 1972 using Edwal and printed on Ilford Gallerie. Coincidentally, I shared the portfolio with a long time friend/editor recently, and he was actually surprised at their tonal range and detail.

https://flic.kr/p/2qRrZS3

https://flic.kr/p/2qRkpv6