Which Film

[aam1234]

A recent thread about "film is dead" made me want to try film again.

So which film (no slides) would you recommend. It doesn't have to be anything special just good quality general purpose film, maybe with good color saturation. Prefer Kodak as they are the easiest to get around here. Also, and while we are at it what's a good B&W film.

Thanks

[cyclohexane]

This is what I was able to get back home: Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 (might be different in your region, but it'll be a "Superia"), Kodak Gold 200/400/800/1600 (used 200; have rolls of unused 800), and Kodak 400CN (C-41 process black-and-white). I haven't been film-shopping here.

My personal favorite was the Fuji Superia, but the Kodak Gold wasn't far behind- the colors just weren't my style: they were fairly "American". The Fuji looked better to my eyes... The colors were a bit more subdued, but still fairly saturated (with correct exposure, naturally), and could be pulled back really nicely from overexposure. The Fuji doesn't really push too well though, and underexposure trades a lot of saturation:



(Leitz 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit wide open)

The poor scan doesn't help matters; it actually looks fairly good in print, and I liked the subdued look it had. The Kodak Gold handled underexposure way better, and I actually really liked this one roll I pushed one stop (color was great), but I don't have any scans from it at the present.

The Kodak 400CN black-and-white was merely okay; it favored subjects with lots of reds. I think it was a Portra-type film, so that makes sense for hiding skin imperfections, but overall, it was pretty bad. Didn't have the tonal width of real black-and-white film:



(20mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor wide open)

It approximated the look of running channel mixer of a color scan in Photoshop, shown below:



Doing channel mixer is easier, more controllable, and cheaper. A roll of Fuji Superia 400 is about $1.33 a roll, while a roll of the Kodak CN was $3 to $5 a roll. With the color negative, I'd also have a color version!

My take is, if you want to shoot color film, most of the consumer color negative films should get the job done. If you want to shoot black-and-white film, use real black-and-white film, and not color process stuff (unless it's the Ilford I haven't tried, which I hear is good).

[aam1234]

Thanks Michael for the explanation and examples. Well appreciated.

[cyclohexane]

No problem; I don't actually have that much experience with different films (it's always been Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia- they're cheap), but I'll be shooting different films in the next few years as classes progress, so I'll try to come back and chime in some more- unless the classes let me use the cheap film, which I doubt.

[aam1234]

That would be nice. Thanks again.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by aam1234

So which film (no slides) would you recommend. It doesn't have to be anything special just good quality general purpose film, maybe with good color saturation.

Fuji Velvia is my recommendation then.

But why would you want to go the silver-bromide route again, aam?

[aam1234]

Just for fun Smith, and also to compare digital with film, again just for fun. I also miss film to tell you the truth, don't know why.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by aam1234

[...] to compare digital with film, [...]

That'd be interesting!
Could you do a side-by-side comparison and post 'm here, also side-by-side?
I think that'd be very informative for us Camels (re my postscript).

[aam1234]

I only have $30 scanner so that won't be a fair comparison. I'm not even sure it works

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by aam1234

I only have $30 scanner so that won't be a fair comparison.

Sure, it will. If you can do a 300dpi scan*. Most scanners, even the cheapest (if clean and in good working order), are capable of capturing much more information/data/detail than the average hard- and software knows what to do with.

*for digitizing 'old' chemical photo prints, I scan at 600dpi, and apply PP at that resolution.

All on a 15 year old, $30 scanner under ancient Mac OS9 . . .
Like these:

[aam1234]

Waw, that's impressive, both the photos and the quality.

[cyclohexane]

Fuji Velvia is my recommendation then.

Unfortunately, Velvia's a slide film. Doesn't fit the criteria.

[aam1234]

You are right Michael.

[Confusion Circle]

I use Fuji Pro 160S for colour, Kodak Tri-x for B&W almost exclusively, but I will use the occasional Ilford XP2, FP4, PAN F.

I also use Kodak HIE and EIR alot.

[kevin_c]

Thought i'd revive an old thread

I tend to use Fuji Superia (200 or 400) for general shooting and Ilford HP5 or FP4 for 'real' Black & White.
IMO the newer 'chromogenic' C41 emulsions from Kodak (BW400CN) and Ilford (XP-2 Super) don't give the same contrast and tones, although of these two I'd go for the Ilford out of preference.

[cyclohexane]

By the way, this is what I'm shooting right now:

Fuji Superia, 200 and 400 (I'm running out though)
Kodak Gold 200, 800.
Kodak Ultra Color 400

Of these, I prefer the Fujis; their subdued color sings to me. The Kodak Gold 200 is real nice outside though.

[blumesan]

Agree with Kevin_c. For B&W the Ilford is really the best. But it depends on getting a good lab to develop it, and that's not always easy. May have to go back to developing my own. I also like the Kodak Gold 200 for landscapes.

Cheers/Mike

[Latinbob]

We seem to have a consensus on film. I shoot Superia for color print film and Ilford HP4 and FP4 for B&W. I've only done home processing on most of my film work lately, and I based my decision a lot on how easily they process. Ilford is extremely easy to develop at home. The only screw-ups I've had were my own fault!

Bob