So the best part about being in college is that there is always an excuse to try out so many things in photography. Particularly portrait shooting. Recently I got a hold of some friends who are willing to model nude for me and put together a portfolio celebrating feminine figure and female form. Unaltered, unedited (except for maybe white balance corrections) just real women, in real settings. We're talking fine art here, nothing to objectify these women. I want to recreate the Hollywood glamor shots from the golden age of Hollywood. Of like Julie Garland and Audrey Hepburn. I know most of that is lighting, but then I look at these pictures and they have such a pearly quality to them that I can't make heads or tails what was used to create them. The Ilford Pan F plus looks promising from the description that is. "Ilford Pan F Plus is an extremely fine grain black and white film. It has outstanding resolution, sharpness and edge contrast. These characteristics make it the natural choice where fine detail and lack of grain are more important than film speed." From B&H's website. Since it's studio setting do I really need to worry about speed? Is 50 speed too slow for photographing people? Or should I stick to like a 100 or 400? Even if I am in full blown southern summer sunlight? I know it sounds silly but when I do digital I just do trial and error before I begin my session to figure what ISO I need. Though I rarely go beyond 3200. I know film is a whole other ball game. I want to do most of this outside in natural sunlight so playing with flashes and what have you is minimal. (I hate setting up lighting and using flash) But if the only way I can get that look is to set up a whole studio lighting system then I'm willing to do that also. Then again I know some of us in the group are also wanting to go for the 'natural' look and take advantage of some of the deserted fields and forests. There are a few abandoned housing developments that would work well too. Also, what is the difference between Kentmere and Ilford? I know they're owned by the same company and many people in the shops around here say they can't tell the difference, it's just basic B&W film but really there has to be a reason why one costs 40% less than the other. I sell computers I know there's a difference between Compaq and HP, so I'm a little skeptical when people tell me it's the same. That's not going to stop me from using both to see for myself!