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

[tkamiya]

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

T is not a shape..... it stands for Tabular, which is a shape. But NEVER MIND THAT....!

Each manufacturers have both because they tend to look different. Some people like one over the other. Similar to why car makers have different models of same size cars. As you already saw yourself, they are not THAT different. So it brings back to the worthiness of your original question - why stress over it....

Traditional grain film look more like what film always looked. It has more pronounced grain and it tends to look "classic" but it has been updated so it's not the same stuff we had decades ago.

T-grain stuff, on the other hand tends to look very smooth with almost no grain. To ME, it looks plasticity but that's my personal opinion.

For some subjects, I like one better than the other, but I like them both. I have them both. It's not that obvious if you are scanning them with home scanners but if you print them in darkroom, they can be rather obvious. Again, if you are new to this, you may not be able to tell. If you are printing rather small, it's not that obvious, either.

"Which film" is one of the most contentious and never-ending topic on APUG. There's never an agreement. You just have to pick a few and go with it.

I picked mine based on availability and speed. I only use ISO 400 films unless I have a particular reason to use anything else.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

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

Here's the story...
Of a lovely lady...
Who was bringing up three very lovely girls....

[ducking and running for cover...]

 

[StoneNYC]

You better run!!!

 

[ntenny]

You want a REAL industrial-strength earworm? Go find yourself the text of "The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner". There are copies online---you shouldn't have any trouble.

Got it? Good. Now, please take a good look at those opening lines, and notice...

...that they can be sung to the tune of the Gilligan's Island theme.

If Samuel Taylor Coleridge were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave!

Wow, we're off-topic.

-NT

 

[Roger Cole]

Hum. Now and then I'm actually glad that, as I often say, "I am not a musician in the same sense that a fish is not a bicyclist." I can't get those words to "work" with what I can summon of that tune. But I'm pretty tune deaf in a way and realize that I'm actually very verbal and rely on the lyrics to keep/remember the tune. So unless I heard someone else sing it that way, I can't seem to imagine it.

And that, I'm sure, is a very good thing.

Now, maybe we should re-write Kodachrome to be about Tri-X? Sigh.
^^Obligatory photo related line

 

[Truzi]

My problem is, now I can't not imagine it.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Welcome to Apug: where threads only stay on topic for 2 pages at most...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hum. Now and then I'm actually glad that, as I often say, "I am not a musician in the same sense that a fish is not a bicyclist." I can't get those words to "work" with what I can summon of that tune. But I'm pretty tune deaf in a way and realize that I'm actually very verbal and rely on the lyrics to keep/remember the tune. So unless I heard someone else sing it that way, I can't seem to imagine it.

And that, I'm sure, is a very good thing.

Now, maybe we should re-write Kodachrome to be about Tri-X? Sigh.
^^Obligatory photo related line

I guess then you'd describe yourself as being rather a-tunal?
(ducks and runs on the double-quick)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another earworm to replace Gilligan's Island:



I've come to wish you an unhappy birthday
I've come to wish you an unhappy birthday
Because you're evil
And you lie
And if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(but I won't cry)

 

[alabdali]

Thank you gentlemen for this great discussion! It's been very informative for a beginner like myself.
After spending sometime on APUG and examining many photos online, I got my mind set on a very short list of film now. I'll keep using some the film I have (as I'm planning to return others) and might revive this thread later by uploading some images if I have more questions, and I most likely will have many!

Regards,
Saif.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you gentlemen for this great discussion! It's been very informative for a beginner like myself.
After spending sometime on APUG and examining many photos online, I got my mind set on a very short list of film now. I'll keep using some the film I have (as I'm planning to return others) and might revive this thread later by uploading some images if I have more questions, and I most likely will have many!

Regards,
Saif.

Good luck returning film - most won't accept returns because it can be damaged by heat and moisture. Think of it like it was fresh produce .

But be sure to have fun, and feel free to share your results, and ask away.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My advice to you would be once you have found a film that you like, use it and only it for a very very very long time so that you know everything about it and how it responds to different situations and you can look at a scene and see it rendered by your chosen film's characteristics and tones in your head and how it responds to reciprocity and have that data memorized and when you feel that you are ready, change your developer and then it's a whole new ballgame... repeat above..... exhale.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...then move up to large format...

 

[ntenny]

I think *only* one film for a long time is a little unrealistic---maybe one fast, one slow, and one color. There's value in consistency, but there's also no point in trying to maltreat a film to make it work in mismatched conditions.

"Move up to large format" is inevitable, of course.

-NT

 

[Black Dog]

Kimye it!

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

Hello and welcome to APUGland from me too!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think *only* one film for a long time is a little unrealistic---maybe one fast, one slow, and one color. There's value in consistency, but there's also no point in trying to maltreat a film to make it work in mismatched conditions.

"Move up to large format" is inevitable, of course.

Well, one out of two ain't bad

 

[Black Dog]

As Meatloaf said!

 

[StoneNYC]

As Meatloaf said!

That's 2 out of 3...

 

[jonasfj]

Hi,

There seems to be a lot of different opinions, which is fun. I agree with the principle to use as few films as possible, to learn their characteristics, and to focus on shooting pictures. However, I personally like to have the option of b/w (which I develop myself) and color.

Then, at least 2 film speed will help. ISO 100 with a yellow filter on an overcast day or indoors may cause some not so sharp pictures, while a sunny day might not be ideal at ISO 400 or 800.

Thus, 2x2 gives 4.

Thus, I'm sticking with my recommendation of with FP4+, Tri-X, Ektar and Portra.

Have fun!

Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk

 

[jonasfj]

I regret that I wrote 'recommendation' in my previous post. I should have said that I would like to share my preference!

Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Hello everyone,

I'm a new member and this is my first post.
I'd like to say thank you to the people behind this forum and also to the contributing members who keep it alive as a great resource for film photography.

Quick background, I have used a film camera for years as a teenager who didn't know anything about photography except for advancing the film and releasing the shutter (produced beautiful exposures though ), I then purchased a digital camera in 2006 and continued learning new things about photography.
In 2010, I started taking photography more seriously and while my skills, knowledge and outcomes have improved since then, the feeling that digital imaging was not for me grew stronger.
After a lot of research and self search I decided to revert to film photography. I sold my full frame digital SLR and purchased 2 Nikon manual focus, semi-mechanical bodies, 2 lenses (a 50 and a 35) and approximately 15 rolls of different types, speeds and brands of film.

My photography habits are as follows:
1. 50% daily life (including a lot of portraiture) , family and friends especially children and events ( birthdays, graduations etc. ), indoors and outside.
2. 25% landscape.
3. 25% Miscellaneous: Macro, Street, Night.

I have the following approach in mind; to buy and try every 35mm film out there (partially because of an inner fear that some of them will be discontinued someday and I'll never know how it was like to shoot with that film, like Ektachrome for example) , develop it (not personally due to current time restraints), get it scanned (using a an online service like thedarkroom.com), get 4x6 prints and compare the results. Then, choose some favorites and stick with them.
While I understand that it's gonna cost a small fortune, I'd like to know what do you think of this idea.

My heart is split between color and b&w as I like them both, I understand that this wouldn't help answering my question.
Also, if printing my work is my desired outcome, is shooting Slides still make sense?

I appreciate your thoughts and input in advance.

Thanks,
Saif.

Hello Saif

Congatulations on a great decision!

Because you are not going to develop or scan the film yourself, you should choose films that scan really well and do not need special developing routines etc.

Some films will produce good results only if you are very particular about developing and scanning and because that will be outside of your control you should avoid them. Tri-X is unfortunately one of these. Unless you have a good work flow the scans will look like mud. Ektar is a great film but I have had horrible labs scans. Only after using very good scanning and processing software myself did I unlock this film's magical colours.

In my experience Kodak Portra and T-MAX look good from most lab scans. They also should cover all of your needs.

So, start with Portra 160 + 400 and T-MAX 100 + 400 to get used to the film medium again. If after a while you find that they are lacking. Look for alternative films that have what you seek. But this is unlikely.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hi,

There seems to be a lot of different opinions, which is fun. I agree with the principle to use as few films as possible, to learn their characteristics, and to focus on shooting pictures. However, I personally like to have the option of b/w (which I develop myself) and color.

Then, at least 2 film speed will help. ISO 100 with a yellow filter on an overcast day or indoors may cause some not so sharp pictures, while a sunny day might not be ideal at ISO 400 or 800.

Thus, 2x2 gives 4.

Thus, I'm sticking with my recommendation of with FP4+, Tri-X, Ektar and Portra.

Have fun!

Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk

I agree both in in principle (limiting the number of films, but not necessarily to just one, as different light and subjects call for different films) and the particular recommendations.

I use these myself as my primary films for 35mm and MF. I do dabble with others (most especially a fair amount of D3200 in 120) and shoot slide film for projection but for specifically black and white and color negatives to cover most needs, these are perfect.

In my experience there isn't enough difference between the Portras to even consider them different films, though I know some disagree. Just pick the speed you need for the light. If you have to standardize on one, Portra 400 can be shot at 800, looks great at 200, and is fine enough grained for most anybody.

 

[pdjr1991]

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

I do not use filters. But i also have not shot black and white for a couple years. I would especially not use them with color film unless im trying to get a certain effect. They will alter the color. Fuji's acros is still available.

 

[pdjr1991]

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 am exaggerating a bit. I like ektars extra saturation. I can tell the difference between that and portra a mile away.

 

[Roger Cole]

I do not use filters. But i also have not shot black and white for a couple years. I would especially not use them with color film unless im trying to get a certain effect. They will alter the color. Fuji's acros is still available.

Precisely why you SHOULD use filters with color film. Ektar gets complaints for looking blue in open shade for example. Well open shade light IS blue. Ektar is just more accurate about it than, say, Portra which is optimized to look more pleasing, particularly for flesh tones, than it is for accuracy. Same with slide film.

With black and white I almost always use a filter outdoors, most often a fairly mild yellow one. The main time I don't is for dim available light.