Last shot taken on the roll. The lighting conditions and lens combination doesn't generate much of a glow but I get a sense that there is some of it left around the bright sky part. Final Thoughts Agfa APX 400 is an ISO 400 film. I developed my roll with HC-110 in dilution B for 8 minutes "and a bit". The "and a bit" is there as I slightly underexposed some shots and had the rest at 400. To ensure I don't lose shadows I allowed it to cook for a longer time in the developer. It wasn't a full 1 stop push. More like a 1/3rd of a stop push. The next two films we’ll be discussing are exciting to me since they are both new films. With the last few decades seeing film after film company shutters its windows, it really is encouraging to see two new films come out in the same year. Surprisingly, despite reports that the film is grainy and the prolonged development in 1:50 Rodinal I find the grain entirely acceptable for moderate enlargements. Far less gritty than TMY at 400, sharper than Tri-X. Just right for this shoot.

This film is fun; and for some photographers that like lower contrast in their scenes it may even become their favorite film. It’s super affordable, fun to experiment with, and in the right situations can help you to create really cool photos. But for me, I’m a bigger fan of Ilford Delta 400. Why? I digg contrast; lots of it. More contrast can sometimes fool the eye into thinking an image is sharper than it is; but with this film you don’t need to do that. Agfa APX 400 is plenty sharp, has tight grain and I’d probably use it the most for portrait and studio stuff.An Hour to Kill - Musing on the Nikon D850 while shooting with the Sony A7r Mark II + 35mm f/2.8 ZA

And here are my results. These results are super surprising to me. For those who watched my first version of this test, these results are extremely different. Part of the reason for this is that this time, I am taking into account things like scannability and price into the equation. But even more than that, I just think I had a better process of development and scanning this time. This review was done with a Canon EOS Elan 7, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and a Sigma 35mm f1.4 Ease of Use Conclusion: At print sizes of 6x9 inches or 9x13 inches you will probably see very little difference in sharpness or grain among these five films. The best of these films with poor developing (especially overdevelopment) will look a lot worse than the worst of these films with good processing, especially with Xtol.Of the big three players in the U.S. market b&w film, paper and chemistry makers - Kodak, Ilford and Agfa - which one *hasn't* discontinued or altered a favorite product in the last decade? Now, that isn’t what I always did; but I also don’t care about every single one of my images being an HDR either. Most people though my care for it. Image Quality We’ll conclude with two films which are called T-grain films. Up until this point, we’ve been talking about classic or cubic grain structure. But a more modern development in film photography has been the t-grain emulsions. Without getting very technical (as I’m already outside of my comfort zone in this guide without delving into the science) I’ll just say that T-grain film is uniform in its grain characteristics. It allows for grain which is more predictable, more even, and also a lot less obvious than the classic or cubic grains of the other films we’ve been discussing, so far. T-grain is often compared to digital. It’s preferred by those who don’t like the grainy characteristics of most film. T-grain films are also more sensitive to variations in developer temperature, time, dilution, agitation etc. They are going to be less forgiving than classic films. So what were your results? Does this test change anything for you? Has it sparked your interest in a new film? I’d love to hear about it in the comments? Assuming both APX 400 and Kentmere 400 are the same emulsion I chose to buy Kentmere as it was slightly cheaper online. Kentmere 400 street photography