best films

[steve7]

Although this must have been asked many times before,which b/w and which colour film give the sharpest and "best" results on an M6?

For example ,is technical pan for b/w still the one to beat?

[george4]

Whatcha takin' pitchers of? If you want max sharpness and

tonality for rocks, trees, flowers, fields and other things that don't

move too much, maybe you should consider trading your M6 for

a Hasselblad. A larger format will outperform anything in 35mm

with more ease and convenience than messing with specialty

film. If you're doing candid, casual, available light, on-the-fly

photography, then Tech Pan is way too slow. Tri-X is good.

[roger_michel]

there is something to be said for trying to extract the maximum

technical quality from 35mm -- even though the miniature format size

makes this a real challenge. tech pan, while yielding enormously

high resolution has low microcontrast, and so often looks less sharp

than some coarse grained films like tri-x. indeed, large irregular

grain often yields high subjective sharpness since films with these

characteristics tend to produce high edge acutance. (tech pan is also

nigh impossible to zone!!) however, having said all that, if you

want a film with grain size to rival tech pan, with much better

exposure latitude, and MUCH higher sensitivity, then try kodak

t400cn. it is a chromogenic film, processed c41 at your local one

hour lab. the tonality is decent, it is a true 400 speed film, and

has grain comparable to tech pan. i think you like!!!

[zoeica images]

I use Ilford XP2, Delta 100 and 400 and Agfa 100 and 400 for black

and white in my M's. Sometimes Delta 3200 is needed also. I love the

sharpness and grainless of XP2, but the film is very thin and prone

to scratches. Many Leica photographers I have spoken to use the Agfa

B&W films. Tech Pan is very, very sharp, but can be a pain to develop

sometimes.(Tech Pan develop suggestions?)

 

<p>

 

For color, I use Fuji NPH400, Agfa Optima 100, and Fuji NPZ800. NPH

and NPZ for weddings, conventions, events, and Optima 100 for travel,

or everyday shooting.

 

<p>

 

For chrome, Kodachrome or Provia is my choice. Still can't beat the

Kodachromes though. Only down side is Kodachrome cannot be used for

film scannning with Digital Ice.

[richard_ilomaki3]

Steve:

 

<p>

 

XP2.

 

<p>

 

If you expose it at about 200-250, it will give you grainless, very

sharp 16 x 20 prints. It is capable of excellent tonal rendition

printed correctly- you must test that with your own stuff.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[ben_hughes]

Steve:

Just a note on TechPan.....the film and chemistry are expensive if

you do a lot of shooting. Also, the agitation technique is different

during developing. TechPan is a HIGH contrast film and can be

used with a number of developers, D-19 and Dektol, yes, Dektol

for very HIGH contrast negs. For normal contrast, you need to

use Technidol Liquid. Any number of developers between Dektol

and Technidol will give you varying degrees of contrast.

I'd follow the advice above from the standpoint of ease of

processing and cost. Save your money for an M7.

[preston_merchant]

I recently had a little lesson on this topic when I got some color

enlargements back from Modernage in NYC. Modernage uses a Fuji

digital output to Crystal Archive paper--for prints from negatives.

I also had the same shots done by another lab whose C-41 work is very

good and which I use regularly. The exercise here was to show some

newlyweds the quality and cost for their options for prints of their

wedding.

 

<p>

 

The digital prints from Modernage were stunning--rich, vibrant colors

(black, white & red, skin tones), exceptional detail (more than

usual, it seemed). There was a three-dimensional quality, a certain

liveliness. All of this is hard to quantify, and a scan won't do it

justice. Suffice it to say that any observer would be impressed by

the "pop."

 

<p>

 

The traditional enlargement from the other lab was fine; it was just

clearly of a different order and not nearly as vibrant or clear. It

cost $4 for a 5x7; the Modernage one was $16 for a 5x7.

 

<p>

 

The camera, by the way, was a Canon Elan 7 with 50/1.4 USM lens and

speedlight. Film was Superia 400 (cheap).

 

<p>

 

All of this is to say that the final process has as much to do with

quality as the original film--and if your lab is going to output

digital anyway, colors will be corrected, contrast will be adjusted,

etc. Lots of technology stands between the click of your shutter and

your picking up the final print.

[giles_poilu]

For B+W XP2 Super, for colour NPH400. Both beautifully, sharp, grain

free and the perfect all round speed.

[philip_woodcock]

I think the Leica's favourite food is Tri-X, I'm sure mine purrs when

it has some!

[Spearhead]

Film should be specific to the look you want. TechPan has a fairly

unique look. I've never understood film recommendation questions

unless you have something specific you want to achieve in your

negatives and prints.

[olliesteiner]

Shooting with EI 50 film, instead of EI 400, isn't so restricting as

one might think before trying it. On a sunny day 1/125th at f5.6 is

typical! The gain in quality which the slow film gives, especially

in 35mm, is very noticeable. I like Pan F+ developed in Rodinal as a

favorite for my M6TTL photography. For color slides Kodachrome 64 is

my favorite. It has incredible sharpness and natural color. With

slide film you can really see what your wonderful Leica lens is

producing. - Not so if you send color print film to be printed by

typical minilabs.

[bernd_kunze]

Is there a best film? I doubt it since the representation of i.e.

colors are subject to personal preference. Some like intense colors,

others don't. Try a couple and make your choice.

[andy_piper2]

"Don't confuse "Sharp" and "Good", or you'll find yourself shaving with

an ice cream cone, and licking razor blades." - Bill Pierce.

 

<p>

 

I mention that only because "best" is not necessarily the same thing as

"sharp".

 

<p>

 

Actually some folks (Erwin Puts, e.g.) now rate TMax 100 over Tech Pan.

For raw sharpness, forget the 400 films - period - which doesn't mean

they aren't 'better' for other uses. The chromogenic 400 films have

good grain and tonality, but are not necessarily SHARPER than silver

films fo the same speed - dye clouds just aren't as crisp-edged as

silver crystals.

 

<p>

 

I shoot Pan F - probably not as sharp as Tech Pan/Tmax100/Delta 100/

Gigabit, but with a lovely TONAL RANGE that rivlas larger formats.

 

<p>

 

For color - now that Kodachrome 25 is dead - K64 and Velvia lead the

slide pack. I don't shoot enough color neg to have an opinion, but 100-

speed neg films are getting close to K64/Velvia in overall resolution -

they just don't have the edge accutance 'pop' of the slow, contrasty

slides - yet.

[mark_sand]

Steve,

 

<p>

 

Gene Crumpler over on the BW group raves about Tech Pan in Diafine. I got the times and temp from www.digitaltruth.com

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

Tech Pan

(ISO) 80 Bath A=3min Bath B=45 sec 20°C

 

<p>

 

(ISO) 100 Bath A=3min Bath B=1 20°C

[david_killick]

B+W: try Agfapan 100 in Rodinal (25 no longer available) or Ilford Pan

F in Perceptol at ISO 32 (ultra fine grain, brilliant!)

 

<p>

 

Colour prints: Fuji Reala and Kodak portra get lots of plaudits,

though I've yet to try the Portra; otherwise it's the processing that

counts.

 

<p>

 

Slides: E100S or Elite Chrome is good and seems to be consistently

under-rated. The Yanks make damn good films, but many seem to favour

the big green giant. And don't iscount Agfa's excellent RSX 50 and

100.

[wenge_song]

It has been said that XP5 is better B+W film. What is the difference

between XP5 and XP2?

 

<p>

 

Wanye

[giles_poilu]

There is no such thing as XP5. XP-2 SUPER is the updated film to XP-

2 and it is a definite improvement.

[robert gordon]

Shot 45 rolls of 36 exposure Ilford HP 5 while wandering the streets of Paris for two weeks this summer (2002).

 

Gave up on Ilford XP 2 Super because lab left crystals on film from stabilizer, rending image after image unusable. Also is a magnet for dust if stored in archival plastic storage pages.

 

HP 5 has tonal, grain, and sharpness characteristics similar to Tri-X. Cheaper and lies much flatter in negative carrier or scanner. Zero dust.

 

Good scans for web or digital prints. Fabulous wet prints.

 

Bob Gordon