Suggest a film?

[mtnbkr]

About a hundred recommendations for Portra 400 -- doesn't anyone use Superia Xtra 400? IMO, it's the best 400 speed color print film going. Fuji added a fourth color layer back in the 1990s, which makes the film handle phosphor-based light (like fluorescent or LED) better than common 3-layer color films. It's also cheaper than Portra, and generally available over the counter in non-specialist sources like drug stores, Walmart, Costco (as Kirkland Signature), etc. Same C-41 process, so nothing special need be done in handling.

For color I suggest, Fuji Superia X-Tra 400
It is a fantastic film and is available in 3-packs at WalMart for a very reasonable price.

(skip the Portra. It is wayy too expensive and really, nothing special)

Another vote for Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 depending on how your lens renders. I didn't like it in the early 2000s with my newer film cameras, but I love it in my "new to me" Canon VT rangefinder with vintage lenses. The price and local availability is just icing on the cake. I can get 3x36exp packs for $18.xx at Walmart.

Chris

 

[abruzzi]

Since Fuji killed 400H (which would have been my first recommendation) yeah Superia would probably be my next color negative file to shoot. I do like Ektar, but it seems to have a narrower range of usefulness. But really, I'd say get some Ektachrome E100. If you're not going to do darkroom printing, and can deal with less dynamic range, it is a gorgeous film.

 

[tballphoto]

I'd recommend trying daylight balanced Vision3 if you can cope with the processing requirements and RA-4 prints aren't a high priority. In C-41, I generally get better self-processed negatives from Fuji's consumer films (Superia) than Kodak's (ProImage, Gold, Ultramax) but still shoot both and YMMV. Fuji has essentially left the market of professional CN films, so the choices that remain are the saturation of Ektar or the pastel of Portra.

AFAIK Lomo and Cinestill are the only other entities offering color film at the moment. The new batch of Metropolis seems much improved and might be interesting to compare alongside some other stocks.

Throw in a roll of slide film. Provia seems to have been making it's way back into stores in the US as of late.

lomo and FPP are just cutting repackaging the same base film that is being packaged under the Kodak Alaris logo. Cinestill has always done a cut and repack of what film they can find on the open market.

FPP DOES make a big habit of searching the world for large lots, think shipping container, of outdated and unwanted film stock to rebadge. Last 5 years is the worst.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Cinestill has always done a cut and repack of what film they can find on the open market.

Cinestill for some time has been buying direct from Kodak's cine division in large enough quantity to get the film coated without remjet and even cut in 120 width for toll confectioning. That's how they get it without remjet, but without damaging the emulsion.

 

[removed account4]

hi GKC

might just pickup any film, no matter what people say, its just film.
just make sure if you aren't developing it yourself you have a lab that can process it for you

 

[tballphoto]

T

Cinestill for some time has been buying direct from Kodak's cine division in large enough quantity to get the film coated without remjet and even cut in 120 width for toll confectioning. That's how they get it without remjet, but without damaging the emulsion.[/QUOTE


thats interesting, i know they get from the same source, but i have seen snips of their own advertising for some films over the last few years saying how they are re rolling it themselves from what they get commercially

have seen FPP bragging about how they can remove remjet on their own

 

[Huss]

Kind of amazing that this is a photography site, a site about IMAGES, and yet no-one else posts images taken with the films they recommend.
Howzabout showing the OP why you are recommending that film? As in examples of images?
I just don't get this place sometimes.

Anyway, I also like Kodak ProImage 100, use it for fun, am very happy with it but don't recommend it over Fuji C200 purely because I like Fuji C200 just as much, and it is a bit cheaper.

Images taken with ProImage 100:

 

[MonoChrome Freak]

I would suggest something a bit different. For color a would go with Velvia50 or E100.

Black and white I've been really enjoying the Kino line from Lomography especially the Fantôme 8 or the Babylon 13. As long as it's developed in D96.

I would recommend trying some slow film, it's a bit more challenging but well worth it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Howzabout showing the OP why you are recommending that film? As in examples of images?

Good suggestion. Weekdays, I post from work, and don't have access to my scanned images except those in the gallery. Tonight, I'm at my home computer.

Superia Xtra 400 does an excellent job of recording correctable colors under fluorescent light -- most other films will get a green cast that I find hard to correct out.

it also has all the resolution I could ask from a 35 mm film (never mind a consumer priced one), and handles variations of light well, from barely any:



To sunset:



To direct summer mid-day sun.



All of these were from the same roll of Superia Xtra 400, shot in my Welta Weltini (50 mm f/2.0 Xenon, uncoated), hand held and Sunny 16 exposure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good suggestion. Weekdays, I post from work, and don't have access to my scanned images except those in the gallery. Tonight, I'm at my home computer.

Superia Xtra 400 does an excellent job of recording correctable colors under fluorescent light -- most other films will get a green cast that I find hard to correct out.

View attachment 291559

it also has all the resolution I could ask from a 35 mm film (never mind a consumer priced one), and handles variations of light well, from barely any:

View attachment 291561

To sunset:

View attachment 291560

To direct summer mid-day sun.

View attachment 291562

All of these were from the same roll of Superia Xtra 400, shot in my Welta Weltini (50 mm f/2.0 Xenon, uncoated), hand held and Sunny 16 exposure.

The Fuji print films I found are well balanced for florescent lights. But since I rare photograph under artificial light, I do not tend to use Fuji films.

 

[Huss]

Fuji C200

 

[eli griggs]

B&W, Tri-x or better yet, Ilford HP5+ as Ilford actually continues to invest in B&W film for our interest.

Colour, Portra NC, any speed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Can't go wrong with FP4+

https://flic.kr/p/2ke35zp

+1

 

[Wallendo]

The best bang for the buck is Fuji C200. I wish Superia was still widely available.

The best film for color is Kodak E100 or Fuji Provia.

Ektar can produce great images, but I find it finicky. Portra is a little too pastel for my taste.

on the other hand, if you are using a hybrid process, you can adjust almost any color film to get the look you want.

Despite everything I have written above, Velvia 50 is my favorite color film.

 

[Huss]

T.. if you are using a hybrid process, you can adjust almost any color film to get the look you want..

Exactly.

 

[throneking]

i have been using fujicolor superia xtra 400 for over one year on my 35mm camera and i like it a lot. it is my standard wedding film. it does not push well but if you nail the exposure, it is quite good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not Kodachrome -- can't get it developed properly.

 

[removed account4]

TBH I am amazed by the quality of modern films. It's almost like "which film to use?" is a wrong question to ask, they are all great. Instead, I think it's easier to list films to avoid, or at least save them for later.

• Kodak Ultramax 400. This is where Kodak's warmth doesn't work. Supposedly it's a faster version of Gold, but nothing looks gold on it, everything looks rusty. Also, compared to other ISO 400 CN films, this one produces more crushed shadows for me on the same equipment. Perhaps it's not a true ISO 400 film. The grain is also unpleasant. Basically, there's no reason to purchase this over Superia Extra 400.
• Everything that's not Kodak or Fuji.
• All transparency films, unless you actually have a projector and intend to use it. If scanning is your workflow, I see no reason to shoot transparencies. They're more expensive but don't improve on print film in any way. TBH what I see shared online often looks much worse, it's like shooting a digital camera from 1999.

some people would rather scan transparencies than negatives
even b/w transparencies. there used to be someone who was very active here
from Scotland who regularly shipped his film to DR5Chrome to have it all
converted to transparency to do what he wanted to do.
regarding everything that's not fuji or kodak ? does it really matter? im sure
LOMOgrapic's color and black and white films do as they are supposed to do,
just like ferrantia, records light directed on it, can be processed and printed &c. ...

 

[removed account4]

@jantz "but some people prefer scanning slides or overpay for lomo" - no doubt, this is always the case. My comment only reflects my preferences, no need to argue, I think it's self-evident that other folks will share their preferences and the OP will see the full spectrum.

weird. not sure how making a statement like everyone else did came off as arguing oh well. ..
I didn't see the comment about overpaying for film, seems to be UNDERPAYING for lomo film seeing the stuff is pretty inexpensive as films go definitely not the $46 for a roll of FRESH kodak color plus.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

some people would rather scan transparencies than negatives
even b/w transparencies. there used to be someone who was very active here
from Scotland who regularly shipped his film to DR5Chrome to have it all
converted to transparency to do what he wanted to do.
regarding everything that's not fuji or kodak ? does it really matter? im sure
LOMOgrapic's color and black and white films do as they are supposed to do,
just like ferrantia, records light directed on it, can be processed and printed &c. ...

I like transparencies because you know just looking at the film whether you got the exposure right. Not so with negative color film. Plus, it's easier to get the colors right when scanning. Velvia 50 color palette is the best.

 

[Paul Howell]

If your scanning grain is most important, colors do not really matter, with plug ins you can easily mimic the look of any film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like transparencies because you know just looking at the film whether you got the exposure right. Not so with negative color film. Plus, it's easier to get the colors right when scanning. Velvia 50 color palette is the best.

Actually it is easier to get the exposure in a printable [acceptable] range on color negative film. Slide film exposure must be within 0.5 f/stop. What I like about slide film, except for remounting if one wants to crop or mount in glass, the slide is the finished photograph. I shot slides for 30 years.

 

[removed account4]

I like transparencies because you know just looking at the film whether you got the exposure right. Not so with negative color film. Plus, it's easier to get the colors right when scanning. Velvia 50 color palette is the best.

EXACTLY ! . probably the 2nd part of your post is why Gavin had all his DR5 done. .. his scans and prints were absolutely stunning! I have to admit though im from the other side of the street, I'd rather NOT look at a perfect finished image, but instead have something that I can intervene and fiddle around with myself ..

 

[Huss]

Rollei QZ35, Fuji C200

 

[wtburton]

I've been out of 35mm for quite a while and recently thought about unleashing my F2 on the world.
I've no film for it though so I thought about asking here,
For B&W I've always liked Tmax 400 and FP-4+, but for color film there seems to be some new emulsions on the market and the one that's got my interest is Ektar 100.
But I'm open to anything, so any recommendations?
This will be for daylight, landscapes, rusty stuff and old buildings.

Ektachrome 100 is really nice, I would use a slight purple filter. That stuff is exorbitantly priced though. I thought it was a racket when I bought a roll for $15 (2019 bills) now its $20 (2021 bills) Thats $3 less than what I paid for a lot of 5 24exp rolls of Polaroid Presentation Chrome (idk what rebranded ektachrome it is, probably elite?) Anyways, I shot it for my birthday and got exactly what I deserved for 15 dollars.

Kodak Max 400 is great for museums. Of course I develop in M80 so your colors wont be as vibrant, but I guess c41 users get what they sew.


those are really the only new films I have shot. I suggest anything ever produced by kodak other than low speed ektachromes (weird color balance + sometimes dont come out at all). Also stay away from fuji if possible, fujifilm is fragile and fogs to crap after 30 years. Seriously, ive had 1952 film with less fog than 1990 fujicolor. Not to mention it dissolves with anything higher than 50g carbonate at 500ml.

In conclusion: buy kodak color film and you will be fine. Let fuji go bankrupt for making crappy film that cost more.