What are the characteristics of various films?

[gregmacc]

Is there a web site, article or forum thread that discusses what the various popular films "look" like? ... Has anyone ever tried to describe the characteristics in general terms? What films are popular for portraits, architecture, landscapes ... and why? (obviously final print results will be determined by other things as well such as film development, choice of paper and printing technique) ...
Cheers

 

[Craig Swensson]

hi greg, have a good read on the link below as a starter. regards

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/index.html

 

[gregmacc]

Thanks pakeha ... I've had this site bookmarked for ages but forgot all about it. I presume you are referring to their "materials" page ... very useful.
Cheers

 

[Craig Swensson]

hi Greg, i was thinking of the photo school page, then , list of modules, then choosing film - this may be the same as you referred to, regards

 

[vic vic]

photo-smith on photo-utopia
a very good place to start with:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/12/film-tests.html

 

[df cardwell]

Any film is capable of a wide range of 'looks',
depending on how it is exposed, developed and printed.
There is no single 'look' of a film.

Using different developers with different films, a capable and imaginative photographer can create almost any 'signature', and the choice of paper and developer (and technique) can multiply the imaging potential of any negative by simply changing the print developer.

There are countless 'film guides' reprinted all over the web, and in old magazines, but they are more often incorrect and only serve to perpetuate 50 year old errors. Many 'test sites' are no more than a first impression of a film, and don't begin to get to the truth of a film. I think you're probably safer to select a film by the color of its box.

Begin at the manufacturer's websites. Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji give excellent information about their films. Look at the curves they publish, and compare them one to another. If you don't know what the curves tell you, then you might as well pick a film at random and shoot it for 5 years with one developer until you know how to make it do everything you need to do. By THEN, you'll have enough experience to know what the curves mean.

AS FOR whether one film is good for a portrait or landscape or architecture, the answer is simply that it is all up to you. If you have a clear vision, and have created the correct technique, then you can get the results you want with almost anything.

.

 

[tkamiya]

I am a newbie and I am still struggling, so please take what I am about to say with huge grains of salt. Please also note, I am not even comparing same format film.

While I don't disagree with what everybody else so far has said, as a newbie returning to film after many decades, I had to start somewhere. For this reason, I just picked two film and started playing. One is Tmax400 for 135 and the other is Tri-X400 for 120.

I struggled with Tmax for it kept giving me very hard, high-contrast look. I hated it for a while. That is, until I started managing my tempearture very carefully using water bath and precise control. Then, It gave me good contrast, very clean, smooth look. Grain is so small, I forget this is ISO 400 film.

I use Tri-X 400 for medium format. This is a very forgiving film. First time developing without water bath, it gave me the look I wanted. Very traditional B&W looking result - if that means anything to you. Somewhat grainy and I use it for this purpose sometimes. Contrast isn't as high as Tmax. Nice soft to neutral look.

I'm sure a lot of these parameters can be controlled but as a starting point newbie, using published figures, this is what I got. What I took out of my experience so far is, Tmax is rewarding but needs careful processing, and I can be sloppy with Tri-X but has more grain.

My point in posting this is not to contradict with folks with experience. I just wanted to share my newbie impression and hope it will help another newbie just starting out. I hope to get to a point where chart will be useful and can manipulate result at will.

 

[Aurum]

Your observations are as valid as anyone elses!

As a general rule....

Modern T-grain type fils will tend to a higher contrast harder look (Your T-maxes, Deltas and the like) I actually like this look, but.....

Traditional films (Tri-X, FP4, HP5, Adox etc etc) will give a traditional softer, possibly grainier look)

C41 chromagenics (XP2, BW400CN, Acros 400CN) give a soft, smooth effect a bit like traditional films, but without distinct grain, as the negative is composed of dye clouds rather than grain.

But all the above are just general, and you can tweak and alter the appearance by judicious selection of developer

(Stands back and waits for flames)

 

[Ian Grant]

DF Cardwell has given his take, and mine is similar but from a different view point that amounts to the same

We (& you) can take a film and make it behave as we want, that's a personal decision, but in reality means you can take relatively similar films from a variety of manufacturers and make high quality images, of course there will be differences in terms of grain etc but once printed ahrder to say what film was used.

Tmax & Delta films are no different, they aren't more contrasty than traditional films just more sensitive fo exposure & processing errors, treat them like a colour transparency Kodachrome or E6 and then they really shine and outperform tarditioanal emulsions.

Ian