Justify your choice of film

[flavio81]

In 35mm i mostly shoot Acros 100 or Delta 100, depending on what's available at the store. I rarely shoot ISO 400 on 35mm.

When I used to shoot color, many years ago, my film of choice was Superia 1600. Gold 100 used to be very nice too.

In medium format my "general purpoose" film is HP5, often pushed to 1600; if i'm trying to get "large-format-like" results I use Acros on 6x7.

 

[Ariston]

- I use UFX for almost all black and white, because it is cheap and good enough for my skills. If I were rich, I would probably use more TMax.

- For color it always depends on the subject. Color films are so different. When it is overcast or raining in the forest, nothing beats Velvia, but I may use Ektar if the dynamic range is too wide. If I want Portra colors, I use Portra. For really popping colors (non-landscape), it's Fuji.

I have some P30 I have yet to try. I am saving it for some kind of rustic subject, I think, because I have seen nice contrasty samples that would fit that for me. We'll see.

 

[Wallendo]

For 120 I use Arista EDU Ultra 100 (Fomapan 100) - my MF cameras are older and shutter speeds don't go past 1/500s. Since I mostly shoot outdoors in sunlight, faster films don't let me open up the aperture at all.

For 35mm, I use TX400 on my more modern cameras with faster shutter speeds. It is a great everyday film for shooting under differing conditions. I find HP5+ and UltraFine Xtreme 400 more bland.

For older 35mm cameras, I shoot FP4+. I like the classic grain structure. I often shoot UltraFine Xtreme short rolls for testing new equipment. I still have a soft spot for Fomapan 100 and recently bought a 100ft roll, but in my experience this film is more prone to halation in high contrast situations, and isn't an everyday film.

 

[etn]

I love this kind of discussion and exchange of points of views! Thanks for starting the thread.
Before starting my contribution I want to mention that I experimented a lot with various films, until I got fed up with it (and needed space in the fridge), so I decided to concentrate on the following films only, for consistency and predictability (knowing how the film reacts to various exposure conditions etc.) as well as avoiding filling the fridge with films I will probably never use.

Here's my medium format list:

Velvia 50. The main reasons are 1) I love the look and the colors, 2) I love projecting slides. It is my go to film for landscapes & travel.
I imagine the new E100 could become my new general purpose slide film at some point (it's probably more forgiving with people than Velvia), but I forbid myself to try it until my 20 remaining Velvia rolls have been used.

Portra 400. Terrific for portraits, skin tones, both in flash and outdoor lighting. I haven't been traveling much recently and got more into portraits of my family, therefore this has replaced Velvia in my most used color film ranking.

Tri-X, for the looks, the classic grain, the tonal response. I could probably use something else as well (HP5, etc.) but when I decided to stick to 1 type, Tri-X won.
I tried Fuji Acros and loved it, but prefer 400 ISO for handholding medium format. Grain isn't an issue in MF, and in 35mm that grain is lovely!

Provia 400X, for the (silly or not, you decide) reason that I stockpiled a bunch when it was discontinued. I make a roll every now and then, not sure I like it that much but the 400 ISO is surely a blessing with medium format! Next on my to-do list: try some portraits and compare with Portra.


My 35mm list is much simpler:
Mainly Tri-X, some Velvia, just tried a roll of E100 (I do not have any Velvia 35mm inventory!), will have the pics next week. I'm really curious about that film!

 

[Anon Ymous]

I'm a 135 only user, I don't shoot MF/LF. I like using bulk rolls, it's convenient for me, especially since I experiment quite a bit and can load short rolls. Lately I'm shooting HP5 Plus and Rollei Retro 80S, both from bulk rolls. HP5 Plus is my general purpose film. Rollei Retro 80S isn't exactly ideal as a negative, but makes beautiful monochrome slides. It also serves as an IR film. I will likely buy a bulk roll of Ilford Delta 100 to be used as a negative.

If I had to limit my choice to a single film, it would be TMax 400, which is exceptional, but lately it has become rather pricey and isn't available in bulk rolls in reasonable price in Europe, so it's not exactly a good option for me.

 

[MattKing]

Fantastic answers, thank you all.
Sometimes our choices can be silly. For example, another **big** reason I avoid Kodak (in addition to cost) is their habit to measure things in oz, rat tails, gallons, and elephant ball sacks, instead of just using the metric system like adults, my blood just boils when I see that... they even screw up the time! I mean who the hell uses 6¾ minutes instead of 6:45? :smile:

Hey, it is all part of a system!

FW|W, the data sheets and packaging for the newer Kodak products tend to be more metric than the older ones.

 

[Cholentpot]

Whatever I can get my grubby fingers on. Expired, fresh, whatever allows me to feed my cameras.

Right now for 35mm color I'm using Gold 200 that was on clearance last year in Walgreens. Got a bunch of it. I also have about 8 rolls of AGFA HDC from the turn of the century that exposes and develops fine at around 64.

B&W wise for 35mm I'm eating through a frozen brick of Arista 400 the Tri-x formulation that I bought off a 'PUG along with some Tmax 100 that I had to shoot because it's summer. Generally I shoot UFX400 that comes in bulk.

120 I'm chewing through a bulk roll of 70mm BW400CN and Portra 400NC that I slice, dice and roll myself. I used to use Shanghai GP3 but they closed then reopened with stupid prices.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm wedded to Tri-X because that's the film that was mainly used by people around me and the B&W photographers I find interesting most of the time. So it's definitely a cultural standard. For my own work, I've grown to love it in 120 souped in DK-50 1+1 and in XTOL 1+1 for 35mm.

Before that, my real love was APX 100 in Rodinal 1+50. I began using it because it was cheap, but I ended up loving it. To this day, no other film has satisfied as much, even Tri-X.

Finally, my personal discovery was TMY in XTOL 1+1. It gives me a very clean look, a good overall balance of contrast and sharpness, versatility, and good tonality.

 

[cliveh]

For 100% of my photography in 35mm, I use FP4+. This allows me to expose in general lighting conditions in Europe at mostly 60th or 125th at f8 or f11 and develop accordingly in D76 at 1:1 to give reasonably fine grain and detail. By maintaining this consistency, I can obtain almost perfect negatives again and again and again. Once you start using a multiple variety of films and developers you are multiplying variations of errors ad infinitum.

 

[Paul Howell]

Hey, it is all part of a system!

View attachment 251761

FW|W, the data sheets and packaging for the newer Kodak products tend to be more metric than the older ones.

I still use mine, although I had not added Unltrafine I had added Foma, surprisingly once the guide number for any film is nailed it it very accurate, once PF is back open I'll add MCM 100.

 

[foc]

Fuji Superia Xtra 400. 35mm. I have always liked this film and would consider it as a great film for all occasions and conditions.

Fuji C200. 35mm. Nice cheap and cheerful film. Sometimes it can lack that little extra punch that Superia has but I m happy with it.

Ilford XP2 (Fuji Neopan 400CN). 35mm. Love the tones of the chromogenic film. Always happy with the results. (and yes I think they are the same film).

 

[W_Taylor76]

I only shoot b&w medium format. My choices are Delta 100 or FP4+ depending on lighting conditions. Love the tones and contrast they give. I will either develop in Rodinal (1+50) or DD-X depending on what I am going for.

However, I still like to try other films out there and see what they can do because I like to experiment and find new things. Right now I am on a Rollei RPX and Retro trial phase. But I always use the above films for my main films.

 

[Dj cooler martin]

Before that, my real love was APX 100 in Rodinal 1+50. I began using it because it was cheap, but I ended up loving it. To this day, no other film has satisfied as much, even Tri-X.

Have you tried Adox Silvermax? Adox state it's essentially APX 100 with a clear base and slightly more silver.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I use MF and 35mm black and white film, seldom LF, and as I prefer to work without tripod, my most used films are TMY2 and TX. Both of them are used for soft light most of the time, with a slight push for expansion. TX in Microphen and TMY2 in FX-39 II. I prefer those two because of their tone: great contrast for soft light. TMY2 isn't as intense as TX but yet it's more dynamic and punchy than HP5+. For direct sun I prefer HP5+ in diluted D-76 because they allow me to expose generously for the shadows, and get those shadows well developed and clean while the sunny whites retain all detail thanks to that film's design. I also prefer HP5+ for low light because it gives wonderful tone in Microphen at 2500. I stopped using slower films because grain is very small these days and I like sharp grain visible on my prints.

 

[miha]

In 135 it's mostly T-MAX P3200 now. Ilford HP5 pushed in Microphen in the 90s and 2000s. Apart for low light photography, any pedestrian medium speed film will do for me, such as Ilford Pan 100 in ID11.
In 4x5 it's Fomapan 100, Ektar and Provia.

 

[Agulliver]

Over 43 years of photography I've had my favourites and less well liked films.

Here are the films I try to keep a good stock of in 35mm

Ilford HP5+ bulk rolled from 100 foot rolls. It's not cheap, but it is cheaper than buying manufactured cassettes. The most versatile B&W film I have ever come across, with ID-11 I can shoot at anything from 200 to 3200 and get excellent results.

Fomapan 100 - Cheap and very cheerful. I usually have one 100' roll on the go for the summer months and bright winter days. I like the traditional look, shoot at box speed.

Rollei retro 400S - for IR photography. I keep a few rolls for occasional forays out with an IR720 filter on a rangefinder camera. But as a backup high speed film this is also good if I somehow don't have any HP5 on me

Ferrania P30 - I have a few rolls for when I think the conditions are right....bright but with some cloud.

Justifications - Tri-X is too expensive. I don't much like the modern Delta/T-MAX films but do shoot them occasionally. Fomapan 200 does get occasional use. Fomapan 400 looks too grainy in many circumstances in 135 format.

For 135 colour I shoot Kodak Color Plus because it's cheap and my favourite colour rendition. It's basically Kodacolor VR from the 90s which was my "go to" film then too. Never liked Gold. For higher speed it's a toss up between Fuji Superia 400 and Kodak Ultramax 400. Usually I have some Lomography 800 around but I haven't been able to buy any for a while. I do occasionally shoot Ektar too as in the right circumstances it is utterly gorgeous.

For medium format I have such a variety of cameras spanning 1899 to circa 1980.

Fomapan 400 - Really works in MF. Grain isn't an issue and I can pull or even push it. I shoot at either 200 or 400 mostly but have pushed to 3200 successfully. I usually manage to find a deal on a brick or two and it comes in much cheaper than Ilford or Kodak products.

Ilford FP4+ when I do want a slower speed film it is a toss up between this and Fomapan 100. But FP4 wins out unless money is tight.

Ilford Delta 3200 - for those dark nights in the jazz club....taking a 30s 6x6 folder to photograph artists playing 30s music.

Colour 120 film is often Lomography Colour Negative film, 400 or 800 as it renders colours and contrast naturally and works well with all my cameras. I do keep a reasonable stash of Ektar too. I do have a hankering for Fuji NPH 400 too, when I can get it cheap.

 

[Neal]

I only use film that is sensitive to light. ;-)

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Have you tried Adox Silvermax? Adox state it's essentially APX 100 with a clear base and slightly more silver.

Sounds more like a Scala revival: http://adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/adox-silvermax/

 

[Henning Serger]

Sounds more like a Scala revival: http://adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/adox-silvermax/

It is. But it is also an APX 100 revival, because the Scala 200X has had the APX 100 emulsion, just with a higher silver content for reversal processing (and coated on a clear base). In a blind test you most probably will not be able to tell the difference from APX 100 and Silvermax prints. My Silvermax prints don't look different from my former APX 100 prints.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Bormental]

It is. But it is also an APX 100 revival, because the Scala 200X has had the APX 100 emulsion, just with a higher silver content for reversal processing (and coated on a clear base). In a blind test you most probably will not be able to tell the difference from APX 100 and Silvermax prints. My Silvermax prints don't look different from my former APX 100 prints.

Henning, does Silvermax require an ADOX developer for optimal results like the CMSII, or I can use Xtol with it? Their marketing materials keep pushing "dedicated SILVERMAX Developer". Thanks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Color Kodak Porta 400, Kodak UltraColor
Black & White Kodak Tri-X 400, Kodak Plus X
Black & White Infrared Rollei IR 400

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My main films are HP5, FP4, and Rollie IR. HP5 gives me slightly more contrast in the shadows. FP4 has lovely highlight separation, and prints great in Carbon. I use Rollie when I want an IR look...and it comes 4x5.

 

[etn]

Henning, does Silvermax require an ADOX developer for optimal results like the CMSII, or I can use Xtol with it? Their marketing materials keep pushing "dedicated SILVERMAX Developer". Thanks.

Indeed it does. Silvermax in dedicated silvermax developer is lovely, has fine grain and plenty of dynamic range. Never tried Xtol therefore I can't comment on how it compares.
This scan does not do the film justice but it can give you an idea. Pity ADOX does not do it in 120...

 

[Bormental]

@etn love your example!

 

[etn]

@etn love your example!

Thank you Sir!
When I see this picture I'm realizing how rough Tri-X looks in comparison (which is exactly the reason I'm using Tri-X in 35mm!!)