How did you decide which film you'd use?

[hoffy]

My default is Ilford, simply because its what I am used to. I typically flit between hp5 and fp4 based on what I can do handheld, with available light.

I have, though, started using a bit of Foma in certain circumstances, simply due to the look.

But, if the film if given to me, I'll use just about anything!

 

[dtmateojr]

If money isn't a problem then I would probably shoot Ektar 100. Even the prints I get from generic lab s are fantastic. Otherwise I go with Superia 400, Ultramax 400 or Proimage 100 because they are cheap.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

During the last year, I have been shooting a lot of various fims under different conditions to find which ones have the look that I want.

Last week I made the decision to limit myself mainly to Tri-X for B&W and Portra for colour.

Those are the films I started with and it turns out there was a reason for it. I simply prefer the way they look.

Of course, I'll be using some other films for special purposes, but I think there is a great advantage in focusing on a few types. That way, you'll be able to develop a better understanding and handling of the properties of each film.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Stange that not many here base their choice of film on the film's characteristics, but rather on box color, (understandable) loyalty to one or another company, price, etc., etc.

Film characteristics like speed, grain, and curve shape should be part of a considered choice, IMO.

I chose faster films (320Tri-X and TMY) because slower films won't do the job for me; I shoot 4x5, so grain isn't the big issue it is in smaller formats. I need the speed for the small apertures I normally use in order to get a reasonable shutter speed for moving objects.

Curve shape comes into play as well. I like the mid-tone contrast with 320TX, which is achieved at the expense of a flatter toe portion of the curve. I find I can control where what part of the scene falls on the contrasty part of the curve by exposure (e.g., more exposure moves the shadows up to a contrastier part while shouldering off the highlights a bit). TMY, on the other hand, has a really straight curve, holds overexposure well and can really satisfyingly separate otherwise flat highlights.

Now, I can understand people sticking with what they are used to; and availability comes into play here. I wouldn't hesitate to use Ilford products or films from other manufacturers, but I have my two Kodak films "dialed-in," so to speak and just have not had the time to test and compare other products. I started with Kodak years ago when Ilford was not so present in the States as today. That's why I don't use them, not because they are inferior. If I had started with Ilford, I would likely not be using Kodak films now (for the same reason).

Film is just a tool: I need a big Phillips screwdriver for this application and a little slot-head screwdriver for this one. I may prefer the handles on Stanley tools to Craftsmen, but that is somehow just for me and irrelevant to the results.

Best,

Doremus

 

[dorff]

When I started with photography in the early 90's I used FP4 and Velvia 50. Since 2011 I have been trying out various films, and there are definitely likes and dislikes.

For medium format, I'll use mostly Tri-X (my favourite), but all the Kodak and Ilford emulsions are good. I also use FP4+, which is probably the film with the best tonality and robustness all round. I stashed up on Acros when it cost $2.68 a roll, so that will also see me through whenever I can't get my first choices.

For 35 mm, I will use whatever I can get my hands on. It makes sense to me to use the same emulsions in 120 and 35 mm, as one has fewer developing combinations to deal with. For that reason, I don't buy Kentmere and Neopan 400 any longer, even though they are fine emulsions. Acros coupled with excellent lenses is wonderful because of its fine grain, but seriously, why does it need to be so expensive in 35 mm?

For colour (only 120): Ektar or any of the Portra films (160, 400 and 800). I probably use Portra 400 most often, as it balances speed, cost and quality. For slides, well, what are the choices? Basically Provia 100F. I have shot some Provia 400X, and it is/was a fantastic film. They should have stopped Velvia rather than Astia and 400X. Can't they just schedule annual or bi-annual production runs rather than stopping altogether? Oh well, such is the analogue life.

Dislikes: Anything with Lomo written on it. Foma in 120, because last time I tried it was so curly and difficult to load. Rollei RPX400 in 120 if I can't shoot and store it cold, because I get frame counters etching onto the film, and I think it has to do with heat more than light. Kentmere films, because they are never in stock at B&H when I need to order, and unavailable in 120.

I think Ilford as a company shows most commitment and the right attitude to survive in a diminished market. If they can't make it, nobody will. It is a pity they don't have at least one colour neg and one slide emulsion in their line-up, as it would have bode better for slide film in general if Ilford were a player there. Still, I'll happily support them whenever I can.

 

[Ian Grant]

My choice is partially availability, I used to shoot Agfa APX100 and 25 35mm, 120 & 5x4, this was because after testing a few films I found they gave me the results I required. My back up films where Tmax100 and Tmax400 and when Agfa discontinued APX100 in sheet film I switched to Tmax.

However I found it increasingly difficult to get Tmax100 while outside the UK either while living in Turkey or traveling abroad. Buying from the UK/US by post wasn't really an option as I had too many parcels fail to arrive. As a consequence I switched to Ilford Delta 100 & 400 and later HP5 for 5x4, great availability anywhere in the world, and what amazed me was so were Foma films.

So now I use Ilford with Foma as a back up, except for 10x8 where I've only used EFKE PL25 and Fortepan 200, cost means when they run out I'll use Fomapan100 in 10x8 I can't afford the high UK price (compared to the US) and I like the results I get with Foma films.

Ian

 

[Jaf-Photo]

One addition to my post above is that my special alternatives to the big Kodak films are Ilford (Delta and FP4) for B&W and Fuji (Superia happy colours and Provia slides) for colour.

So I do spread my business a bit.

I also have a stash of TMY and TMX, which I'll have to use up. The reason I have so much of it left is that I prefer the special tonality of TX.

 

[markbarendt]

Stange that not many here base their choice of film on the film's characteristics, but rather on box color, (understandable) loyalty to one or another company, price, etc., etc.

Film characteristics like speed, grain, and curve shape should be part of a considered choice, IMO.

I think we actually do consider these but normally we see the effect before we understand the cause.

As hard as newbies try to find "the best film" to start with, they (including me at that stage) lack the frame of reference they need to connect their vision with their paper. In fact most seem not to get that their is a connection to/relationship with, the paper; the film is as far as they see.

For slide shooters and digital jpegers, that's a reality. For print film shooters, not so much.

Many newby negative shooters send their film off to a lab for printing and when it comes back less than perfect they think they have screwed up and want to "fix the film problem" when in all likelihood the problem is simply the choices the lab made when they printed them.

I've had that experience a fair number of times before I started printing RA-4 myself.

I remember that my introduction to FP4 was very random, I was given a few rolls of expired stuff and took it to a workshop I was heading to. I dearly wanted to use the more modern Delta films at the time, but hey the FP4 was free. Prints from those first rolls of FP4 done in RolloPyro really did fit my sensibility/expectations nicely but I persisted in chasing more "modern" stuff. I have grudging over time moved more and more toward FP4 and recently came back to RolloPyro and it, for whatever reason, still just works for me.

While I do try to understand why FP4 in RolloPyro works for me, I also now understand that it doesn't matter why, as long as it does.

 

[gone]

"but they all seem to print the same and are largely indistinguishable on paper".

This surprises me. At my place, a print from Tri-X in D76 looks quite different from a print made from an Arista EDU 100 negative. Which is why I use Tri-X, to answer your question. Prints from it have a look that I like, and of course the film is essentially bulletproof. It's hands down the most flexible and forgiving film I have used. If it went away, I'm not sure I'd continue with photography. Or at the least, it would drastically change what I currently do in the medium.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ilford HP5+ all the way here. It offers good emulsion speed, beautiful grain, consistent quality, and it's pretty malleable in terms of shoehorning tonality to where I like it. It's also amazing that it's readily available in all formats I use - 35mm, 120, and 5x7, without having to participate in special ordering schemes.

I buy 50 rolls at a time at a terrific price from B&H.

With that said, HP5+ is too fast for my pinhole camera in full daylight, so I use a few rolls of Pan-F+ in 120 format for that purpose also.

 

[Loulou]

I'm very unscientific when it comes to choosing film & processing. Some of my best photos have come from picking a film at random without knowing anything about it and then processing in an experimental way, nothing alternative just stand developing, and having no clue what will happen. I discovered Superpan that way & I love it. I usually have several types of film in my fridge and rarely take one with a purpose unless it is Velvia 50, I don't mess with that.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I mostly use 35 b/w and my choice is limited to bulk film. After Kodak t-max price went up, I'm trying different films, price wise.
Fomapan 400 is interesting film to print from. But it takes longer time to develop and grain is too visible on prints sometime.
Kentmere 100 and 400 is still priced well and seems to be OK on prints.

 

[BradleyK]

Like Matt King, I, too, started out with Kodak film (availability or market dominance at the time - take your pick). Starting out, Kodachrome was my colour film of choice (actually the only colour film I shot until 12/30/2010); subsequent to its discontinuation, I have been shooting E100G/VS. As someone who shoots a lot of colour, there is something about the accuracy, consistency and quality of Kodak colour that always appealed. I have also been shooting a bit of Velvia 50 in 120 format recently; it may be E100VSs eventual replacement for me.

For black and white work, I started with Tri-X, way back when in eighth grade industrial arts class. When I began to take photography seriously, however, I began to experiment with a host of other films: Pan-X, Plus-X, PanF, FP4, HP5, Kodak Infrared, etc.

After picking up my first Hasselblad, I found myself settling on PanF+ and FP4+ for medium format black and white work (PanF+, in my opinion, is primus inter pares for landscape work); I have tried both Delta 100 and TMax 100, but still seem to gravitate back to "traditional films - something about the "look." In terms of 35mm work, most of what I shoot is Tri-X/HP5+ (as I have mentioned elsewhere, I use the two interchangeably - both are astonishingly good films); Delta 3200 often gets the nod when the situation requires - Tri-X/HP5+ "top-out" at 1600 ISO in my usage.

My only regret, film-wise, was never having the opportunity to try out any of the Agfachrome emulsions - availability in Canada was spotty, at best.

 

[Arcturus]

"but they all seem to print the same and are largely indistinguishable on paper".

This surprises me. At my place, a print from Tri-X in D76 looks quite different from a print made from an Arista EDU 100 negative. Which is why I use Tri-X, to answer your question. Prints from it have a look that I like, and of course the film is essentially bulletproof. It's hands down the most flexible and forgiving film I have used. If it went away, I'm not sure I'd continue with photography. Or at the least, it would drastically change what I currently do in the medium.

I meant within the same ISO it all looks very similar. For example, I can't find any difference between HP5+ and Tri-X if processed the same. If someone showed me 2 prints, one made from Tri-X and one made from TMY-2, I don't think I'd be able to see the difference unless the person who printed them pointed it out. I can't even tell the difference within my own prints and have to check the negatives. I understand the characteristic curves and how they relate to negative density, I'm just not precise enough for those differences to me meaningful for me. So ultimately for me film choice comes down to other factors. I'm surprised at all the endorsements for FP4+, it's the only Ilford roll film that I haven't really used. Well I know what my next order will be now!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I meant within the same ISO it all looks very similar. For example, I can't find any difference between HP5+ and Tri-X if processed the same. If someone showed me 2 prints, one made from Tri-X and one made from TMY-2, I don't think I'd be able to see the difference unless the person who printed them pointed it out. I can't even tell the difference within my own prints and have to check the negatives. I understand the characteristic curves and how they relate to negative density, I'm just not precise enough for those differences to me meaningful for me. So ultimately for me film choice comes down to other factors. I'm surprised at all the endorsements for FP4+, it's the only Ilford roll film that I haven't really used. Well I know what my next order will be now!

It depends a lot on how big you print, but some people know their films intimately and can tell a difference in a print. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things. I'm of the belief that a specific film does not make or break a photograph, only the photographer is capable of this.

It is a lot more important HOW you use your materials than what you use. And HOW you use your film improves with how much you use it. Eventually you will know it inside out and you can get on with making photographs without having to worry about something as material as the film.

 

[giannisg2004]

TriX and Portra 400.

Those are my defaults.

Reasonably grained, good speed to be able to shoot them throughout the day (and night), and very versatile in that you can shot them from ISO100 to ISO1600.
This keeps things simple when traveling.

From time to time, the occasional Delta 3200 for gritty night stuff, or a PanF+ for its contrast and detail for sunny portraits/landscapes.

Of course, when TriX is not available, I wouldn't hesitate at all to use HP5+.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I seem unable to fall out of Love with ILFORD DELTA Professional 3200..... but I do 'like' grain, texture and a harder edge when I'm printing, which is my true love... and if a have a forte ( excuse the sad pun ) thats it....

Anything with a person in it...... ILFORD PAN F +

On occasions, and in my carry everywhere CONTAX compact, ILFORD HP5+

Way back when I did Photography for a living I had a brief affair with Tri-X cannot say anything other but than that its a fine, fine film......

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[marciofs]

I have experimented several filmes just to see how I like them.

I make my decision first on the price and from there I look for grain characteristics, highlights, midtones and shaldow characteristics. And then softness and sharpness of the lines, the effect of skin for portraits, etc...

I start shooting nature and portrait with Ilford PanF because I like the soft look but I didn't like the lines so I moved to Across 100 for portrait which I used for a a good time. I used it a bit for landscape but the I realised that Delta 100 looked better for my landscapes and portraits.

I used to have HP5 for street and travel but where I live now it is much more expensive so I moved to Kentmere 400.

Recently I discovered Fomapan and I really like it for the sking softness on portraits (reminding a bit PanF) and its sharp lines. So I plan to use Fomapan 100 or/and 200 for portraits and Fomapan 400 for street, because its highlights is more fogiving than Kentmere 400. But Kentmere has a stony look which I will miss.

And I keep Delta 100 for landscapes.

For some reason I don't like much Kodak's films. One of them maybe (I think was TriX or TX) but it doesn't matter because I don't think the price is worth.


For colour I only use portra. Its warm colours and soft surface looks good for any subject I shoot.

 

[marciofs]

Actually, to be honest, That's almost entirely the reason I love PanF and Delta100. Nothing to do with the characteristics of the films (although I'm sure they're good), I just love the orange and blue on the white boxes.
Come to think of it, same with Agfa RSX slide films that i've got a few of in the freezer.

How about the colours of the water of the pre washing???
Sometimes I feel I like the development process just to see the water getting in crystalline and getting out blue.

 

[GarageBoy]

I got back into film when I saw some stuff I've always wanted to shoot get axed
So...
my fridge is full of Kodak E100VS/GX, P3200, and Fuji Neopan 400

I want to shoot more Portra 400 and Ektar 100, but Provia 400X and the other Fuji slide materials are endangered...

 

[RattyMouse]

I'm just curious how everyone decides which brand or type of film they use. After shooting and printing with a lot of the well-known flims available today, I still have a hard time coming up with an overall preference. True, some films have slightly different characteristics, but they all seem to print the same and are largely indistinguishable on paper. I seem to have a cyclical buying pattern with film, never settling on just one even within the same ISO. So how does everyone here decide?

I use Ilford film almost exclusively due to their extensive communication and support for film users. I may go Ilford all the way once my Acros supply runs out.

For color, I use Fujifilm 400H mostly but have 100 rolls or so of Provia 400X, 100F, and Astia 100F in cold storage. Also 20 or so rolls of Reala 100 and 160NS.

Kodak Alaris' total lack of communications has been profoundly disappointing so I have no interest in them.

 

[Dr Croubie]

ILFORD DELTA Professional 3200 ... ILFORD PAN F + ... ILFORD HP5+

Geez, you don't work for ILFORD or anything do you?

(but yeah, if you cancel PanF and D3200 I'll go on a murderous rampage)

 

[Red Tractors]

One camera is always loaded with Tri-X. I have enough frozen to last 2-3 years. Mom was a Kodaker, yellow runs in the blood, but if one day I have to switch to HP5, I will adjust.

Camera two is generally 100 speed, It was t-max for a while, now it's Plus-X. I greatly prefer the Plus-X, it's a shame it's O.O.P.

 

[37th Exposure]

Ilford HP5+= bulletproof all purpose film when I can choose only one.

Otherwise in no particular order:

Arista EDU Ultra aka. Fomapan100=cheap fun film with exquisite tonality and develops and fixes faster than most other types, would be my preferred film if QC were up to Ilford standards

Kodak TMax 100=in a class all its own, like Fomapan 100 with finer grain and sharpness but takes longer to fix and does not perform well in Rodinal

Ilford PanF+= old school film noir look, superfine grain, just too darn slow for most work but my all time favorite

Ilford FP4+=slower version of HP5+

Agfapan = R.I.P. Used to be the only film I'd use

Currently trying out ORWO cine film, Adox Silvermax and CHS II, Rollei RPX, and Kentmere

I avoid:
Kodak Tri-X= morbid tonal range and Kodak film always cups when drying. Long live Ilford HP.
Kodak Tmax400=takes forever to fix and does not perform in Rodinal, not worth the trouble for the slight improvement in image quality. Another vote for HP.

 

[Simon Howers]

Easy, I can get FP4 in whole plate size. Other manufacturers can't be bothered.