Is anyone else unhappy with today's films?

[GarageBoy]

Expensive film is here to stay - if Kodak and Fuji and ilford can't make their money, that's it, and another emulsion will bite the dust


I like how people are complaining that modern films look too modern - I can hear manufacturers going "sorry we took the time and effort to make film better (higher resolution, finer grain, etc)"

Nostalgia is an interesting thing
I'd be happy with Portra and TMax400 alone

 

[klownshed]

I'm happy with Ilford films. I prefer B&W.

They took away... ... our Pan-X!

Delta 100 is very similar image-wise to Pan-X, so I will give it a pass

Pan-X is gone, but you don't want Delta 100 as it's too close to Pan-X? Do you mean that if it ain't Pan-X it ain't Pan-X so you may as well use something completely different instead? I can understand that...

We have lost a lot of films, some of which are hard to replace, but we still have a lot of film available to us and some fantastic films at that. I can understand being unhappy at losing some of them, but there are lots of other films that are still wonderful to explore.

I miss EFKE 25, but have still enjoyed using alternatives. And ultimately, I still enjoy the films I have used instead of EFKE. I like pretty much every B&W film I've used... ;-)

 

[Agulliver]

I tried Ektar for the first time earlier this year....and while I feel it's colour rendition makes it suitable only for certain situations...it's tight grain and ability to show fine detail and edges are most excellent. I've rarely had that much detail in any frame...B&W, colour negative or transparency. I'm glad to have this in my available arsenal even if it's not one I'll be shooting frequently.

Porta and Superia I know well and while I have a slight preference for the latter, there's nothing wrong with the former.

 

[mhanc]

in b+w i am pretty happy with the available choices -- there are certainly enough films to satisfy my needs.

color is another story. i prefer transparency films and here kodak was the king, period. i have never taken to the color palate of fuji slide films. i am eagerly awaiting the new ektachrome coming out this fall !!!

in terms of c-41, i only have experience with kodak and the currently available films are indeed quite superb but just seem flat and uninteresting to me. maybe, this is just my preference for slide film.

...of course, there are many extinct films that i really miss and would be using today if they were around. the thing i miss the most is all the films that were available to just experiment with. that ability to explore films was one of the things that i enjoyed most back in the day.

finally, i would be remiss if i did not express my extreme displeasure that kodachrome in any form is no longer available. so, from that perspective maybe i am not happy with today's film choices.

 

[Mike Bates]

The only film loss I particularly mourn is Fuji FP-3000b instant film. I didn't fully appreciate what it could do until right before it was discontinued.

I'm very happy with Portra 400 for its smooth skin tones and non-cartoonish colors. Delta 400 fills the bill for smooth black and white skin tones. TXP is great for slightly more bite. We have Delta 3200 for amazing high-ISO work, if only in 35mm and 120 formats.

 

[Eric Rose]

I think we have some of the best film stock available today. For colour I have switched 100% to digital however I am well served by Ilford for B&W.

 

[Wayne]

I tried Ektar for the first time earlier this year....and while I feel it's colour rendition makes it suitable only for certain situations .

Ok here is one place I can gripe about film. I never was a Kodak color guy, I only am now by force. Market force. I wish I could get Fuji color negative film in MF and LF without paying through the nose for it

 

[BMbikerider]

As for cost of film, some situations I cannot see where there get their prices from. In UK a roll of 36exp Kodak Tri X is around £5.50 - £6.00 a cassette give or take. A bulk roll of the same film 30.5 metres long which will give about 20 cassettes of 36exp costs about 30% more (£184.00) than if you bought 20 x 36exp cassettes already loaded with the same film.

Bulk film always was cheaper and so it is still with all the others, but not Tri x? Very odd!

I am not a fan of Tri X, but the pricing anomoly is significant.

 

[Agulliver]

As for cost of film, some situations I cannot see where there get their prices from. In UK a roll of 36exp Kodak Tri X is around £5.50 - £6.00 a cassette give or take. A bulk roll of the same film 30.5 metres which will give about 20 cassettes of 36exp costs about 30% more (£184.00) than if you bought 20 x 36exp cassettes already loaded with the same film.

Bulk film always was cheaper and so it is still with all the others, but not Tri x? Very odd!

I am not a fan of Tri X, but the pricing anomoly is significant.

I asked that question on APUG last year and the only response I received was a bit negative so I've left it.

But if you look at American vendors, while cheaper than the UK the bulk tri-x is still more expensive than individual cassettes.

I totally understand that the days of strolling into a supermarket and being able to buy a three pack of Fuji Superia for £7 are long gone. But some of the prices for C41 colour neg film are horrendous. Still....in the UK one can get Fuji C200 disguised as Agfa Vista Plus for £1 a pop which is amazing value.

 

[zanxion72]

I find today's films unreasonably expensive. Also, from the current line of films the t-grain/low silver emulsion films are the worst bw films ever.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They took away our Kodachrome, our Astia, and even our original Velvia, not to mention our Pan-X!

I really cannot say that I am happy with today's selection of films.

You forgot to mention Kodak HEI. I'm not sad about today's films. Just sad that there isn't a "real" infra-red film out there.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm satisfied with what's still available. Maybe even happy to simply be blessed with the opportunity to continue shooting film. Sure, I miss some of the old emulsions... but I'm not crying in my milk about the loss of them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm too old school. I like most BW films I use. I don't really care for look of designer grain BW film like Tmax and Fuji Acros. I love Acros for the long exposures. I think chromogenic BW films look strange too. It's just me.

 

[Cholentpot]

I miss peel apart film and dependable Polaroids.

Apart from that, you can get 100 feet of decent 100 or 400 B&W film for a song these days. Sure it might not be Tri-x or Pan-X but it feeds my camera and prints nicely. I'm also grateful that 120 film is still around, I thought it was a goner a few years back. I never did get a chance to mess with Kodachrome but I do have a great stock of frozen film.

I'd say I'm pretty happy with film theses days.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like old color films which were available where I was. ORWO, then Konica. I like true prints.
Now all I could afford and get done by myself is dozen of Kodak Gold per year. And I don't know how to print in color. Film is dead for me on this side, but BW is something I could afford and do by myself. Including printing. Modern HP5+ is all I need. And any 8x10 FB paper will do.

 

[RattyMouse]

They took away our Kodachrome, our Astia, and even our original Velvia, not to mention our Pan-X!

I really cannot say that I am happy with today's selection of films.

The only film I'm unappy with is TMAX 400 in 120 size. Other than that, they are all good.

 

[ic-racer]

I have more film choices than in the 1980s. Discounting color film, which I don't use as it is too difficult to print.

 

[George Mann]

but I'd prefer it if Superia were a bit cheaper

It's current price is ridiculous!

 

[George Mann]

Pan-X is gone, but you don't want Delta 100 as it's too close to Pan-X?

Don't get me wrong, I like Delta. But I prefer to shoot color films.

 

[BMbikerider]

I did also like Kodak CN400. That can be printed very easily as a B&W on colour paper. The Ilford XP2 equivalent is a horror compared to CN. The only benefit I can see is it can be scanned on a NikonScanner and the superb digital ICE feature can be used to suppress dust and scratches. But apart from that give me FP4 and Rodinal and I'm as happy as a dog with a new bone!

 

[George Mann]

I see today's color films as being like a bad acid trip at an over-the-top amusement park.

Portra = the film version of a Canon digital camera.
Provia = the film version of a Nikon digital camera.
Ektar = a poorly emulated Kodachrome II version of Kodak Gold on steroids.
Velvia = the world according to Micky Mouse.

 

[spijker]

Portra = the film version of a Canon digital camera.
Provia = the film version of a Nikon digital camera.

Then get a nice (used) digital camera. You can easily change the colors to your liking. I think that many people here have moved on for color and only shoot B&W film. Unless you print color yourself in the darkroom or project slides, I don't see the benefit of shooting color film. Color film gets scanned and then it's digital from there on anyway.

I'm happy with the current B&W films that I use.

 

[BrianShaw]

You may be in for a really difficult "rest of your life", George... the situation probably isn't going to be getting too much better.

 

[George Mann]

I don't see the benefit of shooting color film. Color film gets scanned and then it's digital from there on anyway.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

 

[Chan Tran]

As far as choices I think I am happy with what available right now. I use Portra 160 and Ekta for color negative and Provia 100F for slide. When Kodak reintroduces Ektachrome then I would use it.