It has no competitor

>Delta 100
>T-grain
Not a real film

Fp4+ is the bestest and the filmiest of all films

>>4434030
kek

>>4434030
>stops in your path

fp4 is better
delta 100 isnt even better than other t grain films like acros or tmax. the only good delta film is 3200 (1000 true iso)
honestly fuck all this shit i’ll shoot velvia 50 and 100 and desaturate it in post. sharpest films

>>4434041
It’s literally just as good and all the excuses you see about why more expensive films are better are cope to justify the price.
>muh tmax
Yeah pay three times as much for the same thing if you want but you’re not convincing me.

>>4434028 (OP)
but theres no color

But you can't see the pictures

>>4434028 (OP)
6€ at the grocery store, develop it in Rodinal for a bit of contrast. Is it rebranded Kentmere? Is it Rollei RPX? I don't care. For me, it's Agfa Apx.

>>4434111
Apx doesn't exist anymore. What you're exposing is not APX

>>4434030
Delta 100 is not t grain film

>>4434159
It's cheap and it looks good. I don't care who it's from.

>>4434193
Agfa APX is Kentmere (poor man film)

>>4434313
I don't believe it, APX gives me more contrast.

Delta 400 shot at 100 and pulled in warm Xtol 24 celsius from memory with gentle agitation really shines. Also has a nice spectral sensitivity

>>4434313
Harman is adamant that APX is its own emulsion closer to Rollei RPX.

>>4434334
Isn't RPX just kentmere too?

>>4434334
Similar to how Fuji swears their newer colour films aren’t just gold and ultra max rebranded. But it was found out, some chuddie pulled up the special sensitivity graphs and they were identical, even the formatting of the document and all the text, carbon copy. Hope no one falls for the foolji lies.

>>4434588
Fujimax is great, it's just ultramax but cheaper and more readily available.

>>4434569
>>4434313

It's a Harman product but it is not just rebranded Kentmere.

They offer other companies to coat their own emulsion formulations for them, and in order in bulk.

>>4434161

what is it then ilford 50 is/was regular grain delta 400 t-grainish fp4 regular hp5 regular

>>4434812
I always wonder how these deals goes down. Presumably rollei doesn't know anything about film, they're just a marketing company. So they must pay Harman to design it and then make it.
>vi require ze new filmen to sell to american hipßters
>no prob bruv we'll fire up the kentmere line
>nein! must be new, unique film.
>sure thing m8 we'll put 2% more bromide
>vill ziss make it look different?
>no
>perfekt!

>>4435819
That is a good question actually. It's possible that Rollei hired chemical engineers to design an emulsion for them

>>4435632
delta is epitaxial grain
only Kodak is real t-grain

>>4435948
RPX 25 is supposedly made from frozen Agfa aviphot pan 80 stock

>>4436054
and Retro 80

>>4436056
and Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 Repackaged as - Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei Retro 400s, Rollei Infrared 400, Silberra Pan 160 / Ultima 160, Silberra Pan 100 / Ultima 100, CatLabs 320 Pro and JCH Street Pan.

>>4436057
>>4436056
>>4436054
Conspiracy theorists

>>4436058
it's literally written in data
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/rollei-retro-80s-135-36.html
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/rollei-superpan-200-13536.html
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/rollei-rpx-25-135-36.html?cache=1749971172
Afga aviphot is still been made (for now)
https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/solutions/aerial-photography/aviphot/

When Agfa Aviphot get discontinued that will be a film apocalypse !

Aviphot is dramatically different from any ilford/kentmere/kodak film I have seen. Very clear base, dries perfectly flat, lightpiping like mad, extreme contrast, infrared sensitive. I always assumed they have their own coating line but idk. I never used rpx 25 so I don't know if it is the same.
>>4436071
I've been filling my freezer with it in preparation for this eventuality. I can swap hp5 for xx or ektachrome for velvia and tolerate it, but there's nothing out there like Aviphot.

>>4434607
this, I stopped buying Kodak because I know I can just get Kodak but cheaper and in fuji packaging instead. I got two 3-packs of ultramax on sale as fuji 400 the other day for $14.99 per 3-pack too. can't complain

>>4434041
Why shoot black and white? What kind of photos are you taking?

>>4439225
are you dumb?

>>4436054
>>4436056
>>4436057
>>4436062
speaking of the really slow film
AVIPHOT PAN 80 (without preflash)
AVIPHOT PAN 80 (with preflash as the HR-50 or the unreleased Leica film)
vs
Pan F

how do they compare?
especially with yellow/orange filters for some landscapes/cityscapes?

>>4434028 (OP)
it's all the same it all looks the same just get whatever you can find who cares just shoot the pictures

>>4434028 (OP)
None of these got shit on Adox Silvermax, RIP.

5333456 Stop range holy dear gods.

>>4434028 (OP)
Man I miss the old Ilford boxes.

>>4434028 (OP)
The best films are

1. Vision3 50D
2. Portra 160
3. Vision3 250D

>>4444685
followed by

4. Vision3 500T
5. Cinestill 800T
6. Ektachrome 100
7. Adox 20

>>4444685
>>4444690
it's ok to be wrong

>>4444685
Actually it's Kodak Gold for color film and Kentmere 200 for b&w and everything else is just trash.

>>4444701
Gold 200 is nice too but It drifts purple in the shadows and yellow in the highlights. And I just prefer more neutral rendering. Like the Vision3 films do

>>4444704
I think ColorPlus is a bit more neutral, it's not as yellow as Gold. Shot a roll on Friday and was pretty pleased.

>>4434028 (OP)
The best film for the money is gold 200 period.
Same portra 800 vibes but with a warmer and nicer tone. Downside is grain but it's cheap, who cares?

>>4444690
Cinestill is overrated imo.
Extremely expensive and the only difference is the red stuff on the highlights that gets repetitive and unoriginal after your second roll.

>>4444706
based and colorpluspilled

>>4434028 (OP)
Nah that's TriX400
and for color its Ektar 100

>>4445261
>TriX400
shit shadow detail
>Ektar 100
awful colors

Do you faggots even try?

The best film is the one you have with you. There is no best film in reality. It depends on what you're shooting and what youre trying accomplish. Any other answer is pure gearfaggotry. Sorry!

>>4445263
>curls in your path

I like foma sheet film tho.

>>4444690
Cinestill “800t” IS vision 500, retart

>>4445290
It certainly is not. It's a similar emulsion to vision3 but coated without the remjet and sold at a huge premium.

>>4445290
I listed both because I prefer the real version with remjet layer. The cinestill version without remjet layer is ranked lower but still in the top 10 for me

>>4445263
only retards like Foma
t. Czech

>>4445301
>he believes the Cinestill bullshit spin
Hey buddy I’ve got a bridge to sell you eh

>>4445448
What? The Cinestill bullshit spin is that it's MoViE FiLm (as used by famed producer Chrisopher Nolan) that you can process at CVS. The reality is it's a different film with deliberately bad halation that Kodak contract manufactures for Cinestill.

>>4445460
The Cinestill spin is that it’s different film from vision, it’s literally just remjet free. The comparisons with other vision respoolers that remove remjet like reflx lab and it’s the same.

>>4445466
Vision3 has remjet. The remjet changes the appearance of the photos. Any film that does not have remjet is not vision3, regardless of whether it was manufactured without the remjet or the remjet was removed through some chemical/mechanical process.
I assume Cinestill was originally hoping people wouldn't notice that their c41 film looks totally different from actual movie film. It's right there in the name "cine" + "still" but now due to their influence people believe massive halation is how actual movie film looks.
If you want a c41 film that actually looks like movie film, it's Portra 400, which is also derived from vision3. Instead of simply omitting the antihalation they replaced the remjet with a standard water soluable c41 antihalation layer.

>>4445382
imagine being this much of a cuck

>>4445476
Or just buy actual Vision 3
People who claim it’s the same as cinestill deserve to be slapped

>>4445382
>source: my wife's boyfriend works at foma

>>4434812
I recently tested RPX400 and Kentmere 400 together in XTOL 1:1 and they're definitely the same film. I thought the Rollei films were different for a long time as well, but it does seem it's repackaged Kentmere.

See pic: tight crops from test frames, RPX on the top. I can't tell any difference between these. The K400 negs were a bit more dense but nothing major

>>4444704
>>4444706
I fucking love colorplus

>>4445784
>Mexican filter

>>4445782
Is it not repackaged foma?

>>4445831
Definitely not. I won't go into all the methodology but I shot test rolls of RPX and Kentmere at the same time and developed them together: the results are virtually identical. I was sceptical before but I've no doubt now that RPX 400 at least is just Kentmere.
The Fomas are way slower than box and much grainier, the difference would be pretty apparent.

>>4445829
that is gold

I expose my Foma films one stop slower vs. box speed.

>>4446036
why tho

>>4445831
There are a lot of misconceptions around the Rollei films. They are very much their own emulsions. In no way repackaged film.

>>4446080
Rollei is too based to simply repackage film.

>>4446080
>They are very much their own emulsions. In no way repackaged film.
wow let me guess, you believe cinestill when they say 800t is a unique emulsion made just for them and not just vision 500 with the remjet stripped.

>>4446092
Agfa-Geavaert (not agfaphoto) still makes film for other industrial applications. Rollei merely cuts it and packages it for something to use in your camera.

>>4446105
this, that shit is closer to aerial film than foma repackage

>>4434028 (OP)
tri-x is enough for me, though i do love that film

>>4434028 (OP)
I’m poor, the competitor is whatever is cheapest that week. Here it tends to be kentmere or foma. Between the two I find foma to be a lot more grainy gritty looking in my usual rodinal soup so I’m mostly a kentmere lad.

>>4446080
I agreed with you up until very recently, and I suspect now that the RPX 100 and 400 films used to be something different before switching to Kentmere rebranding.
These frames are the same shot on RPX 400 and Kentmere 400, with the exposure settings on the RPX scan carried forwards to K400. They're identical. The negs also are virtually the same, a smidge more density in the Kentmere but nothing meaningful.

I did my own testing because I was very dubious as well but the facts speak for themselves

>>4446136
I don't know what so say man. I feel like it's the opposite for me, foma pan 100 seems to be smoother than kentmere pan 100. having said that, I much prefer Agfa APX 100. I don't know why, that film stock always works for me no matter the situation.
Here, an example with Agfa 100

>>4446614
Foma Pan 100

>>4446615
and lastly, Kentmere. Of course you can't really asses differences properly without a side by side comparison of the same thing, but it is what it is.

>>4446614
>I don't know what so say man. I feel like it's the opposite for me
there may be some subjectivity involved, for sure. and even the grainyness i did mention is subtle and pixel peeping requirred. But i have a pentax17, half frame makes all tthose little differrences more apparent.

>>4446615
Foma 100 is based. I shot it as my very first roll (bad idea), but the few pics that came out well came out really well.

>>4446692
also it's the cheapest B&W film we have here, as far as I saw. There are almost 2 euros between Foma and Agfa, and 1 between Foma and Kentmere. I'll try to shoot some more