All Color and Black and White Film Stocks Compared from the slanted lens

Old-N-Feeble said:

I appreciate the link but...

I agree with those suggesting the test is haphazard and of little value. There was absolutely zero control over exposure, development, and scanning. It's remarkable how little the authors understand about controlling either medium. Personally, I wonder why those folks are bothering with film at all. If they want zero control then they should switch to digital and not look back.

Click to expand...

Maybe scanning isn't his bag, however he's an accomplished photographer. I believe it has great value.

"We are going to be looking at 13 different 120mm film stocks today. Both in color and black and white. Basically, we shot 13 different rolls of film with the same lighting condition and model so we could compare all the film stocks together. This isn’t a scientific process and isn’t meant to be."

Old-N-Feeble said:

I appreciate the link but...

I agree with those suggesting the test is haphazard and of little value. There was absolutely zero control over exposure, development, and scanning. It's remarkable how little the authors understand about controlling either medium. Personally, I wonder why those folks are bothering with film at all. If they want zero control then they should switch to digital and not look back.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, he never saw the film reviews in Modern Photography or Popular Photography?

the negative vibe in this thread is kind of sad.
so few people use film that the film companies need as much positive push along
as they can get. from hard core film users like it seems there are on THIS forum and others
and people just learning about film who might not have a darkroom or the ability to process and make prints in a darkroom
so what they get is film processed at a lab and scans to look at and fiddle with on a monitor and use whatever magic they know
to make whatever images they want to make. this is a lot of people. most people using film, ( guessing ) do not have the luxory of
a darkroom and 12 different types of developers to work with, and 100,000$ worth of processing and printing "stuff"
they are using thrift shop or ebay / used cameras / ex pro equipment / handme downs using films and sending it to a lab.

the video i thought was pretty good. granted i couldn't see some of the things he was talking about ( reddish hues, grain )
but you could easily see the differences in some of the films, which give someone who might not have an endless budget
or experience something to think about.

so this guy is doing his bit through his website and youtube thing to help push film along a little bit, seems to be a lot more than a lot of people do on
this website, on their own websites or any sort of video/ blog vlog, you tube thing. a lot of what goes on here, is gear blather, and whining about
the cancellation of emulsions or fan-boy threads about emulsions that have been gone for years complaining why the companies that
discontinued the film don't sink millions of dollars into reviving films no one wanted when it was still around. to name a few...oh well ...

its too bad there's not more positive, instead of so much negative.

hope he contines with his comparison and maybe shows print results too !

Sorry, I for one didn't intend to be negative. It seems the photographer is quite accomplished. These days one doesn't necessarily need to be very technically oriented to do truly good work. But when 'testing' film for specific qualities, far more precision must be employed.

For someone who is just starting out, this is a great way to see the different types of film and how they respond to similar lighting situations. It's a good starting point for those who have absolutely no idea where to start. They explain the important the differences well, and the comparisons side-by-side would undoubtedly help newcomers to see how films differ when exposed at box speed - and let's be honest here, for most people when they start out, they shoot the stuff at box speed.

It's not until they take a more in-depth interest in processing, which they may venture into determining their personal EI. For those who merely shoot and scan, knowing that Delta 400 is slightly more contrasty to TriX may determine their choice of film on a particular day or simply make it easier to choose 400 film. They like what they see, so they shoot it.

Testing isn't for everyone - this forum has many members who enjoy tinkering and testing different films at different speeds, different films in different developers etc., but for many, this is too much work. They just want to shoot a film that gives them results - if that happens to be TriX, shot at box speed, so be it. If it happens to be FP4 shot at box speed, that's great too.

I do agree you cannot truly judge film on screen - but guess what? I could see the differences, and although they didn't show grain structure, they discussed it well enough to understand that 3200 was grainy as hell, but that still held its tonal range. This is what new film shooters want to know. Honestly, did any of us know what film to shoot when we bought our very first roll? Did we know how development changes in time/temp would affect its results? Did we understand how some films were more contrasty than others? Chances are most of us probably didn't, and we started out shooting at box speed and then began to learn from there how to adjust our shooting style/equipment to give us good results.

If these videos help entice people to shoot film, it can only be a good thing. We all need to be aware that not everyone has access to a home darkroom/has time to develop films themselves and this little video is giving them a chance to get out there and (basically) start making great images from the outset, without needing to test, test, test.

I read books on the subject, but back when I started out, YouTube didn't exist, you learned from books and magazines. Guess what? Most photo magazines today are digital - rare to find any with analogue developing/comparison articles, so where else do newbies have to turn to get their information? If I started out today, I'd use these types of guides to help get me started. If I enjoyed it, I'd then look at some books and keep moving forward.

This guy is offering a tangible experience in moving form that we all used to get from reading the vast quantity of photo magazines on offer 20-30 years ago. Sure we may have moved on from this type of information package, but let's not knock it for offering a new stable of photographers the opportunity to enjoy the medium we all love.

After all, we all had to start somewhere, right?

Hey, this is produced self-marketing content for youtube, and a pro photographer feels the need to work with film and talk about film.

That is good news - we are hip again.

And about some technical shortcomings of the "test": We are not the intended audiance, so relax. You are supposed to watch this if you are fifteen and just got your first film camera by granddad - everything is new and exiting. Then you google about what film to buy from amazon, and just find the answer on youtube. And you feel good. And that´s what this video is all about.

And if you want a real expert opinion on which film is best, just ask the question to this forum.

Will such a video show you what those films will look like when you've exposed them, developed them and either printed or scanned them yourself? Nope.

But it does give a general idea of how those films react differently to light, how they record detail, shadows, grain structure etc. Yes, your mileage may vary but it gives you some ideas where to begin if you're not already familiar with the films in question.

Let's face it, how did I learn about different films when I began experimenting with B&W in the 80s? I looked at photos taken by others, read magazine articles etc. This Youtube video is no different.

Negative, Positive ? Negativity is for me obscuranty, bad practice and mambo jambo... Positivity is clearness and good practices, repeatable practices, traceable, obvious...

This could be a test made with the same film and different scanners, or different photoshop raw editions, or developed with different developers... etc...

i use a 10€ developing tank and chemistry that i make, i see enlargers (good ones) selling for a few euros... a good camera and cla costs little

but film is expensive!!!!!!!

trusting your practice in this kind of tests is a path to idiocy and an altogether bad practice...

i´m not a beginner but for beginners i think a good book is better than all the info you can get on the tube...

myths around the photographic were always present... this is just a good route to perpetuate them...
ex: tri-x in rodinal is too harsh, too soft, too grainy, too muddy, too flat...untrue ISO, high acutance, blown highlights.... these thing were told in magazines, but most of the times they used really different ways to develop the negative... so everything is true and untrue at the same time...

test on your own terms... make your own opinion, don´t be lazy, stop watching Sh17y videos; photograph, develop, print or scan ant take your own conclusions...

The biggest treat their videos give us is the fact, that film is presented as a worthy contender in the professional world, giving beautiful and very competitive results and a compelling business case. These guys are not paid film evangelists, but professional photographers who have to make a living with their trade, which gives them (and film) a lot of extra credibility. Compare this to that drivel posted on Adorama's blog not too long ago.

The biggest problem with this video is that 80% of the talk is about film contrast, which is trivially adjustable through changes in development and/or scanning/postprocessing. This is almost like a comparison between car tyres hanging on a "this tyre X is filled with 2 bar, that one Y with 1.5 bar, oh no this is quite low but yes, you can add more air if you want, so ok, we'll give our nod to tyre Y for the extra flexibility it offers ..." type argument.

This video may accidentally reveal, that differences between B&W films are not nearly as significant as some fanatics make them appear, a bit more reserve for underexposure here, a bit more image detail there, but nothing which will make or break a photo shooting.

All these complaints about the video missed an important point: most people do not want to use LR, Photoshop, test combinations of developer and film etc. etc.

YES, I do that, you do that, but we are not NORMAL people. We are obsessive film snobs. Well, some of us anyway.

In any case, most people just want to shoot, and get good images back. Yeah yea yeah, spare me about they can then shoot JPEG on their iPhone. If people want to shoot film, and want a painless experience to nirvana, what harm is it?

the video reveal nothing about film differences or similarities... if you look through blue glasses everything looks blue...

and the professional world usually opts for the least amount of work and time with the highest profit!

film is for amateurs

people can do what they want regarding these things without harm being made... just dont take conclusions on this kind of things!

I'll repeat that I'm not trying to be negative and I agree that analog photography needs all the boost it can get. However, I disagree this test is of any help to anyone, most especially beginners.

The reasons; 1. It promotes lackadaisical techniques, 2. The so-called comparison is completely flawed due to absolutely zero control of every variable, 3. Beginners will select films based on their poorly conducted tests, 4. Many other reasons but I'm tired of typing.

My opinion is that no information is better than incorrect information because the latter causes damage. This is VERY important because UNlearning bad teachings is frustrating, time-consuming, and expensive. Also, being creatures of habit, we may never UNlearn poor technique. It's just plain bad, in my opinion.

Beginners just want to know what to use. The conclusion was clear: Tri-X, and Portra.

That will serve 99% of the beginners who want to take those first steps. The remaining 1% will google and find Photrio and find the gems in this forum (Tri-X is great, .... but only in DD-X soup,... at ISO250,... no push it in 1600 with Rodinal... pushing sucks,.... I don't know anyone not shoot Tri-X with Emofin at 1200!....)

Richard Man said:

Beginners just want to know what to use. The conclusion was clear: Tri-X, and Portra.

Click to expand...

Beginners should perhaps rather start with a 135-camera instead of medium format. It allows them to shoot roughly three times as many pictures for the same cost. The best way to learn photography is IMHO to experiment, fail, realize what you did wrong and how to prevent that error in the future. Especially if you don't develop and scan yourself (for which you need expensive equipment in the first place), film photography is not exactly a very cheap hobby.

And, if you are shooting on 135-film, you have a very much broader selection of films than what was presented in this 'test'. Especially among colour films, there are still quite a few 'consumer grade' films, which are more than good enough for learning and much cheaper than the 'professional grade' films presented in the video. The black and white films they tested, were also just a very narrow selection of films from the upper price range. For beginners, it might make much more sense to start with more affordable films. Availability and pricing is different in different regions, but just to name a few manufacturers/brands completely missing in this 'test': Kentmere, Rollei, Foma, ADOX, Agfa, Ferrania, JCH, Lucky and Bergger.

IMO, beginners should start with a manual 135 camera and shoot slide film. This will help them (force them) to understand proper metering and exposure compensation. Then, if they want to learn ultimate control in analog grayscale, get a 4x5 with one lens and Adam's ZS books.

Old-N-Feeble said:

IMO, beginners should start with a manual 135 camera and shoot slide film. This will help them (force them) to understand proper metering and exposure compensation. Then, if they want to learn ultimate control in analog grayscale, get a 4x5 with one lens and Adam's ZS books.

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a "sink or swim" approach. I think a beginner should start with anything that will keep them coming back. Forcing them into the deep end will cause a lot of beginners to give up and go back to digital.

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:

Beginners should perhaps rather start with a 135-camera instead of medium format. It allows them to shoot roughly three times as many pictures for the same cost. The best way to learn photography is IMHO to experiment, fail, realize what you did wrong and how to prevent that error in the future. Especially if you don't develop and scan yourself (for which you need expensive equipment in the first place), film photography is not exactly a very cheap hobby.

And, if you are shooting on 135-film, you have a very much broader selection of films than what was presented in this 'test'. Especially among colour films, there are still quite a few 'consumer grade' films, which are more than good enough for learning and much cheaper than the 'professional grade' films presented in the video. The black and white films they tested, were also just a very narrow selection of films from the upper price range. For beginners, it might make much more sense to start with more affordable films. Availability and pricing is different in different regions, but just to name a few manufacturers/brands completely missing in this 'test': Kentmere, Rollei, Foma, ADOX, Agfa, Ferrania, JCH, Lucky and Bergger.

Click to expand...

I started with medium format when I was eleven. Later I was given a 35mm camera. Now I use single frame 35mm, full frame 35mm, 120 and 4"x5". Should I throw out all my equipment and start over?

I am not hater but this comparison is useless.. there are more films in the market, every works with different developer, no experience with acros and question like "why ilford produce 100iso and 125iso film... really????

Sirius Glass said:

I started with medium format when I was eleven. Later I was given a 35mm camera. Now I use single frame 35mm, full frame 35mm, 120 and 4"x5". Should I throw out all my equipment and start over?

Click to expand...

No, why should you?

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:

No, why should you?

Click to expand...

You said that one should start with 35mm. I did not, so does that mean that I should start all over again?

I agree with jnanian. This video obviously was not intended for people like us who are already familiar with film.

Next time 5-year-old Hurricane Alyssa visits, I'm going to hand her a Minolta x-700 in "P" mode with a 28mm Rokkor lens and Portra 400. Is there such a thing as a professional-level point-n-shoot?

Sirius Glass said:

You said that one should start with 35mm. I did not, so does that mean that I should start all over again?

Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote, or are you just spitting out stupid questions while pretending to be clever? If you had cared to move your eyes just a tiny, little fraction of a bit past the first sentence of my post, you had read the reason why I think newbies should start with 135-film and it is not because you can't learn to photograph using other film formats or that anyone should throw their experience away and start all over again if they did not. Please creep back into your cave and come back if you have anything remotely senseful to contribute with.

Sirius Glass said:

You said that one should start with 35mm. I did not, so does that mean that I should start all over again?

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to follow. You have probably learned what you need to know so that there is no need to start over. Many paths live to the same destination.

My first camera was an old 120 Kalimar Reflex. I hadn't a meter so followed 'sunny 16' and the directions on the developer packages. This worked fine most of the time but I didn't understand why sometimes my negatives were under or over exposed. I bought a reflection meter and found AA's books and proceeded to learned much. When that first camera quit, I used manual 135 a couple of years before getting a 4x5. Those 135 years were okay but when I needed (+) or (-) development I had to take several frames of the same subject and leave several frames blank between subjects, keeping track of where each roll of film needed to be cut. It was a PITA processing short pieces of 135 film so I could get the contrast in the range I wanted.

I'm quite sure if I'd started with transparency film with a manual camera, I would've learned proper exposure technique much sooner.

Sooo... I think we don't give newbs enough credit. Those who truly want to go analog will be hungry to learn more about it. If they don't care enough to learn good technique then they're probably better off with full-auto digital anyway.

I think it's a bit unfair to make newbs think analog photography is as easy as auto-everything digital because it's a frustrating surprise to learn it just ain't so. They should be aware upfront that analog requires some forethought and effort to produce truly good results.

Sooo... ^^^ that is why I don't think the comparison in question is of much value.

Old-N-Feeble said:

I think it's a bit unfair to make newbs think analog photography is as easy as auto-everything digital because it's a frustrating surprise to learn it just ain't so. They should be aware upfront that analog requires some forethought and effort to produce truly good results.

Click to expand...

I understand some people want to make it mysterious, but analog photography is not that hard. I learned it as an adolescent. Whether analog or digital, doing something well always requires effort.