What is the cheapest film from a quality / price aspect?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak and Fuji. Don't waste your talent and time on "almost as good" films.

+1 I agree. When you start to add up your time and expense for gasoline and depreciation of your car, equipment, etc, why shoot crappy or expired film? If you miss that one shoot you waited all your life to get, you'll kick yourself in the ass. Even if the shot isn't a one-time shot, your time and expenses don't justify using poor materials. Shoot less if you have to. Be more discriminate if needed. But use good stuff when it counts.

 

[Lucas Yan]

+1 I agree. When you start to add up your time and expense for gasoline and depreciation of your car, equipment, etc, why shoot crappy or expired film? If you miss that one shoot you waited all your life to get, you'll kick yourself in the ass. Even if the shot isn't a one-time shot, your time and expenses don't justify using poor materials. Shoot less if you have to. Be more discriminate if needed. But use good stuff when it counts.

To echo this, I highly recommend having a camera with auto-focus and auto-exposure when starting out, or if you are using a manual camera, invest in a good light meter. It can be disappointing when you put a lot of effort into getting a roll of film, sending it into a lab (or developing it yourself), and find that the color or focus of some of the shots are off. You will find that color negative usually requires a bit of overexposure to look good, especially since you are most likely going to scan your images rather than do analog prints.

 

[braxus]

I believe Kodak VR200 is the cheapest they sell now. Gold 200 is slightly more expensive. I've used both and even the VR film has a nice look to it.

 

[Helge]

Kodak and Fuji. Don't waste your talent and time on "almost as good" films.

What would those be?

Colour Plus and Pro Image I get.
But it satisfies the rush to the bottom bargain bin hunting teens and students who want to be hip and want something that looks vintage (not getting that their family photos crappy quality has as much to do with poor technique and technology other than the film).
Soon they’ll be a little older with more money and sense.
If just ten percent continues to shoot film. That will be enough to sustain the market.

 

[Agulliver]

Is there any crappy quality film in production now?

Bear in mind that the Lomography branded colour negative 100, 400 and 800 films are quite likely of Kodak origin.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I want to start shooting film again and I´m researching what´s the best option for a good film that is available and kind of cheap everywhere, what are your options?

Thank you!

qualitywise, you really can't go wrong with Ilford films.

 

[Paul Howell]

qualitywise, you really can't go wrong with Ilford films.

Too made Ilford doesn't make color.

 

[CMoore]

Kodak Color Plus-200
It is a perfectly fine film, seems to have been readily available the last 5-6-7 years, and is on the lower end of the price scale

 

[albireo]

For black and white someone already mentioned Ultrafine eXtreme and Arista EDU Ultra. Note that Fomapan is the same as Arista EDU Ultra.

This is not entirely correct. It would appear, though it is not confirmed by the producer, that Arista EDU is b-stock or old-stock Foma repackaged for the American market. Again, no definitive proof, but based on Arista users' reports the material occasionally shows faults that have been solved in current, fresh stock Foma. Also, some 120 Arista users report that the backing paper is black (it has not been black on own-brand Foma for more than 5 years) and that the anti-halation layer is blue (it is emerald green in current stock Foma).

 

[Auer]

For black and white someone already mentioned Ultrafine eXtreme and Arista EDU Ultra. Note that Fomapan is the same as Arista EDU Ultra. Under the Fomapan brand name the price is very slightly higher than under the Arista brand. (Foma is the name of the company that makes Arista EDU Ultra and Fomapan.)

Another contender for black and white is Kentmere, which is made by Harman, which is sort of a synonym for Ilford (kinda, sorta, roughly speaking), but Kentmere film is not quite the same as Ilford branded film, despite being made by the same company. In the US the price for Kentmere is usually quite close to the Foma films.

Which is better, Foma or Kentmere, is somewhat controversial. Ultrafine eXtreme seems to get good reviews from everyone who has used it.

Ultrafine has not had any of their film in stock for an extremely long time...

Arista EDU is b-stock or old-stock Foma repackaged for the American market.

Pure speculation.

 

[albireo]

Ultrafine has not had any of their film in stock for an extremely long time...
Pure speculation.

Not really. It's based on anecdotal evidence, which is not speculation. Assuming Arista and Foma are identical without an official statement by Foma is speculation.

 

[Jonno85uk]

This is not entirely correct. It would appear, though it is not confirmed by the producer, that Arista EDU is b-stock or old-stock Foma repackaged for the American market. Again, no definitive proof, but based on Arista users' reports the material occasionally shows faults that have been solved in current, fresh stock Foma. Also, some 120 Arista users report that the backing paper is black (it has not been black on own-brand Foma for more than 5 years) and that the anti-halation layer is blue (it is emerald green in current stock Foma).

Foma film is sold with just "Ultra" frame markings, at least in 120. The bulk 35mm has no markings. No idea what's on pre-rolled 35mm film markings.

 

[Wallendo]

I have seen no evidence that Arista EDU is not identical to Foma-branded film. When Foma had scratch issues with Bulk Fomapan 200 6 or 7 years ago, the scratching was present on both Foma and Arista branded rolls - this was a defect that affected only 100 foot rolls. Current Arista EDU films now cost almost as much as Foma-branded films - I doubt Freestyle is paying full price for B-grade film.

I have read reports of potential problems with Arista Premium 400 (relabelled TX400), but never experienced any myself.

 

[Huss]

Fuji C200:

 

[foc]

I have always like Fuji C200

Here are a few samples.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me it's HP5. But wait... it's not colour

 

[albireo]

Just came here to say - love your photography!

Fuji C200:

 

[Huss]

Just came here to say - love your photography!

Thank you!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Whatever gets the job done right. If it doesn't, what's the point? Often a more expensive film per box or shot turns out to be the most affordable one in terms of satisfactory results. Waste doesn't count.

 

[alanrockwood]

Whatever gets the job done right. If it doesn't, what's the point? Often a more expensive film per box or shot turns out to be the most affordable one in terms of satisfactory results. Waste doesn't count.

Some people say that 4x5 is the most economical format because for most people there are fewer wasted shots.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Too made Ilford doesn't make color.

countless sades ofgray is all I need; the other 'colors' are just distracting!

 

[Wayne]

Some people say that 4x5 is the most economical format because for most people there are fewer wasted shots.

I know I spend less on it than any other format, because its least affordable.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Wrong... 8x10 is even more economical than 4x5. I'm debating in my mind even whether to thaw another box of it or not this year. Depends on travel plans working out. But in the past, back when 4x5 color film was preferred for stock nature photography, there were plenty of machine-gunners of 4x5 film. My own philosophy is that if it's not worth personally printing and special in that sense, don't bother to trip the shutter to begin with. And the only reason I might waste a few frames of smaller way more affordable 120 film prematurely is that there is something already on that roll I'm eager to develop and print soon. With sheet film, you can develop just those individual shots you please, and to a specific degree of development each. That's a big advantage.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ralph, I can't imagine black and white printing without acute color vision. So much nuance of depth and atmosphere is achieved in toning. And I don't mean blatant artsy/craftsy style toning, but in the fine tuned aspect. Sometimes I seem to attain a more acute "impression" of color, psychologically, with black and white media, than with actual color printing (which I still do as well).

And that's one of the reasons I greatly prefer dakroom prints to these new black and white inkjets. They have come a long ways in terms of detail capacity and depth of black; but once someone tries to simulate toners or something like that, things start looking hokey rather quickly.