Back to Film - Any Suggestions?

[niccoury]

So I got a stupid good deal on an F100 (boxed on eBay for $215 shipped) and I am the staff photog

for the Weekly in Monterey, Calif. On the table of contents page we have the "Etc." shot: a feature-

y, artsy shot from around the county that I shot every week.

 

I want to start shooting that picture on film for fun's sake and to be artsy and I'm looking for some

nice film.

 

I shot Ektachrome back in high school and loved it. I'd like a nice B&W film, something like 400 or

800 and a nice skin-tonal color film, preferably contrast-y and slightly desaturated.

 

Attached is last week's Etc shot. (D2H, 300mm, ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/1250 sec).

 

Thanks in advance,

 

~ nic

[jose_angel]

I like TX400. Very different results can be achieved depending of the developer and ISO. I use it at ISO400 developed on straight D76, but for traditional wet darkroom use.

 

I find that high speed films, especially if you like them contrasty, are very difficult to be scanned (with an ordinary scanner) to have acceptable results. You must check if results are acceptable to your needs. Probably you`ll need to overexpose-underdevelop for better results. Low or medium fine grained films seems better to me for digital processing.

[jose_angel]

... I wanted to mean low or medium <b><i>speed</b></i> fine grained films...

[walterh]

In California you may often have high contrast light. Try a Fuji NPS160 pro or whatever its current name is. A good film for high contrast light. In standard C41 process developed I expose it for 1/2 stop more to scan in a good scanner that can deal with the high density negatives this film can produce. If used in dull light the results sometimes are terrible^^. However in high contrast and large dynamic range it delivers excellent details in the whites and in the shadows. (Mainly a wedding film in this respect.)

[luisarguelles]

Nic, first, congrats on that F100. I would bet you are going to enjoy b&w photography a

lot with it. About film, I would recommend Tri-X. One of the hidden secrets of this film

is that you can expose it at 400 and 800 ASA without modifying the developing time (I

use D76 stock, 7 minutes at 20C). If contrast is an issue, you could expose it at 200

ASA and develop it for 6 minutes. Other great films at lower speeds are Ilford FP4 and

Fuji Acros.

[lex_jenkins]

After years of scanning various b&w films I'm comfortable nominating T-Max 100 as the best "true" b&w film for scanning negatives and Ilford XP2 Super as the best monochrome 400 film for scanning.

 

Considering deadline pressures, I'd strongly recommend XP2 Super.

 

Tri-X and Ilford HP5+ will scan well if exposed at around 250-320 and not overdeveloped. Pushing and overdevelopment will result in excessive grain and contrast, which makes scanning very difficult. Much as I love conventional b&w film, for PJ work today given the current realities, it no longer makes sense, especially when chromogenic monochrome films can be processed locally in an hour. Hell, they'll even do the low to medium resolution scans for you!

 

For color, the field is wide open. If you like slide film and can still get same-day E6 processing, just about anything will do. I like Fuji slide films, especially Sensia which is a relative bargain and handles mixed lighting pretty well.

 

For color negative film, Kodak 400UC is a very good choice. Eye popping color and contrast yet accurate skin tones. And it scans well. For a faster color negative film, Fuji's 800 was the best last time I tried it.

[fp1]

Try Fuji Neopan 400. There is nothing quite like it.

[ronald_moravec1]

All black and white films scan fine if you do not overdevelope them. I use Delta 100, Tri X, Plus X all in D76. Lex may have worked out that TMax works for him and he may be right, but I have no problem if my negs are not overdeveloped. A lot may have to do with the scanner in use. Mine has a diffused light source.

 

Porta 160 or Fuji 160s Pro are great for bright sun and scan superbly.

If you want some bright colors in dull light, get some 4 rolls for $6.00 at Walmart consumer stuff.

[dan_brown4]

At the end of my film days, I was well settled on Delta400 souped in XTOL. Finer

grain than Plus-X and you can push it to ISO1600 with good results. One film, one

developer solution.

 

I never got into scanning BW negatives, but it prints beautifully on Ilford papers.

 

Keep us posted, your getting my film juices running again :~)

[yann1]

Fuji neopan 400 is good but very similar to tri-x AMOF, and more expensive. If you don't process your films yourself and need good scans, I second the vote for XP2. Ilford HP5 is my all purpose film that pushes very well (I use it in HC110). Personally I found Delta 400 to be horrible for portrait, and not so fine grain. Everyone has his own experience and taste about films, Tri-x is maybe a good start, especially if you take care of the development. Otherwise, why bother: a shop will be happier with a roll of XP2, easier for them to take care.

[tri-x1]

I agree with Lex. Although I shot Tri-X for yeeeears, Tmax handles shades of gray better IMO and scans better. And the C-41 B&W film is a lot like T-max in tonality.

[jeffrey_winn]

Just returnd from vacation in the Caribbean and went through many rolls of Fuji 160S PRO, and Fuji Realia 100 ISO. I also shot a few rolls of Kodak 100 Gold, and a roll of Kodak Ultra Color. Great results.

 

My preference if I had to chose just one film would be Fuji 160S PRO. I shoot it at 125 ISO, and love the look. Realia is very nice as well.

 

Jeff

[luisarguelles]

The bigger advantage of XP2 (aside the everywhere C41 process) is that it scans

very easily with almost any scanner. I remember a Minolta scanner I had (2800ppp I

think to remember) that was only good with XP2 in B&W films. Now my Minolta

5200 scans Tri-x as easily as XP2, and the flatbed Epson scanners easily scan Tri-

x, FP4, Agfapan, you name it.

</p>

In any case, I'm observing that lots of people I know are starting to move to film

again. That is, people is learning to enjoy the advantages and feelings of each

technology and it seems that a mix of film and digital is like enjoying photography

twice.

[simus]

I'd give a try at Tmax 400 with d76 development,

 

 

Ciao,

Antonio

[the shuttered eye]

XP2 is nice. In addition to what's been said about it already, you should underexpose by a half to a full stop to produce really lovely tonality and fine grain (and you can shoot it at 200 and 400 ISO on the same roll -- just have the lab process it normally).

[fp1]

Must disagree: Tri x is nothing like Neopan, and Neopan is less expensive.

[photo5]

I loved Fuji Neopan 1600. I developed it in replenished D-76 for around 3 minutes 15 seconds. Exposed at 800-1000. Gorgeous sharp grain, but detailed and super contrast.