I recently started the magic of the film...(I really love it at the point I think my d80 will stay a while in the draw)... I just wanted to know what film is more adapt to what kind of subject. I am just talking about black and white here as I try to develop the film myself and been reading that developing colours film is much more complicated. I started with tmax100 wich I found nice but often I am oblige to shoot at lower shutter speed and not alwais I have a tripod with me. I tryed some ilford fp4 125 and it look more soft than tmax maybe due to bad developing times..I think the next will be a tmax 400...
What is yours preferred film? Why? What do you think is best for portraits? Landscape?
So anything you want to add to this discussion is very welcome and sorry for maybe some silly questions.

Ah film.

OK.

Less contrast and very fine and smooth gradient to the tones: Acros 100

Traditional Grain: TRI-X, HP5

New Square Grain: Delta, TMAX

Super Fine Grain with contrast AND tones: PAN F

Classic contrast of high speed film but with low speed grain: APX100

Higher red sensitivity: Delta 400

So what to use and for what?

Well the newer grain films scan better. The older grain films look more realistic and edgy - but then so do the new ones when pushed. I like TMAX400 at 1600 or 3200 it looks to me like TRI-X at 800-1600. But again - scans better.

TMAX also works better with DDX or TMAX developer and it comes out REALLY SHARP. I find that TMAX400 in DDX is great.

TRI-X looks awesome in D76. D76 is MUCH cheaper than DDX/TMAX developer.

I use kodak fixer for all due to the long shelf life.

So which film for what?

Landscapes, PAN F:

Night: TMAX 400 Pushed

People - maybe Delta as it is more red sensitive so skin comes out more white

Street - TRI-X or TMAX

If you shoot wide open - then a 100 speed film is best like ARCOS100 (also good for landscape) or TMAX 100 because you can keep the shutter under 4 or 8K. You will still need an ND filter though.

If you are just starting and want good results. TRI-X and D76 is hard to mess up and gives a good classic look and you can get good reproducible results.

RF.

Colour film is also pretty much follow the recipe. There is not much room for experimentation. Shoot colour but just have the lab develop it.

BW shooting and developing is a whole area of variables and changes and techniques and what not...BW film is also high res than colour film usually.

Hello,

I have pretty much no experience with film, so my thoughts are probably not worth much. And since 8th grade I haven't developed any film my self. When I started having fun with black and white film I actually started with the high speed films. And it has been really interesting. Of the three major films: Kodak 3200, Delta 3200 and Fuji 1600, I like the Delta 3200 the best (just shooting it at 3200). Of the slower speed films, I have had a bit of luck with Fuljifilm Neopan 100, which in my eyes has low grain. But I don't think that they sell that film anymore(?).

Since I started with film (using a Nikon N80) I almost never use my D70 anymore.

Thomas

I agree with Richard Ford at ALL :-)

But with a good temperature compensated processor, like Jobo´s , you can easy develop also color and E-6, bw is easy.

@ Thomas,

I find delta 3200 to be not good in 135. Great in 120.

Kodak 3200 is a dog.

Across 100 (neopan) still made and sold!

The 100 films are also identical when shot at 200. As are the 400 films shot at 800.

I am actually going to get some more TRIX tomorrow after looking at some shots here - a recent one my Remo Refur made me want to try it out. As with the 28 AIS 2.8 and TMAX in DDX - it is TOO SHARP! It looks like digital almost.

Ok, I see now. I had looked a B&H and saw that the Neopan 100 had been discontinued. But I see that they have the Across 100. Is that pretty much the same film? Maybe I should try that one.

Are there some of the high speed films that are better for low light and high contrast, and not good for outdoors and the other way around?

Thomas

Yep.... The Neopan 1600 is very good

Tito.

My advice is to keep it simple and remember there are no rules. Pick a film and format and experiment. If you're going to be a truly complete film photographer and do all your own work from exposure to printing, you'll also have to come up with a process including film developer (and process), paper, and toner if applicable. Over time you'll come up with a system that works for you.

Just a side question:

How hard is it to develope the C-41 black and white films?

Thomas

Thomas

I've never done it so I can't help you with that.

Chuck

C-41 BW films you do at the lab.

C-41 like E-6 is a very strict and deliberate method with little or no need to change or benefit from doing so....

thanks richard to clarify a bit the fog.. so I wanted to make a series of photo of my neighbour. Portraits indoor with avaible light what iso schould I go for? 400? I would like some grain aswell to add caracter. I use d76 developer and tmax fixer. Do you think Tri-x is going to be a good choice?

Also for the others c-41 BW film i snot really BW film in my opinion. It is not silver halide. It is the same as colour film - but without the dye couplers removed.

For inside available light - then it depends on how much light and what focal length. With a film like TMAX 400 you can also PULL it and shoot it at 320 for more smooth gradients - you then just need to develop it for a little less time. A 400 speed film gives you that power.

A 100 film you could shoot also at 200.

What do you mean by character? If grain TRI-X in available light COULD be too grainy. You could also just shoot two rolls. ;-)

TRI-X is a good start though in any case for anything - very hard to mess up in the developing and exposing.