Black & White Film Guide, Shootout, and Comparison - 35mm, 400 ISO

Want to improve your photography with my intense Zero to Hero workshop?
What about ad-free and early access to my content?
Or maybe this will get you: please help my family not starve!
Get all of these magical rewards by joining me on Patreon!
Which 400 black and white film should I shoot?

Table of contents:
Methodology - 2:38
Film histories and characteristics - 5:34
Blind test - 17:57
My analysis and conclusions - 41:14

Important links:

Films reviewed:
^ As an Amazon Associate I earn commission from qualifying purchases

Music:
The songs used in this video were licensed via Birocratic License
v05.2016. For info on how you can use this music in your project,
To download Birocratic’s 60+ song discography, visit http://

"Open Road" by Panthurr

Checkout our other channel, Build a Better Bike:

📱 FOLLOW US ON THE SOCIALS

[nsertExpletive]

Great video! My only critique... quit doubting yourself & offering apologies. You know what you're talking about, are providing valuable info, and did the work to substantiate it. Thanks!

[Mettyunuabona_]

Do this again with more Niche B&W films then colour because NO ONE has done this other than yourself!
Bravo on such a great video!

[Raychristofer]

My man this is the best film review comparison on YouTube. You say you're an amateur and that the big boys might talk smack but anyone who criticizes your knowledge in this video needs a smack cross the mouth. If Wikipedia had a page on black and white film this should be the definitive video for them to link to. Respect

[TedInATL]

Wow, you put a LOT of work into this. Thank you so much. You've done a great service for your fellow B&W film lovers.

[bthemedia]

Great review 👍 Shortcut tips:
@2:38 - Methodology
@5:34 - Film histories & characteristics
@17:57 - Blind test
@41:14 - Final analysis & conclusions

[AJones-mbzg]

This video was very well done. Years ago (in the 1970's) I was in the Air Force and worked in the Photographic Squadron. All we had was film (digital didn't exist). We did TONS of picture taking on all sorts of film and developed B&W and Color by hand. We spent HOURS in the darkroom developing film and prints. It got to the point that after the military I was sick-and-tired of taking and printing photos. Now, today, after using digital for a few years, I like to return to the antique and vintage film cameras. I use old 116, 120, 620 (with 120 film) and 35mm film cameras. I collect them, clean them up inside and out, and use the cheapest B & W film I can find to test them. I have found that many of the antique cameras still can take very nice photographs. I just HAVE FUN! You guys are working too hard to find the "perfect film". JUST HAVE FUN! Stop trying to be so "intellectual" about it. Find what you like and stick with it. Don't compare yourself or your prints to others. Also, after working in a film/print film lab in civilian life - and comparing notes with others who have also done so - we concur that different people like their photographs to have a different "look". Some like all of their prints DARK, some like all of their prints on the LIGHT side. Some like it very contrasty, and others don't, etc... It is what YOU LIKE. Again, JUST HAVE FUN! It's not a competition. Help save antique and vintage cameras - that still work - from ending up in the trash, or just sitting on someone's display shelf as a "decoration piece" or turned into a lamp, when it still has plenty of picture taking life in it. I gotta go, the light is just right...

[AndrewGoodCamera]

UPDATE TO MY UPDATE: Hey everyone on this thread. I'm updating the update I made in regards to Ultrafine Extreme Pro. Awhile back I heard from a source I trusted that Extreme Pro was just a rebadge of other film stocks through the years and I believed that source. However, I just had a great conversation with Jeff over at Photo Warehouse regarding Ultrafine Extreme Pro. He assured me that Extreme Pro is NOT rebadged and that it has been sourced from the same supplier since it was improved over regular Ultrafine eight or so years ago. The emulsion is also not available in any other name anywhere else. This is very encouraging to me and I've never been more glad to be wrong, as I really love this film.

[matthewfrench]

This is EPIC! Thanks for all the work you put into this. There's a book called FLAVR that breaks down all the B&W films, but I found your blind tests really helped me look at things more objectively. Great stuff.

[chesslover]

Excellent video and test results! I went with Ilford HP5+ for the following reasons in no particular order:
1. Popularity
2. Film quality
3. Good test results
4. Good sharpness, grain, tonality, highlights, shadow detail, and latitude
5. Non-digital look
6. Readily available; decent price
7. Easy development
8. Pushable (looks good at ISO 800)

For film development, I will be using Patrick Gainer's FX 55 and 510-pyro, both of which can be mixed at home.

The downside of Ilford HP5+ is that it's a low contrast film. Post processing and darkroom manipulations (dogging, burning, or filtration when variable contrast paper is used) are required to boost overall contrast. Grain can be an issue when making big prints. For me, that's prints larger than 5x7 inches from a 35mm negative.

[ColinBloodworth]

I watched this video before buying my first roll of film a year ago, almost to the week. I came back to it today as I branch out into developing my own films. What a ridiculously useful piece of content, Andrew. Thanks so much for making it.

[billkaroly]

In 1980 I was a US soldier stationed in Germany and I had heard about this new Ilford film, XP. It came in a demo kit with some rolls of film and the chemicals to develop it. It was fantastic. I guess the true test is to dig out my negatives and scan them. Because that was the biggest argument among HP5 users like me, that the film would fade over time like color film.

[jamesanonymous]

Andrew, you are highly regarded for your work on this guide, & deservedly so. Thanks

[toddgillelandphoto]

I'm six years late to the party, but this is one of the best comparison videos I've seen about any topic / product. You've inspired me to buy some FOMA and Kentmere.

[khosrovahabi]

Apart from how informative it was, I really adore your attitude man. Excellent!

[AnalogWolf]

Yikes! This is very in-depth. I appreciate all the hard work here. It may not be super technical and I'm a technical guy, but I really like your approach here. When I shoot a film I am more concerned about the aesthetics rather than tech specs for the most part, save for pushing. You just gave me a very concise way to evaluate one film over another. Thanks.

[navarclaudio]

Thank you so much for the video, I really enjoyed !!

[VariTimo]

I’ve talked to Rollei and they confirmed that RPX 100 and 400 are new emulsions based on the original Agfa Leverkusen APX formulas. They are produced by Harman for Rollei.

[drtvcheng]

Really appreciate the efforts that went into this comparison. And it was a good idea to put the disclaimer first so that the haters could just keep quiet and watch. I look forward to seeing one on B&W 100 film.

[justinweier]

Man, between this and the color film video; you've hit it out of the park. It's an incredible amount of effort I'm sure and the results speak for themselves. This was amazing. Thanks again for all your hard work!

[julsitos]

wonderful and thorough review!! :) very helpful. Hope you make an updated video to include more films like those from Astrum/Svema