New to film photography, I need help in choosing the right film for my needs.

[alabdali]

Photography isn't about finding "the right film" or "the best film"; in fact it would be incredibly tough to find a bad film made by Ilford, Kodak, or Fujifilm.

You do need to understand though that like your old DSLR's ability to mimic a zillion styles, that digital post process allows the same flexibility and that can easily hide the differences between films. I use a pro lab for paid gigs, they don't care what film I shoot Superia or Gold or Portra or FujiPro; as long as I expose well they can make them all match my standing target preferences/style. One would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a print from any of those films after the lab is done. Same is true for B&W prints.

This is very interesting, to know that consumer film would give results similar to those of professional. I've already got some Superia printed. I need to compare that to the PRO 400H I'm waiting to get back.

Mark, I see that you're also located in Colorado, I know that you live pretty far away from Denver, however, any recommendations on a good photo lab? What do you think of Mike's camera? And how would they compare to online services like The Dark Room?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

+1. i keep a black book with my negative binder and write notes every time i develop and print. For color film i highly recommend Kodak's Ektar. it is a relatively new film (reformulated professional film using an old amateur films name) and will be here for decades. its saturated much like how slide film used to be. Skin tones won't be too accurate. If your going for that use Kodak's Portra. For black and white i highly recommend Fujifilm's Acros 100. Fujifilm has discontinued some film recently so that may be a concern. Tmax seems to be a favorite but i hate it.

I'd dispute the assessment of Ektar's color fidelity. Ektar is saturated but accurate; Portra is flattering. Where you see unflattering results with Ektar is when using it for photographing people in what is traditionally described as "portrait light" - in soft, diffused overcast light, Ektar (which is naturally a contrasty film) looks overly contrasty, and because it doesn't have the same warming effect that Portra does, the cold blue from the overcast sky will be very obvious. Portra on the other hand is not as saturated a film as Ektar, and it does have a warming effect on skin tones so even when shot in cool lighting, flesh tones stay pinky warm instead of acquiring a cool blue cast.

 

[alabdali]

i think it might be a fun thing to try every film and every developer that exists, and paper too
but at the end of it all you might realize that if more time was spent using maybe one developer and maybe one film
and maybe 1 paper ( if you print yourself ) or building a relationship with a lab ... you could learn ...
and have a better understanding of it all ...

printing slides ? electronically ( scan + print ) or chemically ?
not many places are able to print slides chemically ...
you might just stick to color negative and it is more forgiving than slides too ..

I understand that sticking with 1 kind of film/developer and getting proficient with it, can benefit your photography. I'm a believer in the "one camera, one lens" theory, and although I don't always abide by it 100% of the time, I've tried it and I've seen it work.
However, the reason I thought I should try all the film out there, is because I thought the differences between them really mattered. I've seen so many people online, longing for discontinued types of film and writing pages about their merits. Why would they feel this way if they're all very similar (not being a smart Alec here but really wondering)???

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[alabdali]

Black & white, street photography, FP4, D76, Multigrade developer, Indicator stop bath, Amfix, RC gloss.

Thank you sir, although I don't understand half of your 1 line comment , I'm taking notes and looking up things online and as I'm doing that, things are making more sense.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[alabdali]

You'll have LOTS of opinions, took me 3 years to weed through the muck... This was my final choice... Forget kodak

Ilford Delta100 in Rodinal developer - day exterior
Ilford HP5+ (400) in Ilfotec DD-X developer - low light/interior, pushes well to 800 and 1600
Fuji Velvia100 - landscapes
Fuji Provia100f - people

Done... Don't mention scanning here but that's probably what you will do after developing them.

Do the B&W yourself, send out the color to Praus in upstate NY or Dwayne's Photo in Kansas.

Buy all chemicals from B&H except Rodinal, buy that from Freestyle photo.

There is your formula...

Google what you don't know

And here is your list to get you started developing at home.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/wl/771A833B26

Thanks a lot for the darkroom list! ... and for the film/fdeveloper list. This will be a great starting point for me..

I have all of the above (a couple of different speeds though).. Never heard of Provia 100f for people, I'm willing to give it a shot though.
I have slide film (In my question I said I have 15 different rolls if film, I counted what I have yesterday and they're more like 25! Looks like I'm gonna be trying everything anyways hahaha..)

How do Prau's and Dwayne's compare to thedarkroom, mpix or North Coast photo lab in your opinion?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[alabdali]

I would do something like this....

Pick a manufacturer, Kodak or Ilford. Try one that is traditional grain and another that is tabular grain.
In Kodak's lineup, that would be Tmax400 and TriX.
In Ilford's lineup, that would be Delta400 and HP5Plus.

Process it in whatever developer you pick. See which one you like better. There are very obvious differences in traditional grain film and tabular grain film. This is not which one is better proposition. This is entirely YOUR preference. Between manufacturers, there aren't that much difference, especially if you are just starting out.

Color, I have no idea.....

I have all the film you mentioned, I was wondering WHY they have two lines of the same speed?! Never read anywhere that the "grain" is different (may be I wasn't looking in the right place), I did read somewhere the term "T shaped" grain, which I believe is the newer TMax, right?
I'll shoot both and see what I like more. Thanks!!!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[alabdali]

Hi Saif and welcome to APUG.

Hi Fotch, thanks! I'm not used to forums and I don't know how it goes elsewhere, but we have a really nice community here!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[alabdali]

+1. i keep a black book with my negative binder and write notes every time i develop and print. For color film i highly recommend Kodak's Ektar. it is a relatively new film (reformulated professional film using an old amateur films name) and will be here for decades. its saturated much like how slide film used to be. Skin tones won't be too accurate. If your going for that use Kodak's Portra. For black and white i highly recommend Fujifilm's Acros 100. Fujifilm has discontinued some film recently so that may be a concern. Tmax seems to be a favorite but i hate it.

Would you use an 81A with Ektar? I just shot a whole roll with one... I'm thinking I should've taken the filter off to see how it looks without it.. Duh!
I don't know the Acros. Could it be already discontinued ? because I don't remember seeing it when I had my "film shopping spree" last month.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

I understand that sticking with 1 kind of film/developer and getting proficient with it, can benefit your photography. I'm a believer in the "one camera, one lens" theory, and although I don't always abide by it 100% of the time, I've tried it and I've seen it work.
However, the reason I thought I should try all the film out there, is because I thought the differences between them really mattered. I've seen so many people online, longing for discontinued types of film and writing pages about their merits. Why would they feel this way if they're all very similar (not being a smart Alec here but really wondering)???

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

naah

you aren't and they aren't being smart alec-ee
usually people whine and long for films they can't buy . well because they can't buy them
i think what happens is that people get used to working a certain
way with xyz film zxy developer &c you know ... in the zone
and for the most part changing your whole way of working, can be a real drag.
for some more than others.

in the end, its all personal preference ...
(you will hear lovely praise for stuff, and turn around and hear people saying how bad it is ,, )
good luck with your quest, and let us know if YOU think they are similar or different.

btw
welcome to apug!
john

 

[alabdali]

I'd dispute the assessment of Ektar's color fidelity. Ektar is saturated but accurate; Portra is flattering. Where you see unflattering results with Ektar is when using it for photographing people in what is traditionally described as "portrait light" - in soft, diffused overcast light, Ektar (which is naturally a contrasty film) looks overly contrasty, and because it doesn't have the same warming effect that Portra does, the cold blue from the overcast sky will be very obvious. Portra on the other hand is not as saturated a film as Ektar, and it does have a warming effect on skin tones so even when shot in cool lighting, flesh tones stay pinky warm instead of acquiring a cool blue cast.

I shot some graduation photos in daylight with Ektar (because I had some left on a roll I used while hiking) .. I'm waiting to see the results.

This leads me to another question, how do you overcome this dilemma? I put a roll of Ektar for a hiking trip, I didn't finish it. Then, I went to a friend's graduation, there was still some Ektar left but I wanted to use Fuji Pro 400h, I had to use up the Ektar, then load the new film.
What do you do? Is this where you need a second body?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG!
Films do differ, but the differences between similar ISO films are fairly subtle, and are likely to be subsumed in the differences between scanning equipment, techniques and operators.
If you spend your time and money now trying all the choices, you will just delay your becoming experienced enough to be able to understand the differences.
I would suggest picking one or two fairly different options, and become good at using those choices. Then you will be able to appreciate the differences of the others, including the fact that there are more similarities than differences. If you start doing darkroom printing the differences may be a bit more obvious, but in most cases they will be more like "distinctions without a difference".
I greatly miss a couple of films, but I know I can make the films that remain or have been recently introduced behave in ways that will make them excellent replacements.
And actually using ilms is way more fun than trying and testing them.
I'll give you a couple of suggestions - personal preferences actually.
For Black and White, Kodak TMax 400 and Ilford FP4+. This will give you great quality results, and quite a good variety.
For colour negative, Ektar 100 and Portra 400 - same quality variety.
For colour slides - don't shoot them unless you are planning to project them. If you are planning o project them, you will need advice from those who shoot Fuji, because I have a reasonable amount of Ektachrome left, and I won't shoot anything else.

 

[John51]

Hi Saif, I'm in a similar situation to you, starting over after a 30 year gap. I financed my hobby doing B&W walkie snaps on Friday and Saturday nights then working like crazy to get anywhere from 60 to 120 3.5x5 prints done before the dawn light came through the thin kitchen curtains. lol

Think hard about how many types of B&W films you want to use. I've done a bit of homework and it seems to go something like: Roll 1) Multiple greyscale exposures to establish correct exposure for shadows, Zone I. Then, having established minimum enlarger time for maximum black on print, experiment with rolls 2) 3) and maybe 4) to get the correct development time to give correct print exposure for Zone VIII.

That's 3 or 4 rolls of film and some careful effort for ONE combination of film/developer/paper before you should be taking 'serious' photographs. fwir, best developer for MG VC paper is whatever is cheapest/most convenient to you as they all come out the same.

What I've just ordered is:

6 rolls of CMS plus the recommended developer, I've got an itch to try it and the itch must be scratched.

10 rolls of Pan F, I want to get ok at shooting landscapes with slow speed film.

10 rolls of Agfa 100, purely because I really liked some shots I saw done with it it.

10 rolls of FP4. Used to be my only B&W film, can do almost anything with it after a bit of tweaking. Using Ilford FF developer I was getting Grade 3 from 20 year old MoD paper that was Grade 00 start with.

I'll have a rethink after testing them all.

For the social stuff, I got colour film. Take snaps, get them processed, no hassle.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks a lot for the darkroom list! ... and for the film/fdeveloper list. This will be a great starting point for me..

I have all of the above (a couple of different speeds though).. Never heard of Provia 100f for people, I'm willing to give it a shot though.
I have slide film (In my question I said I have 15 different rolls if film, I counted what I have yesterday and they're more like 25! Looks like I'm gonna be trying everything anyways hahaha..)

How do Prau's and Dwayne's compare to thedarkroom, mpix or North Coast photo lab in your opinion?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Your head is going to be spinning haha

Use what you have now first before you buy more.

Each of the major B&W producers have old lines that people were used to, they didn't want to get rid of the most popular lines and came out with new product but some people don't want the new (improved) they want what they are used to... So...some old lines got cut but some still longer because of popularity or because the LESS fine grained films tend to be more FLEXIBLE in other ways like how they handle light, push development, etc. And the new stuff had a different type of grain which gives "sharper" results, but that doesn't mean better.

Kodak

Tri-X(400TX) old
Tmax400 (TMY-2) new

Tmax100 (TMX) new

Ilford

HP5+ (400) old
Delta400 (D400) new

FP4+ (125) old
Delta100 (D100) new

Delta3200 pro (D3200) new

Fuji

Neopan Acros100 (Acros100) new



Those are only the CURRENTLY made films... There are more by ilford that I'm not going to bother listing (like semi-infra-red based, or C-41 process instead of B&W, etc).

Praus does larger films like 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film, is a real person, is a real lab technician. His 35mm slides I believe are plastic.

Dwayne's is a larger facility, many of the people aren't technicians, Dwayne doesn't answer the phone personally... It's just bigger in terms if a business. They use the old fashioned paper slides which I personally like when I choose to get slides done. They aren't as flexible with special requests (like I ask for all my 35mm film canisters back with the last frame tab out, and the roll can un-broken because I re-roll the film. Dwayne's won't (and can't actually as they use a machine to open the cans and don't do it by hand).

Chemistry wise they are both excellent at their job.

Don't have scans done by Dwayne's they are horrible...

But if you send them scans of your own to make prints they are very good at the printing side...

I don't know about Praus I never asked him to scan. I always just scan for myself.

Welcome to insanity...

I don't know about the other labs, they are bigger, and I think mpix doesn't do chemical prints, only ink jet prints, but Dwayne's uses a chemical process called lightjet (or lambda or some other names but if you say lightjet people will know what you mean).

 

[ntenny]

Choose one film, any film, and write down notes every time you press the release or are processing a roll. It's [photography] is just like music. Here in New York City some of the best drummers play on 5 gallon paint drums.

And you know, I bet somewhere out there, there's a forum in which those guys argue about whether Behr or Sherwin-Williams makes a better starter drum!

I agree, though---just pick *something* and go with it for a while. For color, you probably will see differences between the "pro" (Ektar, Portra) and "consumer" (Kodak Gold, Superia) films, but they won't make the difference between a good photo and a bad photo; you do that, not the tools. You could do worse than to just buy up a few packs of Superia 200 at the drugstore and burn through that while finding your feet.

Black and white is a *very* different experience depending on whether you develop your own (it really is easy) or have it commercially developed. I'm one of those people for whom the darkroom work is the fun part, and that's where you really start to see functional differences between films. Shooting at box speed, for commercial development and small prints, the differences will be pretty insignificant.

-NT

 

[wblynch]

... I've seen so many people online, longing for discontinued types of film and writing pages about their merits. Why would they feel this way if they're all very similar (not being a smart Alec here but really wondering)???

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single

And brought them all together for one night

I know they'd never match my sweet imagination

And everything looks worse in Black And White

-P.Simon

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I shot some graduation photos in daylight with Ektar (because I had some left on a roll I used while hiking) .. I'm waiting to see the results.

This leads me to another question, how do you overcome this dilemma? I put a roll of Ektar for a hiking trip, I didn't finish it. Then, I went to a friend's graduation, there was still some Ektar left but I wanted to use Fuji Pro 400h, I had to use up the Ektar, then load the new film.
What do you do? Is this where you need a second body?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

It all depends on how much of a roll you have left. A second body is never a BAD idea, but for a variety of reasons it may not be practical at any given time. If you've only got a dozen or less frames left on a roll of 36, just go ahead and rewind it, and swap out the film. Film isn't as cheap as it used to be, but it's still cheap. If the film you have loaded is inappropriate for what you're shooting, don't be penny-wise and pound foolish by using the wrong film to shoot a bunch of photos that will have problems just because you don't want to waste a half-dozen frames.

 

[StoneNYC]

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single

And brought them all together for one night

I know they'd never match my sweet imagination

And everything looks worse in Black And White

-P.Simon

Oh God!!!! Noooo don't start that here! The poor OP!!! Haha

Good song though

 

[removed account4]

I have all the film you mentioned, I was wondering WHY they have two lines of the same speed?! Never read anywhere that the "grain" is different (may be I wasn't looking in the right place), I did read somewhere the term "T shaped" grain, which I believe is the newer TMax, right?
I'll shoot both and see what I like more. Thanks!!!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

it is mainly the names of the films that are old they have been changing and improving the film since the emulsions were formulated.
for example tri x is not the same now as it was 60 years ago, but the name is the same,. the tabular grained films ( or delta )
were developed in the mid 1980s ... and they have also evolved. the tabular/delta grained films are "finer grain and higher resolution"
some say they are less forgiving/more finicky than traditional emulsions .. it all depends how you use it i suppose.

the best thing to do is not to believe the hype about most of this stuff .. one person may use the same film and process it in the same exact developer
as you ( or your lab ) and the results will be completely different.
you might consider bracketing your exposures to ensure you get the best negative/chrome you can.

have fun
john

 

[markbarendt]

This is very interesting, to know that consumer film would give results similar to those of professional. I've already got some Superia printed. I need to compare that to the PRO 400H I'm waiting to get back.

Mark, I see that you're also located in Colorado, I know that you live pretty far away from Denver, however, any recommendations on a good photo lab? What do you think of Mike's camera? And how would they compare to online services like The Dark Room?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I actually use Richard Photo Lab in Los Angeles.

I'm not saying there are no differences between the films, I'm saying that the differences are easy to bury on the digital side.

 

[Roger Cole]

It all depends on how much of a roll you have left. A second body is never a BAD idea, but for a variety of reasons it may not be practical at any given time. If you've only got a dozen or less frames left on a roll of 36, just go ahead and rewind it, and swap out the film. Film isn't as cheap as it used to be, but it's still cheap. If the film you have loaded is inappropriate for what you're shooting, don't be penny-wise and pound foolish by using the wrong film to shoot a bunch of photos that will have problems just because you don't want to waste a half-dozen frames.

You can also, with cameras that have manual rewind anyway, remove the roll and replace it later. I make a note of the next exposure, then rewind the roll being careful not to wind the leader back into the film cartridge but leave a bit of leader still exposed. Later, I put the film back in, exposing the same amount of leader each time (there is always plenty so this isn't really a problem) and with the lens cap on and a high shutter speed click off all the shots I've already taken plus one for a safe margin. This is easier to do than explain and loses one frame instead of the rest of the roll.

I'm sure someone will object on the basis of the extra two passes through the felt or something but I've never lost any images this way.

In black and white you can also, once you settle on one or two films, bulk load if you like and load shorter rolls.

The ultimate answer to this problem is medium format where you not only get fewer shots per roll but often interchangeable film backs as well.

 

[wblynch]

Oh God!!!! Noooo don't start that here! The poor OP!!! Haha

Good song though

Understand the meaning... the reality of the past is not as good as we remember it

Of course Simon's lyrics were always deeper than most peoples' capability to comprehend. That song was not about a film at all.

 

[StoneNYC]

Understand the meaning... the reality of the past is not as good as we remember it

Of course Simon's lyrics were always deeper than most peoples' capability to comprehend. That song was not about a film at all.

I read somewhere that he wrote the song with no meaning at all except he got laid by a girl in the darkroom once... And now he's getting married and life is over... That and if he used the word Nikon in the song he would get a free camera from them haha

I believe he had a lot of meaning in his songs, but it's fun to hear the other stories too...

 

[ntenny]

Was it after the legal kerfuffle that Simon started singing "everything looks *better* in black and white"?

It is a good piece of songwriting. Unfortunately it's a tremendous earworm for me; _There Goes Rhymin' Simon_ spent a lot of time on my parents' turntable when I was a little kid, and I think some of those songs are burned into my neural wiring as a result. Thanks to this thread, I'm going to have it caught in my head for the next few weeks. Pbbbttthhh!!1!

-NT

 

[wblynch]

Unfortunately it's a tremendous earworm for me; ... Thanks to this thread, I'm going to have it caught in my head for the next few weeks. Pbbbttthhh!!1!
-NT

The only cure for an earworm is to replace it..

"It's a Small World After All...."

 

[alabdali]

The only cure for an earworm is to replace it..

"It's a Small World After All...."

Ah... It's a small world after all!.. I like this one!