What's the worst film you've ever used?

I've asked what's the worst lab you've used, so now, what's the worst film you've ever

used? B&W, color neg, & color slide (or all three) responses are welcome.

 

My pick: Kodak MAX 800-have you ever seen blue pavement before?

35mm Tmax-400...Why do people use this horrible film?!!?

Kodak Max 400. The grain was so horrible that I didn't care if the colors were accurate or not.

I'll second the Kodak Max 800. Picked up a 'stick' in my local warehouse store, and after seeing the first two rolls, I think I threw the rest away. 'Technicolor mud' in the shadows and really weird color response from arena lights.

The three worst I've tried that were tied for last place are all color negative films: an Agfa high speed film (1000?); some kinda house brand 3M film; some kinda house brand Ferrania film.

 

T-Max 400 the worst? Not even close. I'm admit I don't care for the stuff at its nominal speed. Try pushing it to EI 800-1600 and develop it in straight Microphen stock solution. High apparent sharpness, very moderate grain, very good midrange tonality, decent shadow detail, no blown highlights.

 

I wouldn't rate any b&w film on my "worst" list, tho' some are difficult to work with and get good results from. TMX and TMY are among those. So is Pan F+. Ditto FP4+. All are capable of excellent results, it just takes some experimenting to get there. TMY, Pan F+ and FP4+ took me about a year of trials to learn to appreciate. TMX didn't take long at all for me to like, tho' it has limitations.

Back several years ago, Dale Labs was selling (or maybe giving away free) their "Motion Picture Film". I tried a roll and was thoroughly unimpressed. It wasn't terrible, just was not as good as run-of-the-mill Kodak film processed at the local drugstore- and cost twice as much to process at Dale Labs.

My hands down winner (looser) is RGB.

 

My dad bought a bunch of it in the 70's, so I could practice photography for our 7th grade yearbook. Boy, that stuff sure was crap... oh wait, at least crap doesn't fade or shift colors as much as RGB.

 

Kodak's first try at "Elite" was pretty crappy too, IMHO. Have not put any more Elite in my camera since the first roll of the stuff.

Tmax 400 is fine, if not a little odd.

 

Try shooting Kodak Max 400 at 250 or 320, it starts to behave nicely.

 

Kodak Max-800 does suck. period. maybe if you shot 400 you'd have acceptable shadows but the color response is so abysmal I'm not sure I'd waste my time.

 

Velvia 50 is on my short list of films I'm pretty sure I really don't like. But it isn't the most horrible film I've used.

Kodak Max 400. Does anyone know WHY they came out with it?

I've never been tempted to use minor brand or own-label films,

so I've never felt the need the use 3M or whatever, and have

stuck almost exclusively to Fuji (colour) Kodak & Ilford( b&w).

 

But I really disliked Astia. The colour is so muted it must be

close to being labelled b&w. OTOH I photograph people very

little, and I don't do portraits or weddings. Maybe I might feel

differently if I did.

It's funny how some people's beloved film is another's hated one.

 

Of the Fuji stuffs that I've used, the original sensia 100 was terrible. Blue-green - yuck. I also didn't like their transition of the original Reala to the "New" Reala, haven't used it since.

 

Of Kodak films, I think all the >= 200 speed Ektachromes except E200 are absolutely useless. On the other hand, I quite like their iso 100 stuff, including Elite 100 (in all its incarnations).

Kodak made Max Gold Zoom 800 before the current Max 800. That was certainly the worst stuff I have ever seen. I've still got some of that stuff in the frige, in case others would like to verify it is indeed the worst. It was the stuff made in the land downunder.

 

The Max 400 ranks next. One responder mentioned to rate Max 400 at a lower speed like 320 or 250. Well that may not be easy with some DX coded modern cameras, especially P&S cameras.

Agfa Ultra Colour 100 -- horrifying!

Clearly it is the Max Gold Zoom 800...such crap...

 

I once used Fuji Superia 100 (not the Reala variant), high contrast, no color to speak of and didn't scan very well (color problems).

 

Then had to use (long story) Superia Xtra 400 last winter. Clearly better than the two above, but oh so much inferior to NPH or Portra 400 NC or UC.

 

No really bad slides, although some old Sensia 400 wasn't really my favorite...maybe it's because I shoot more slides and invest time and effort in picking good films?

 

No really bad BW, although some are more "universal" than others, eg. TMX is nice for night photography but I don't like it as a "general use" film. Had mixed results with PanF and thus still think about APX25. More fun in this department since taming Maco 820IR and Delta 3200 takes some experimentation...

Yeah, Kodak Max 800 is pretty bad.

 

I'd say that I generally dislike almost any 200-speed film. Much more grainy than 100 with only a one-stop difference (this probably doesn't apply to E200, though).

Does anybody remember Kodak Professional Ektapress PJ800? Rated at 400, you could get usable images from it... but they weren't pretty.

 

Royal Gold 1000 was pretty bad too.

How about that Fuji 100-1000 film? I heard it was so bad from friends I never bothered to shoot with it, even when they were giving it away to us for free last winter (or the year before).

 

I don't know about nowadays but sometimes ISO 100 consumer film is the same as the 200 or even the 400. Kodak and I'm sure Fuji has done this too, they just put dye in the emulsion to effect a one or two stop neutral density filter.

<p>Another vote for TMY (Tmax 400). Posturized tones and much worse grain than Tri-X.

<p>Blue pavement happens all the time -- anytime it is lit by skylight

When shot at 100, the Fuji MS 100/1000 wasn't too bad. There are certainly worse films, such as KonicaChrome R100.

Colour: Kodak MAX

 

-I can't say that any of the B&W films are really bad, however some are trickier than others (TMax).

Before dismissing T-Max 400 (TMY) try another developer. It doesn't "like" acutance developers like Rodinal - doesn't need 'em for that matter; TMY already has enough apparent sharpness.

 

Last night I souped a roll shot at EI 250 in a homebrewed developer based on the old universal types: print developer with a few added components including borax, ascorbic acid and sodium carbonate. The worst I can say is that I didn't develop quite long enough to bring out the contrast (there's no data for these roll-yer-own developers); the grain was quite fine, tho', and the overall tonality had a "quaint" look that suited the camera I'd used, a post-WWII Agfa Isolette V.

 

Unlike color films, which are pretty much beyond our influence other than selecting a good lab, many "problems" with b&w films are a matter of less than ideal exposure and development, factors we can easily control.

 

Other developers that would probably immediately cure the alleged grain problem of TMY would be Perceptol and Microdol-X.

The absolute WORST film I ever used was ORWO 100 (or 125?) B&W in 120 size about 25 years ago. Total crap.

I don't know, Lex. When you find a film like TMY which produces poor to mediocre results in D-76, Tmax, Rodinol, and PMK, why keep searching for the magic elixer when there are so many films which work well in all of the above ? :-)

Agfa black & white film are flat and lifeless. Tmax100/400 are great films. I realy don't know what everyone is so upset about. It's a pro film and you need to try to devrlop it in Micodol-X. I love Tri-X with HC-110 rated at 200.

<i>"When you find a film like TMY (etc.)..."</i><p>

 

John, because no other ISO 400 b&w film I've tried pushes quite as well as TMY, not even my lifetime favorite Tri-X. Try Microphen. Compare the midtones and upper midtones where skin is usually rendered. Beats Tri-X, Delta 3200, TMZ or anything else I've seen at EI 1600. Finer grain, smoother gradation, very good sharpness. The cost is decreased shadow detail, which isn't always a bad thing.<p>

 

If shadow detail is important then by all means use Delta 3200 or TMZ - and deal with the mushy tonality through clever printing or scanning techniques.<p>

 

When I see an ISO 400 film better than TMY in Microphen for pushing I'll use it. Even when I shoot Tri-X at EI 1200-1250 for souping in Diafine it's not for the sake of speed - it's for the unique tonality.<p>

 

<i>"Agfa black & white film are flat and lifeless."</i><p>

 

Rothelle, you may be the only person in the world who's ever made that observation, at least regarding APX 100.<p>

 

Agreed, regarding the rest of your statement, tho'.