35mm the best for a beginner?

[Antigen]

Hi,

i'm interested about a film that is good to start for a beginner, i read a lot and the most cheap are Foma and Kentmere, but what is your suggestion?

And it's better 400 or 100 ISO?

 

[Dali]

Tri-X.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is no 'best'. Only you can decide that. ISO 100 film will limit you when you shoot hand held, but will give you better quality. ISO 400 film will give you more grain and less resolution. The best compromise among all 35mm films is Kodak TMax 400. It has grain and resolution similar to Ilford FP4+, but almost two full stops more speed. It's amazingly good film.

The Kentmere 400 is almost like Ilford HP5+ and is a very high quality product. It's very grainy, but the grain looks really pretty. I have attached a scan of a picture I made on Ilford Pan 400, which is the same film as Kentmere 400. It was developed in ADOX FX-39, which gives more grain than Rodinal. But as you can see, it still works pretty well even for landscape with the small 35mm frame.

 

[sagai]

Grain is up to loads of parameters.
I have just noticed that reducing the 20 Celsius temperature of Rodinal dilution to 17-18 Celsius results far less, almost not noticable grain on a 400 ISO MF neg.
400 is definitaly better than 100 ISO for low light conditions having a hand held camera

 

[Anon Ymous]

I second Thomas' recomendation for TMax400, it is the best 400 iso film out there and puts traditional 100 iso films to shame.

 

[miha]

I have attached a scan of a picture I made on Ilford Pan 400, which is the same film as Kentmere 400.

No Thomas, Pan 100 & 400 were available at least a decade before the Kentmere line of film was released.
Otherwise I agree with your advice.

 

[pdeeh]

Ilford Pan 400, which is the same film as Kentmere 400

Evidence ?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I second Thomas' recomendation for TMax400, it is the best 400 iso film out there and puts traditional 100 iso films to shame.

+1

 

[jeffreythree]

I thought I was feeling a bit of deja vu seeing this thread and typing a response. You will probably be seeing a lot of the same responses here as you had last week since there is not really a beginner or experts only film, just different price points and qualities.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here we go again

ISO 100 gives me more contrasty, more details negatives and prints. ISO400 gives me availability to take pictures indoors and under low light. I prefer to have both available. Or 100 in summer days and 400 for short daytime in winter.
I would not recommend Foma and Kentmere or TMAX, Tri-X for beginner. Ilford HP5+ is great 400 film, which is very forgiving with exposure and developing. And Ilford FP4+ film as 100 for same reason.

 

[removed account4]

hi antigen:
if you can order a 100 foot spool of film
and get a used bulk loader and some 35mm cassettes
it might be a good way to start. if you ask me
the best film for a beginner to start out with is
pretty much any unexpired/in-date/fresh film, and as much as you can expose.
a bulk loader will allow you to make short rolls if you want
( like 12 exposures ) or longer ones ( 35 ) or anything in-between.
ilford and kodak/alaris both make
quality films you can't go wrong there. i find the tmax ( 100+400 ) to be
kind of finicky, traditional grained films like hp5 and tri x might not be as finicky.

have fun!

 

[RobC]

All B&W films are good.
400 speed is two stops faster than 100 speed film and 100 speed film is two stops slower than 400 speed film. The question is, do you feel the need for speed?
Answer is, if you are using a tripod then its a purely subjective choice. Faster films exhibit more grain. Slower films exhibit less grain. Grain gives an image character and sometimes you want more grain and sometimes less grain. That's a subjective choice.
If you are not using a tripod then it comes down to the shutter speed you are using and how still you can hold the camera. Most people find that 400 speed film helps them keep the camera still becasue they get 4X faster shutter speed ( 1/60 s with 100 speed becomes 1/250 s with 400 speed film). But if you are using wide apertures, f4 or wider, then you may not need 400 speed film if lighting levels are good. But if lighting levels are low such as indoors, then 400 speed is likely a must. And if you are looking for maximum depth of field which requires using small apertures then that forces you to use slow shutter speed so again 400 speed film is usually necessary. If you are in a studio using flash then the flash duration determines exposure in combination with aperture and film speed doesn't really come into it unless you are using flash in combination with ambient light. But by and large you can use 100 or 400 speed indoors with flash without worrying about whether film speed is fast enough.

Which brand and particular film is a purely subjective choice. Just get whatever is easily available to you in your locality to start out with. You'll soon find out if its fast enough for you or not.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There are no best films or formats. Only the OP knows his needs and must decide on his own what best fits them. It requires a bit of research on his part but only he can make the choice.

 

[Soeren]

I didn't listen when everybody in my former camera club told me to start out with tri-x and d76, no no I knew better holding on to upscure combos like neopan 400 or efke 25 in rodinal or whatever in diafine. It worked out and I learned from it so now I kind of know what Im doing in the darkroom, learned the hard way.
Rodinal is a wonderful developer(i like it with Delta100 and retropan) if you know what you want and how to get it and so is diafine, tri-x ( which I currently have a chrush on) can work wonders with both in the right formats and situations.

 

[railwayman3]

I started off with 120 Ilford 400ASA (HP3 then!), with Johnsons Unitol. Schoolboy-proof rock-solid film, lots of latitude in (guessed) exposure and development, and larger format so sticky fingerprints were less obvious(!). I'm a lot more particular and accurate with my photography now, though I sometimes think I had more fun with my picture-taking in those more carefree times......

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Evidence ?

I thought that was common knowledge. A small company like Ilford already has Ilford HP5+ and Delta 400 under their own brand in Europe and the Americas. They sell Pan 400 in Asia. Why on Earth would they develop yet another ISO 400 emulsion and name it Kentmere?

 

[miha]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Good detective work. I still can't see a difference between the two, but I will happily admit to being wrong.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Tri-X because it has speed for flexibility and better depth of field, and because it has grain.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodak Tri-X because it has speed for flexibility and better depth of field, and because it has grain.

AFAIC HP5+ is a better choice if one wants grain than Tri-X.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

AFAIC HP5+ is a better choice if one wants grain than Tri-X.

Fully agree. HP5+ definitely shows more grain than Tri-X, and also a bit flatter inherent tonality (which can be adjusted for).

 

[Slixtiesix]

Chose one or two films and one developer to start with and keep using them. Try to over- and underexpose them and over- or underdevelop them and examine the results. Try to learn their behavior under different conditions. That´s all the magic. There is no "best" film.

 

[mgb74]

Reading through all these responses I'm thinking we chased Antigen back to digital!!!

He/she asked "most cheap are Foma and Kentmere, but what is your suggestion". So I'm guessing he/she is, like most people starting out, somewhat price sensitive. And he/she is in Italy, where film/developer cost and availability may be different than what most of us experience.

So here's my take. Both Foma and Kentmere have their adherents. Foma tends to have a more traditional look, Kentmere tends to higher quality in terms of ease of use (doesn't curl as much) and consistency. I think you'll get good results faster with Kentmere.

As to 100 or 400, personally I'd go with 400 unless you plan to create large prints. It will be grainier, but so what.

Pick one easily available developer as slixtiesix said and stick with it until you understand how the film and developer work in different situations.

 

[Ai Print]

I second Thomas' recomendation for TMax400, it is the best 400 iso film out there and puts traditional 100 iso films to shame.

I might as well get rid of all my other 35mm film, Tmax 400 @ 800 is all I use in 35mm anymore...

 

[pdeeh]

I thought that was common knowledge. A small company like Ilford already has Ilford HP5+ and Delta 400 under their own brand in Europe and the Americas. They sell Pan 400 in Asia. Why on Earth would they develop yet another ISO 400 emulsion and name it Kentmere?

That's not evidence, that's supposition. Or possibly assumption. Or possibly both.

Only the people who work at Harman can make categorical statements about what one or another film is or is not, and until they publish their trade secrets, any other statement are purely speculative.
Curves notwithstanding ...