Really it's a matter of preference and what an individual photographer feels comfortable working with. After all, why change just for the sake of changing when it may have taken many hours, months, years of experimentation and many rolls of film to arrive at the so-called "perfect combination" of exposure index (EI) rating with your own camera, meter, favourite developer and development time to get the optimum balance of tonal quality, sharpness and grain (or lack of it) in a print.

Most monochrome films have been around for many years... all of Agfa's APX range were highly regarded emulsions across Europe and especially in Germany (of course as we all know Agfa has now been liquidated!); whilst Ilford's FP4 and HP5 Plus are firm favourites with British photographers (Ilford’s situation was also uncertain but has been resolved to the good)... and the venerable Kodak Tri-X which has been in many, especially American, photographer's cameras for over half a century. There are also some lesser known emulsions from Czechoslovakia (Foma), Hungary (Forte) and Bergger (France/Hungary) which will gain popularity with photographers who have to consider price as a prime factor.

All these makes, as well as other specialised emulsions from Polaroid (there may be some photographers with stocks of Polaroid's discontinued instant 35mm films) and Konica (Infrared) can leave one in no doubt that the monochrome photographer is as well served as the colour worker. However, there is more good news... the Japanese film giant Fuji also has a range of excellent black-and-white emulsions, two of which are well established in Europe and America and two others (Fuji Acros) recently introduced in Japan which I will describe another time if they are catalogued as "stock" in Europe rather than being a specialist import by an enterprising dealer.

Two's company, three's a crowd...
In another publication I once said that...

"If ever there was a range of only two films crying out for the addition of a third then Fuji can claim to have it. I have been using their Neopan 400 and 1600 black-and-white emulsions for several months and, whilst being converted to these superb emulsions, know that there is an ISO 100 version in the Far East that is not intended for these shores. On reflection, though, it may not be needed."

The reason, of course, is that most modem emulsions are now so good when properly exposed and carefully processed that slower, potentially finer grain films are not required for everyday photography. The characteristic large grain associated with the faster films which we once used for action stopping sports and available-light candid photography is a thing of the past... we can now use films with an EI rating up to two stops faster than twenty or so years ago with the same result, or better, and with much more convenience.

There has always been a principle that the larger the film size the better the quality of the result.... all other things being equal. In practice, though, this happens less than is realised because the smaller 35mm camera makes photography possible whereas the use of larger cameras is often inconvenient. Remember the evolution of the Leica! Because modern films have become so good it is now possible to load film two stops faster into a camera, fit a prime focal length lens or a high quality zoom, use a fast enough shutter speed to enable the subject to be recorded sharply and, even if relying on the camera's built-in exposure meter and auto-focus features, after correct and careful processing obtain a print of remarkable image quality.

In fact with most developers from the "industry standard" Kodak D-76 / Ilford ID-11 to newer "high definition" developers such as Paterson FX-39 grain is almost non-existent. But, is that a good thing?

Caption : The above image looking across the Van valley, near Llanidloes in mid-Wales was taken with a Minolta 9000 AF camera, 28mm f/2.8 Minolta lens and deep yellow filter using Neopan 400... and the resulting print is virtually grainless at 16x12 inch and very sharp.