what film would you recommend

[2F/2F]

I fully agree. However, are the differences between film characteristics significant enough to justify such a large portfolio for any one photographer?

Yup!

A lot of it comes down to what I happen to have as well! Sometimes things come along for a deal, or are given to me.

The list can certainly be narrowed down to my handful of main films. I am not saying that I use all of these films all the time.

However, I consider all of the films on the list to be well-known enough by me, and different enough, that I could use them for whatever comes along.

My "short list would be:

Ilford FP4
Ilford HP5
Ilford Delta 3200
Efke IR820
Fuji Reala
Fuji 400H
Portra 400NC
Portra 400VC
Fuji T64
Fuji Velvia 100F
Kodak EPN or EPP (EPN if I can find it, EPP if not)

As I stated, the purpose of the list was to state my desire to avoid the ghettoization of certain films as "landscape films" or "portrait films", etc. It was not to suggest that the OP try all of them.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree with that as well, but look at 2F/2F's list in post #12. How long would it take just to try them all?

Ralph, I agree that jumping around looking for a magic bullet is fruitless but knocking a few of the big questions out with a few test rolls is prudent.

One of the questions even before film choice though is, where is the film going to be processed?

The OP is obviously paying a lab so, at least for now, that is the back end process. The OP is in good company in this respect, lots of great photographers did and do this. I'm not inclined to talk the OP out of that.

Using a good lab does something almost magical, it provides the consistency in the process that allows the photographer to concentrate solely on camera work and film choice.

Trying different films with a good lab behind you is pretty easy, just bracket the shots on the first roll, ask the lab questions about what you do and don't like in the results, and you can learn just about all you need to know to make really nice photos.

 

[Q.G.]

The thing to do, i think, is select one (1) film.
Get to know that,. Get to know hwo it behaves. Get to know what to do to coax the best out of it. What what you like about it. What you don't like about it. Try to find out what to do to get rid of the less likeable bits.

If you can't make it to do what you like (and you may arrive at the decision that you can't sooner, later, or never), then and only then look at another film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...The OP is obviously paying a lab so, at least for now, that is the back end process. The OP is in good company in this respect, lots of great photographers did and do this. I'm not inclined to talk the OP out of that...

I am. Because it's worth it, and he'll never look back.

...Using a good lab does something almost magical, it provides the consistency in the process that allows the photographer to concentrate solely on camera work and film choice...

That's how it was in the good-old-days. With labs closing left and right, consistency is hard to find. The 'good' labs lived off professionals. With them going digital, goods labs are going out of business or are getting very rare.

...Trying different films with a good lab behind you is pretty easy, just bracket the shots on the first roll, ask the lab questions about what you do and don't like in the results, and you can learn just about all you need to know to make really nice photos.

I agree, but the OP does not want to do that (cost prohibitive). Remember,
£7 a roll. That's why I suggested self-processing to begin with.

Argh... we are going in circles.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The thing to do, i think, is select one (1) film.
Get to know that,. Get to know hwo it behaves. Get to know what to do to coax the best out of it. What what you like about it. What you don't like about it. Try to find out what to do to get rid of the less likeable bits.

If you can't make it to do what you like (and you may arrive at the decision that you can't sooner, later, or never), then and only then look at another film.

That's exactly right.

It's the same advise I received early on (see post #20), and it's the best advise I've gotten so far. Jumping between films is not the answer.

 

[videocrew]

Pretty sure he's long-since scared off by now. Rather than asking him the important questions for someone interested in getting into film photography nowadays (what are you shooting, who is processing it, what are you hoping to achieve, etc.) half of the people told him to either by some exotic camera he's probably never even been aware of (large format) or to start processing his color film at home (which I wasn't aware was even possible until I got pretty far into this hobby), when he just wanted to take some freaking pictures. Sad.

Remember, for a lot of people this isn't the Aspiring Professionals Using Google, its the last place on the internet with good information on how to use that 35mm SLR camera they found in the basement. Film is starting to get "cool" again but for most young people that doesn't mean "go spend $1000 on this new hobby you want to try."

 

[RalphLambrecht]

videocrew

I hope we have not scared anybody off. That would be sad indeed. We don't know much about cyberspider, ertainly not that he is inexperienced, young or even a he. Where did you get that from?

Also, as far as I can tell, nobody suggested to process color film or spend $1,000 (I sure didn't).

Why don't we wait until cyperspider tells us what he(?) thought about the advise given?

 

[markbarendt]

he'll never look back.

I disagree, I'm looking back and budgeting more for lab work.

Part of that is because C-41 is becoming more and more my standard.

Part of it is that I enjoy the running the camera more than developing film.

That's how it was in the good-old-days. With labs closing left and right, consistency is hard to find. The 'good' labs lived off professionals. With them going digital, goods labs are going out of business or are getting very rare.

I'm willing to use the mail.

I agree, but the OP does not want to do that (cost prohibitive). Remember, £7 a roll. That's why I suggested self-processing to begin with.

What I think he was saying is that he does not want to waste film, not that he is unwilling to pay.

Argh... we are going in circles.

Such is life.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I fully agree. However, are the differences between film characteristics significant enough to justify such a large portfolio for any one photographer?

Yes. Use just one film. Get really, really intimate with its response to varied light over a long period of time. Print from it — a lot. Know when that film fails in specific situations — how and why (not just the art of photography, but the oft-forgotten science). When you know that, ideally have a second film type available just for when the 'numero uno' will not do — according to your long observations and experience.

Too many photographers shooting film do not spend enough time understanding one film's characteristics, so they constantly move about various speeds and even types without settling on any one. Have they built a substantial portfolio (in print, too) on one film through many years using just one film?

And—
Shoot with any format system your heart desires, be it 35mm, medium format or the large format.

There's a lot of "large is better" talk. It might be in bed, but it aint out there in the elements. Somebody here is forgetting how well Gallen Rowell did (as well as financially) with 35mm in landscape with his 'fit to frame' and 'be there for the moment' philosophies; there are many others (Trent Parke, among, who specialises in high contrast film noir shooting). Put in the same amount of research, logistics, effort and expense and what format to use will be insignificant in the endeavours. Don't be rushed. Move on to whatever format you absolutely are sure you can make use of rather than prevailing 'darlings' of the moment.

Above all, enjoy every moment of it.

 

[Erik Petersson]

Cyberspider, are you still there?

You asked for bright and good colour representation? Kodak Ektar is a great choice, or Fuji Reala. However, just about any colour film from Fuji or Kodak are great. Choose low speed. Post your pictures here for input and advice, if you feel like that.

best
Erik

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...What I think he was saying is that he does not want to waste film, not that he is unwilling to pay...

Unwilling to try many different films, because of the cost to have it processed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
I fully agree. However, are the differences between film characteristics significant enough to justify such a large portfolio for any one photographer?

Yes. Use just one film. Get really, really intimate with its response to varied light over a long period of time. Print from it — a lot. Know when that film fails in specific situations — how and why (not just the art of photography, but the oft-forgotten science). When you know that, ideally have a second film type available just for when the 'numero uno' will not do — according to your long observations and experience.

That would make the answer a 'no' wouldn't it?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Cyberspider, are you still there?

You asked for bright and good colour representation? Kodak Ektar is a great choice, or Fuji Reala. However, just about any colour film from Fuji or Kodak are great. Choose low speed. Post your pictures here for input and advice, if you feel like that.

best
Erik

What is all this color talk? cyberspider was asking about B&W film! See post #1! In post #3, he talks about color representation, but B&W folks talk about that too.

I think a few posters have missed this fact, and got all bent out of shape for some to propose that he does his own processing. We are talking B&W processing here!

If not, forget my posts, but he did ask about Ilford Delat 400 Pro!

 

[2F/2F]

We need to know what the OP wants from his/her landscape pix before any of us can answer. That was my only real point. Asking for "A Landscape Film" is a rather vague request.

So, what does the OP want? Color? Black and white? (We don't even know that, do we?) High contrast? Low contrast? Sharp? Not so sharp? Fine grained? Grainy? High resolution? Lower resolution? Natural color? Exaggerated color? Subdued color?

Anything can be used as "A Landscape Film". We have to know what the OP's desires are to answer the question specifically.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

We need to know what the OP wants from his/her landscape pix before any of us can answer. That was my only real point. Asking for "A Landscape Film" is a rather vague request.

So, what does the OP want? Color? Black and white? (We don't even know that, do we?) High contrast? Low contrast? Sharp? Not so sharp? Fine grained? Grainy? High resolution? Lower resolution? Natural color? Exaggerated color? Subdued color?

Anything can be used as "A Landscape Film". We have to know what the OP's desires are to answer the question specifically.

I think, you are right. I'm totally confused now. We are better off waiting for cyperspider to come back to this thread and add some detail. I hope, what he finds won't scare him off.

 

[cyberspider]

wow sorry for the delay in getting back i had some internet problems

ok there was lot of posts to get through loads of good advice and i thank you all for you taking the time to post

but i see there is a little confusion and i am sorry i was to vague in my question

first let me tell you a little about my self and what im doing

ok im 34 and for the past few years i have used a digital camera but this gave up on me

so i was given the 3 cameras i posted in another topic this is the first time i have used a Manuel film camera and i like it

however i use my photos for making greeting cards that im trying to sell
im no pro but i have always been into photography

and have always wanted to go into it more deeply and professionally wildlife and landscape is my thing

the first roll of film i had done was Kodak colorplus and to be honest i was not that impressed with the sharpness and clarity

so i looked online and see people like John Anderson to name one used to use BW film so i went looking and thats when i found the Ilford Delat 400 Pro

plus i am interested in prossesing my film but i shoot colour too
and also looking at a few youtube vids it said 400 asa is good for the colour temp when shooting outside

but then other places said different so i thought id post here and see if i could get some help and boy did i get it so many great replies thank you

now i see a comment of have a good lab well only one i have is jessops

at the end of they day i want to go into photography more professionally but
im starting small and just making my cards that i put on ebay

i hope this helps if you need any other info please feel free to ask
i dont get offended easy so if im being dumb then just tell me lol

thank you all again for taking the time to try and help me out here
im using a minolta x-700 and pentax p30t the pic is from pentax

p.s im male lol

 

[markbarendt]

the first roll of film i had done was Kodak colorplus and to be honest i was not that impressed with the sharpness and clarity

It looks like there is a dirty window in front of that shot. I'd look at the negative itself with the people at Jessop's. I'd hazard a guess that it may be underexposed and that Jessop's or their machine, tried to fix it. If so the negative will be light or what is called thin. Could be the opposite too.

This may be just a matter of learning how this camera's meter works.

plus i am interested in prossesing my film but i shoot colour too

You can process both at home if you want. I do both at home in small tanks. It is not that expensive to get started. It will take some practice to get what you want this way.

and also looking at a few youtube vids it said 400 asa is good for the colour temp when shooting outside

ISO ratings are simply a scale of sensitivity and not related to the color temperature.

now i see a comment of have a good lab well only one i have is jessops

Given you have Jessops, you probably have access to Ilford's Lab for black and white. I'd imagine you can get Jessop's to do good work too if you talk with them.

p.s im male lol

Whew, don't have to worry about a Black Widow.

 

[Micky]

adox cms20 in adotech.

 

[cyberspider]

adox cms20 in adotech.

im sorry im prob being dumb but "huh" :confused::confused:

 

[paul_c5x4]

now i see a comment of have a good lab well only one i have is jessops

From that one comment, I'd say you are somewhere in the UK... If your local branch of Jessops is anything like the one round here, it is probably not the best place to ask for advice.

I would suggest hooking up with an experienced APUGger in your neck of the woods. If nothing else, it makes for a good excuse to have a beer or three

 

[cyberspider]

yes i live in west wales not far from aberystwyth
and yes they are not the most helpful or well i dont want to be mean but
they wont win any prizes

 

[Micky]

im sorry im prob being dumb but "huh" :confused::confused:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page32.html

 

[cyberspider]

thank you for the link

 

[Randy_Va]

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page32.html

Just when I thought I was happy with Rollei Pan 25 you had to post that.


In reply to the original poster, I am going down a similar route and although the recommendation is to stick with one film after 5-6 rolls I have decided to stick with three films Rollei Pan 25 when I can use a tripod Kodak Tri-X shot at EI 200 when I can't and Ilford Delta 3200 at night.

I also started out having my film developed at the local "pro" shops after getting very poor results from three I am developing at home and even with all of the mistakes and mis-steps I am getting a better result. Seriously, my last roll I accidentally took the top off the developer tank for a half second before slamming it back down and the results are still BETTER than what I was getting at Penn camera.

The only problem now is that I need a Scanner of my own (although that is a topic for another board).

 

[Ralph Javins]

adox cms20 in adotech.

Good morning, SyberSpider, and Micky;

The film and developer that Micky is recommending in his concise reply to SyberSpider is probably the best high resolution film that we can get at this time for our common use, and it is available.

This is the film that I use when making lens resolution and contrast tests. I run my tests in full normal daylight illumination outside, because it is repeatable (well, occasionally repeatable a few days of the year here in Latte Land), and it is reproducible by others so they can make comparison tests. And there is also the point that I do not have a test range inside long enough to fit a 1000 mm lens (that is 51 meters or about 168 feet). With slightly modified processing, I can slow down the film to about ASA 5, which means that I can test an f/1.4 lens outside with a camera that has a 1/1000 second shutter speed. Well, actually 1/640 second, but that seems to be in the normal range of most cameras when I have checked them on the shutter speed testing section of the Kyoritsu EF-511NK1. Very few of them seem to go faster than 1/1000 second.

With Adox CMS-20 film, I have a greater confidence level with the results that I get from my negatives when running these tests. So far, I have not found a lens in my arsenal that seems to be pushing the resolution characteristics of this film.