Favorite 4X5 B&W film for landscapes and scenics? (2025)

Ilford FP4+ almost exclusively for the past 20 something years. D76 at 1:1

HP5+ for my handheld 4x5 camera

My last opened box of Bergger Panchro 400 treasured for difficult lighting or subject matters.

retina_restoration said:

CatLabs X80 is Fomapan. Buy either - it’s the same product.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks, thought it was Orwa or some such. Is there a 4X5 version of double X?

Vaughn said:

Primarily FP4+ if I am buying new. But mostly in larger formats for alt printing.

Click to expand...

Vaughn,
Would you still buy it new for regular monochrome printing or would you shoot something besides FP4+. I'm just curious.

Ian Grant said:

Another Delta 100 & HP5 user here for 5x4, Delta 100 & 400 for medium. HP5 is mainly for hand held work with a Super or Speed Graphic.

I also shoot Fomapan 200 in all formats up to 10x8.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian,
Foma 200 sheet film is one of the reasons I started this thread. I wanted to know how others felt about Foma 200 in 4X5. Is it similar to FP 4+ in rendering very good tonal qualities and sharpness? How about QC flaws? Just wanted to get a general rundown of Foma 200. Myself, I loved it in 120, but my Hasselblad didn't. I got those scratchy marks on my negatives. So, I haven't used it in 120 since then. I have a bulk 35mm roll and that seems to be just fine.

John Wiegerink said:

Vaughn,
Would you still buy it new for regular monochrome printing or would you shoot something besides FP4+. I'm just curious.

Click to expand...

I also use FP4+ in 120...but still with contact printing in mind. I like its flexibility and Ilford's quality control and dependability.
FP4+ seems to build up greater highlights than HP5+ is capable of...which may not be as big of an issue with silver gelatin printing...some alt processes need the extra density range FP4+ can nicely expand to.

Since grain size/shape is not an issue, I can use paper developers like Ilford Universal PQ Developer to boost contrast.

I am so out of touch with silver gelatin printing. The long-ago loss of Agfa's Portriga Rapid turned me to the alternative side. So that is why I qualified my reply.

loccdor said:

Like Tri-X 400 for example: it has a "long toe".

Click to expand...

bernard_L said:

I understand "deep blacks" as meaning good separation into the darkest tones.

Click to expand...

well, these are two opposite interpretations of "deep blacks". It's always tricky on the internet.

In spite of what some will claim, almost all of the films on the market today when developed properly in mainstream developers are what would be classified sensitometrically as 'short toe'.

Kodak TXP320 is one of the few films designed to be 'long toe' - which is ironic as many zone system people spend enormous amounts of effort trying to force it not to be. There are some other film/ developer combinations that can effectively give a longer toe, but they are mostly relatively unlikely to be encountered. A lot of the claims about toe length come from people who struggle to expose their film properly because they are overly reliant on out-of-date zone doctrine about film speed and are thus considerably overexposing their film.

John Wiegerink said:

Foma 200 sheet film is one of the reasons I started this thread. I wanted to know how others felt about Foma 200 in 4X5. Is it similar to FP 4+ in rendering very good tonal qualities and sharpness? How about QC flaws? Just wanted to get a general rundown of Foma 200.

Click to expand...

I can't compare it to FP4+ since I've not shot a whole lot of that and it's been quite some time ago. I can only reflect a little on my experiences with Foma 200; whatever comparison I make with other products should be interpreted as highly subjective.

I have shot quite a bit of Foma 200 in recent years, particularly in 4x5 and 8x10. I think it's a fine film and I haven't run into worrying QC issues. I mostly use it for contact printing, although I have shot and enlarged quite a bit of it in 35mm as well. I don't care all too much for it in 35mm due to the poor halation performance, which is incomparably better in sheet film format. I think it's also the most well-behaved Foma film I've used in the sense that it doesn't shoulder off as hard as e.g. 100 and 400 tend to do (resulting in IMO poor highlight separation). It builds contrast quite rapidly, so development is generally on the short side compared to other films. It's not excessively grainy, but also not as smooth and grain-free as the "quasi t-grain" character of the film might suggest; it looks as grainy as a classic 200 B&W film should be expected to look. Unless you're going to blow this up massively, it shouldn't be a concern for large format work. Effective film speed isn't quite 200; if you appreciate good linearity in the shadows, expose it at 125 or so.

Overall I feel it's a good product at a very attractive price.

Foma 200 is a hybrid of traditional and t grains, although Foma clams it can be processed at 800 at the same development time as at 200 I have not found this to be the case. I have shot some 200 in 4X5 and found to work just as well as 100 and 400, it seems a good compromise. Of course it does not have the resolution of Tmax 100 or the straight curve and apparent sharpness of Tmax 400, but for most prints up to 16X20 it does a good job. From the Foma data sheet.

FOMAPAN 200 Creative emulsion contains T-crystals providing high resolution and very low granularity of the film. Relating to this it may emerge its higher sensitivity to mechanical strain mainly during movement of the rollfilm throughout some middleformat cameras. That may result in occurrence of desensitization records on developed negative. Within first usage of FOMAPAN 200 Creative type 120 it is recommended to test its compatibility with the particular camera.

Paul Howell said:

Relating to this it may emerge its higher sensitivity to mechanical strain mainly during movement of the rollfilm throughout some middleformat cameras.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that story keeps being pushed, especially by Foma themselves. In reality, for the most part what plagues the 120 format is emulsion defects that have nothing to do with the camera.

Vaughn said:

I also use FP4+ in 120...but still with contact printing in mind. I like its flexibility and Ilford's quality control and dependability.
FP4+ seems to build up greater highlights than HP5+ is capable of...which may not be as big of an issue with silver gelatin printing...some alt processes need the extra density range FP4+ can nicely expand to.

Click to expand...

A few years ago when I started making salt prints (and later, Kallitypes) I was adamant that I remove all computer/printer technology from my workflow (no digital negatives for me, thank you very much), which meant making in-camera negatives for alt processes. I discovered Ellie Young's document on Salt Printing which gave detailed instructions for producing in-camera negs precisely for this purpose. In it, Young demonstrates FP4's superior ability to be manipulated to work optimally for Salt and other "alt" processes, using PMK as the developer.

If suddenly everything else disappeared from the market, leaving only FP4 to work with, I could live with that. It's a very flexible, reliable and beautiful film.

Vaughn said:

I am so out of touch with silver gelatin printing. The long-ago loss of Agfa's Portriga Rapid turned me to the alternative side.

Click to expand...

Ahhh - Portriga Rapid. What a magnificent paper that was. Vaughn, have you looked at Fomatone MG Classic? It has some similar qualities to Portriga Rapid, at least color-wise. Behaves differently, but it can look a lot like the old Agfa paper.

koraks said:

Yeah, that story keeps being pushed, especially by Foma themselves. In reality, for the most part what plagues the 120 format is emulsion defects that have nothing to do with the camera.

Click to expand...

I must be lucky, the only reason I don't use (although I just a few rolls of Foma 100 as rebranded Catlabs. ) 120 is I don't like the curl. At point it was the curl and the blue base. Printed ok but I could easily judge the contrast. I guess its just a matter of time before I have issues.

retina_restoration said:

...In it, Young demonstrates FP4's superior ability to be manipulated to work optimally for Salt and other "alt" processes, using PMK as the developer.
...
Ahhh - Portriga Rapid. What a magnificent paper that was. Vaughn, have you looked at Fomatone MG Classic? It has some similar qualities to Portriga Rapid, at least color-wise. Behaves differently, but it can look a lot like the old Agfa paper.

Click to expand...

I am using either PyrocatHD or Ilford's Universal PQ Developer.
The surface of the Portriga Rapid 111 was wonderful!

Paul Howell said:

I must be lucky, the only reason I don't use (although I just a few rolls of Foma 100 as rebranded Catlabs. ) 120 is I don't like the curl. At point it was the curl and the blue base. Printed ok but I could easily judge the contrast. I guess its just a matter of time before I have issues.

Click to expand...

That's pointed out in another thread on this forum as another reason to choose Ilford over other certain brands. I just went through that problem trying to scan Foma 100, what a bitch! If I had my Nikon LS8000 scanner fixed I could use my glass holder/carrier, but I don't. My Epson flatbed carrier just doesn't cut it with curly film. It's still hard to load curly film in a double sided Nikon glass holder and get it aligned straight. Yes, I tried to get it flat by keeping it in a heavy book with 30lbs of lead weight on top. it help some, but it was still bowed when I took it out. The flatter the better for both scanning and enlarging.

UPDATE!
Just got a reply from HarmanTech to my question about the possibility of Delta 400 in sheet film size. My question to them was specifically about Delta 400 and no other film.
This is their reply:

Dear John

Thanks you for your kind comments.

We do run an annual campaign for large format sheet film where we offer Delta 100, FP4 and HP5. If you contact your local wholesaler they will be able to order on your behalf usually around May for availability into the US around October.

I must have written my email in some strange foreign language they couldn't understand???

Paul Howell said:

I guess the closest to Delta 400 would be of course be Tmax 400, but $56.00 for 10 sheets is out of price range. If I have troubles with Foma 400 and 100 I think I will go with HP4 or 5.

Click to expand...

Paul, I can get by just fine with HP5+ and I suppose if I really had to I could get by with Foma 400 too.

John Wiegerink said:

UPDATE!
Just got a reply from HarmanTech to my question about the possibility of Delta 400 in sheet film size. My question to them was specifically about Delta 400 and no other film.

Click to expand...

I too wanted to use Delta 400 in sheet film. On a visit to Mobberly in 2007 I asked Simon Galley whether they would make it, and his response was a firm "no". I have a hazy memory that they did, in fact, attempt to make it but there was a problem with adhesion between the emulsion and the base. For landscape work in MF, it's my no 1 choice.

ghart said:

I too wanted to use Delta 400 in sheet film. On a visit to Mobberly in 2007 I asked Simon Galley whether they would make it, and his response was a firm "no". I have a hazy memory that they did, in fact, attempt to make it but there was a problem with adhesion between the emulsion and the base. For landscape work in MF, it's my no 1 choice.

Click to expand...

That's a new one. I had never heard or at least don't remember an emulsion adhesion problem being an excuse for no Delta 400 sheet films. I suppose it's possible. Truth is, only they know why and we can only speculate.

John Wiegerink said:

That's a new one. I had never heard or at least don't remember an emulsion adhesion problem being an excuse for no Delta 400 sheet films. I suppose it's possible. Truth is, only they know why and we can only speculate.

Click to expand...

Several aspects to consider: they'd need to be sure that the costs of making an altered coating package (and possibly emulsions) to run on polyester would be economically viable; it would need to not damage the viability of extant Ilford sheet products in the marketplace (HP5+ especially); and it would need to offer significant advantages over HP5+ at the relatively low magnifications (1-4x) that the average LF user works/ scans/ prints at. Given how much of a price difference there is between HP5+ and D400 currently, relative to the absolute size of the LF market (probably quite big, but likely split 80/20 between 4x5 and a profusion of other sizes, and with a pretty high demand for colour), I can see why Ilford are in no rush to make an adjusted D400 on polyester currently.

Rick A said:

For 4x5 I've been using Foma/EDU 100. I've shot a few hundred sheets of it in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, also many rolls of 120. I tend to standardize on one film and get to know it as well as possible. I've shot a couple of hundred sheets of 5x7 Foma 200, I have yet to find it's sweet spot for what I like. Lately I've been shooting Rollei IR 400 in 120 and 4x5, I think I may settle in on it for a while. I honestly wish it were available in 8x10.

Click to expand...

There is one guy on eBay selling Aviphot 200 in 8x10 sheet size. It is the aero version so the film base might be thinner. According to the Internet, Rollei IR 400 is Aviphot 200. But I don't have any experience.