First time film

<p>I've been shooting digitally for a while now, but I'm a complete novice when it comes to film. Tomorrow I've got a Minolta SRT-100X arriving in the mail. It's an all-manual SLR nearly the same as what I used when I borrowed my dad's Minolta as a teenager. I'm excited about getting back to basics.</p>

<p>My question is: what film should I put in it? I was thinking 400 speed black and white. Is Kodak Tri-X a good choice? Where should I get the film developed? I'm in London, UK. If I could get digital files at the end of the process at would be a plus.</p>

<p>I don't have specific plans for what I want to shoot yet. I just want to get a feel for film first. I like natural light portraits and general urban, outdoor photography. At this time of the year in the UK there's not a lot of light to work with however.</p>

<p>james, welcome to this wonderful world of film. buy some ilford xp2 400 asa film. this is a chromogenic film, so shoot black and white but the processing is in colour. cheaper and easier.</p>

<p>enjoy.</p>

<p>Oh, shoot Tri-X or HP5+, and send it to Ilford for their superb yet reasonably priced B&W processing. You're lucky to be in England and have them available.</p>

<p>Most film processors these days will scan your negs to a CD for you so you can do what you like with them digitally. Surely Ilford will do the same. I am with John on this one, shoot Ilford HP5+ and have Ilford process and scan to CD for you. Couldn't ask for a better setup.</p>

<p>I've never been in love with XP2 or any chromogenic film (though I've taken some good shots with them), but I've always liked HP5+ and Tri-X, and since John mentioned Ilford has b/w processing available in the UK, as long as you can get a digital file of the shots you could even compare all of them and see which you like best.</p>

<p>IF you are going to use digital processing after you shoot the negative, just use any decent color negative film. You shouldn't have any trouble with your Minolta, but with older cameras sometimes the speeds don't go high enough to use ISO 400 film. It's easier to shoot color, and frankly gives you more options, when you do the conversion to B&W in software after the fact.</p>

<p>I think it is also usually cheaper.</p>

<p>If you really want to shoot BW, then get a tank, changing bag, and do your own processing.</p>

<p>James,</p>

<p>Welcome to the wonderful, and addicting, world of film photography! </p>

<p>If you want to shoot Tri-X, go for it. It certainly has the classic B&W look but I'll second JDM's comment above when he suggests developing it yourself (OK, maybe pay for the first couple rolls). I started B&W photography about a year ago and when I discovered I had to wait a week for my prints, I decided to try development myself.</p>

<p>As unlikely as you may consider the option now, you should realize how easy it is: a development tank, a reel, 3 or 4 chemicals, bottles to store the chemicals, a thermometer and some other misc items and you're in business. It's fun to do too. I find it very relaxing and if you have an iPhone, there's a great application for doing all the timing for the development steps too. I watch bad science fiction when I do it. Fits the whole retro theme. Haven't screwed a roll up yet and now I shoot so much of it I buy it in 100' bulk reels.</p>

<p>Anyway, again -- welcome! -- and have fun!</p>

<p>Welcome home!!!</p>

<p>I came back to film after several years and many thousands of digital images. All I have to say is film is addictive and wonderful. What you lack in the instant gratification of digital you get back in the image quality that just cannot be duplicated easily on digital. I like shooting Tri-X and Ilford HP5 and am also toying with developing it myself. We have a decent lab in town so I have been using them for now. </p>

<p>I even bought a classic Sekonic L104/Weston Master IV meter and an old Minolta A5 (completely manual with no battery and no meter) to try and go real old school. It has been a blast.</p>

<p>I look forward to seeing some pictures.</p>

 

<p>For the first roll, get whatever 400 ISO color film is sold at a shop near you, shoot it and have it developed at a 1-hour photo, just to test the camera. Then by all means go to some high quality B&W :) If you feel confident and/or adventurous, doing it at home with a changing bag and tank is easier than most people think.</p>

<p>I'm a Velvia 50 bigot through Nikon primes. When not shooting ancient German stuff in 120.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7709496-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="466" /></p>

<p>I just received the camera half an hour ago! Mechanically it all checks out.<br>

Thanks for all the advice. First thing is a roll of colour film and 1 hr developing, just to get some instant gratification. After that it'll probably be Ilford HP5+ developed by them. Never say never, but I don't think I'll be developing my own film for a while.</p>

<p>Good luck with your camera. Try a roll of Kodak Ektar 100, that is a really nice film, and it scans well. The Kodak BW400CN is good if you want B&W, but have it developed with the C41 (colour negative) process. I prefer it one to the Ilford XP2.<br>

If you get hooked on shooting film, you should consider getting the basic gear for developing your own B&W film. It is cheap, easy, and a lot faster than mailing your rolls to Ilford.</p>

<p>400 is a good general speed for B&W. If you intend to develop your own black and white film (you don't need a darkroom) then Tri-X is fine. It will give you a more classic look. If you want a more fine grain look, TMAX 100 or 400 might be better (I like Tri-X). If you are NOT intending to develop your own film, then getting regular B&W film developed can be challenging (at least it's challenging here in the states), so using a chromagenic might be better. Ilford XP-2 works fine as is Kodak BW400CN.</p>

<p>I like HP5, and I've used XP2 since it was XP1. You won't have any difficulty in the UK getting B&W or chromogenic films processed, for the reasons you've already been given. Processing B&W at home isn't difficult, once you've the confidence of a test roll under your belt. My own darkroom is currently in storage for a while, but I still develop my own film and scan to print. There's a startup cost, as with everything, but it's neither prohibitive nor difficult, and once you're familiar with the routine, you have the added advantage of being able to do things like push/pull processing (effectively changing the rated film speed), which are more awkward and more costly to have done commercially, with no effort or extra cost at all.</p>

<p>I've been doing this for over forty years, and I'm doubtless a junior compared to some of the experienced users here, but I never, ever get tired of the anticipation of pulling that wet strip of film off the reel to see frame after frame of negative images that I took and processed myself. </p>

<p>James,</p>

<p> Welcome! It's a Wonderful Life, isn't it? Don't forget to use an Exakta when you shoot through the Rear Window:-)</p>

 

<p>Yes, and remember to press the shutter button before The Lady Vanishes.</p>

<p>Hey, Alex, I don't think James knows anything about the vanishing lady. It's an acquaintance of his that worked with that lady:-) James knows all about Liberty Valance, though, and used the wrong kind of tool to shoot him.</p>

James, I have a Minolta SRT-101 (the same as yours? what does the "X" mean?).  It's probably my best 35mm camera and I love using it.  I hope you have a lot of fun with yours!

 

I use both Ilford HP5 and Tri-X from time to time.  I personally kind of prefer Tri-X.  The Ilford film is nice, but it seems to be less forgiving with exposure and gets overexposed very easily.  I always tend to get dense negatives with HP5, no matter how careful I am about the exposure.  Tri-X is much more forgiving and I also kind of like the look of it a little better.  But that's just my opinion. 

 

At some point, you really should also try Kodak Plus-X.  It's my favorite black and white film.  Especially if you decide you want to learn how to develop your own film.  It's 125 ISO, and it's VERY sharp and has really nice tones and contrast.  I love using it for pretty much any subject.  I develop my own B&W film and I also set up a darkroom in my garage for developing prints.  I've been able to enlarge pictures from Plus-X to INSANE amounts.  The detail is just incredible.

 

If you want to use color film, especially for landscape photos, Kodak Ektar 100 is a great film.  It has a really unique look to it, and the colors are awesome.  Very "punchy," especially red and blue.  It is really picky about exposure though, so you do need to use a light meter.  I don't know if I would depend on the light meter on your camera just yet...use an external handheld meter if you can.

 

Also, don't discount "consumer" films.  Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji 200 are good films.  Kodak Gold has a really nice warm tone to it.  The colors aren't quite as punchy as some other films, but I really like the nice warm tones it has and how it captures people and landscapes with earthtones.  It's also probably the most forgiving color film I have ever seen.  If you're anywhere near the right exposure, you'll get decent pictures.  When I first learned how to use manual exposure, about 3 years ago, I learned with an Argus C3 and just using the Sunny 16 Rule!  I didn't even have a light meter.  I was using Kodak Gold 200, and I got great pictures.

<p>I would put a few rolls of color neg through it first something cheap like Fuji superia 400 jsut to get a feel for the camera.</p>

<p>For B&W in London, then Silverprint near Waterloo is a top quality traditional darkroom. On the other hand, West End Cameras in Tottenham Court Road is fine for a simple B&W develop/scan, as are <a href="http://www.castlefoto.co.uk/">Castle Foto</a>, who used to be at Elephant & Castle but appear to have moved to Old Street.</p>

<p>Tri-X is nice, though try the Ilford films (HP5 and the slower FP4) as well.</p>

<p>I don't have a very soft spot for the C-41 monochrome films myself. Since I do process all my own B&W film and don't scan film, there's not much reason for me to use them. Still I think they are good products, every bit the equal to Tri-X and HP5+, with a look unique to the product. If I were planning to scan the film, one of these films would be my first choice. There is no doubt in my mind that scanning a C-41 film will produce a superior result to scanning a traditional B&W film. Once you have the digital file, The tonal range and contrast curve can be manipulated to emulate anything you like. </p>

<p>I liked chromogenic films, and in particular I liked the tonal range, which I found very good for portraits. In fact, my favourite portrait of my daughter as an infant was taken on XP1. Unfortunately, I found myself obliged to give it up for anything that was likely to be of more than transitory interest, because of the limited archival properties of chromogenic film. I remember when XP1 first appeared, Ilford advised that negative lifespan was likely to be around ten years. Sadly, this proved advice worth heeding, and many of my favourite pictures from my daughter's childhood exist only in prints, as the negative images have deteriorated to a poor state. A couple of films have survived better than others, but there seems to be no pattern to it ; it doesn't seem to matter whether they were processed in C41 over the counter, or processed in the dedicated XP chemistry Ilford used to supply, and I know that I was fastidious about following the processing instructions. Perhaps in an age of very competent scanners, this may not be seen as such a problem from an archival perspective.</p>