what film would you recommend

mopar_guy · Mar 15, 2010

Essential equipment

Do use a tripod. Having the camera on a reasonably steady support is the single best thing that will help image quality for landscape use. I wouldn't really try to spend an enormous amount of money for a tripod at this point. You could start with a good quality used tripod and it should not be too expensive.

2F/2F · Mar 15, 2010

Now that there is more detail from the OP, I will suggest the following for making lithographic post card prints from 35mm film:

Kodak Portra 160NC and VC for the highest technical quality, but you will likely need a tripod, so will need to not be lazy.

Kodak Portra 400NC and 400VC for if you are lazy or in a rush (don't want to use a tripod), and don't necessarily want or care about the highest in technical quality (which you certainly do not "need" for lithographic post card prints).

If the goals were more "artistic", I would suggest to use the one that will create the images that best suit your concept, and would also assume that you care enough about them to not be lazy or in a rush. Since these concepts and image styles may vary from project to project, I would thus suggest getting to know all four of these films for personal "artistic" use.

However, your aim is commercial. You aim to create and sell small, relatively-low-quality lithographic post card prints. Personally, if using film, I'd go for the two types of Kodak 400, get the shots done quick and dirty, without a tripod whenever possible, and be on my way to go shoot pictures for myself that I actually respect. To tell you the dirty truth, I would personally use digital.

NC subdues contrast and saturation, and VC exaggerates it. Kodak is very nice in offering us both NC and VC emulsions in both medium and high speeds.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

i do have a tripod now its a cullmann 2921 got it free

also i dont print o card i print to photo paper using an epson r800
i mount the photos to the card in a way so that people can keep the photos as a memento of the card

thank you all once again for the replies i have found a uk supply for Adox CMS-20 film i will try it out

i should have some shots back on Thursday i took with the minolta using diamond 2 everyday 200asa 36 exp

the comment about being taken through a dirty window could this be the filter on the lens i have uv filters to protect my lens should i take them off for the shot ????

Micky · Mar 16, 2010

Cyber, I look forward to seeing some results fromt he Adox.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

yes i have never shot BW i may goto the beach and shoot some see scapes with it

videocrew · Mar 16, 2010

Just be aware, if you go with the Adox you will probably have to process it yourself. I very much doubt that your local photo lab is going to process B&W chemistry, and even if they ship it out it requires a very specific developer.

If you want B&W that you can develop at a lab, get Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2, which can be processed and scanned at any 1-hour photo lab or drugstore. They also look pretty greeting-card-esque. Don't really have to worry about grain when printing that small, and the exposure latitude is great for weird lighting.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

videocrew said:
Just be aware, if you go with the Adox you will probably have to process it yourself. I very much doubt that your local photo lab is going to process B&W chemistry, and even if they ship it out it requires a very specific developer.

If you want B&W that you can develop at a lab, get Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2, which can be processed and scanned at any 1-hour photo lab or drugstore. They also look pretty greeting-card-esque. Don't really have to worry about grain when printing that small, and the exposure latitude is great for weird lighting.

hmmmm dont know then as i have no enlarger and jessops send my film away 3 days before i get it back

videocrew · Mar 16, 2010

You don't really need an enlarger to process at home, you just have to buy all the chemicals and a tank, etc. It's not hard, but it's a bit of an undertaking.

Jessops seems to indicate that it can process B&W in the store: http://www.jessops.com/dnp/BlacknWhite but you'd need to check with them about that Adox. If you want the widest range of compatibility as far as getting your film done anywhere, you'd use BW400CN or XP2.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

yeah but i would have no way to see what i had though unless i then got jessops to get prints

ill have to look into it my jessops will not do any developing instore they say they dont have the equipment

videocrew · Mar 16, 2010

I agree, I think that lab processing 400CN or XP2 is the absolute best option for you, but everyone here is so busy telling you what they think the best option for themselves is, I was afraid you'd have run away screaming by now. Most of these guys would've had you doing wet plate cyanotyping or something equally ridiculous if they had their way.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

i never run away lol im to stubborn for that
right now i need my camera to give me some images that i can use should get some back on thursday

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 16, 2010

Even if you process film via a lab, try continue using the same film over and over.

You will have less flexibility this way, but eventually you will learn what to expect from their process to achieve the maximum from each negative. If you bought a bunch of the Adox, keep using it until you know it. Learn how to manipulate exposure by bracketing when you shoot.

Rol_Lei Nut · Mar 16, 2010

cyberspider said:
yeah but i would have no way to see what i had though unless i then got jessops to get prints

A magic machine called a film scanner... ;-)

Also many newer flatbed scanners can scan negatives, albeit with much lower quality.

cyberspider · Mar 16, 2010

im still saving for the magic machine that prints money lol lol
my flat bed scans negs but they didnt turn out to good

Ralph Javins · Mar 16, 2010

cyberspider said:
im still saving for the magic machine that prints money lol lol

This guy has a sense of humor. He will fit right in and do OK here.

cyberspider · Mar 19, 2010

well i try

perkeleellinen · Mar 19, 2010

Have you tried the Ilford processing service? Certainly better than what I remember getting back from Jessops.

http://www.ilfordlab.com/

cyberspider · Mar 19, 2010

thank you for the link i have saved it

Russ - SVP · Mar 20, 2010

Ralph Javins said:
This guy has a sense of humor. He will fit right in and do OK here.

He's probably a Kiron Klubber...

Kiron Kid

cyberspider · Mar 27, 2010

well i have picked 3 BW films to try based on advice here and also example of the photos on ilfords website
Pan-F+ 50 35mm 36

Ilford Pan-F is a very fine grain film, especially popular with fine art and landscape photographers. However, it can be used very effectively whenever great enlargement is necessary. 16 x 12" prints from 35mm negatives can be grainless, depending on exposure, development and subject of course.

FP4+ 35mm 36

An extremely useful medium speed all rounder, Ilford FP4 Plus has been an industry standard for many years. With plenty of exposure flexibility and with a healthy margin for user error, this film is ideally suited for beginners and professionals alike.

HP5+ 35mm 36

An extremely useful high speed all rounder, Ilford HP5 Plus has been an industry standard for many years. With plenty of exposure flexibility and with a healthy margin for user error, this film is ideally suited for beginners and professionals alike seeking a film for lower light. Popular with anyone shooting 'photojournalist' style

i found almost al the shots taken with delta 100 pro was very grainy
and that is a look i dont really want at this time

so what do you all think of my choices ???

Anon Ymous · Mar 27, 2010

Trust me, Delta 100 is anything but grainy, even in developers which give somewhat more grain, like Rodinal. You need to seriously abuse that film to get very grainy results.

cyberspider · Mar 27, 2010

i was looking at the photos here you have to click on them to find out what film
photocommunity gallery

Anon Ymous · Mar 27, 2010

cyberspider said:
i was looking at the photos here you have to click on them to find out what film
photocommunity gallery

Well, this one is certainly grainy:

On the other hand, do you see any grain in this?

Just to give you a point of reference, that was shot with HP5+, the grainiest of the films you picked:

In any case, there are several factors that will affect the results. Scanning a badly processed negative with a crappy scanner can certainly give horrible results that are too far away from what you can achieve once you master the process.

elekm · Mar 27, 2010

Ugh. I am not a fan of HP5. Love FP4 and Pan F, however.

Russ - SVP · Mar 27, 2010

cyberspider said:
well i have picked 3 BW films to try based on advice here and also example of the photos on ilfords website
Pan-F+ 50 35mm 36

FP4+ 35mm 36

HP5+ 35mm 36

i found almost al the shots taken with delta 100 pro was very grainy
and that is a look i dont really want at this time

so what do you all think of my choices ???

Delta 100, grainy? I get VERY fine grain with Delta 100. And I find that Neopan 400, blows away the other 400 speed films in terms of granularity and tonal range.

Kiron Kid

what film would you recommend

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency