Top 5 120 Films

[curt wiler]

I went through some of the same comparisons, expecially for B&W, but this is also dependent on the processing. I don't have my own darkroom at the present, so I rely on commercial processing. The lab I settled on uses D-76, and I concluded Delta 100 was good for my purposes. But the point is, with B&W films it is most useful to specify the processing when stating a preference.

[david_chilvers]

Christian

 

I had big problems with 100f and blue, blue shadows and was about to give up when I sent a test roll to(peak imaging uk)another lab and ! perfect colours and no over blue shadows. So my findings were that the lab can make all the difference. Having said that, you do get a slight blue in shadows on clear days but the lab where I got the problem was a Kodak lab.

Top choice for me with slide is Provia, it`s so fine grained it will blow up easy and the saturation of the clear blue sky is just like using a polarize filter.

 

Dave C

[george2]

David, I agree that <i>the lab can make all the difference</i>, but I have the opposite experience. My chromes are developed by one of the most reputable <b>Fujichrome</b> labs in town (Munich, Germany) or an Agfachrome lab that is one of the five German pro labs that process Agfa Scala. They have both a turnover of 3-4 hours and have been delivering perfectly developed slides for the past 15 years or more. <p>

I never had any problems with Fuji Velvia and Astia or Kodak EPN, EPJ, E100S,SW and E200. The Provia "blues" are a well known problem. I got it consistently with both labs. They told me that it is a common characteristic of the dye couplers of the Provia line and that the original Provia was not as bad as the current F versions. Some users like this blue tendency but I don't.

[jerry_friedman]

I would like to ask those people who use a b&w 400 film why they prefer the film

they do. I use TMay 400 as my standard for various reasons. I like the crisp

grain pattern when making big enlargements and I like the more neutral contrast

a 400 film has over TMax 100 for instance. I have found TAMX has a very soft

grain and simply does not enlarge as I like. Also, and not least, I am able to

purchase closeout TMAY 400 film at very low cost on ebay. Every penny

helps......

 

My question is this: I know many people prefer Ilford Delta 400. Why? In general,

I have not found that Ilford films are as fine grained as their Kodak counterparts

for speed. What am I missing? And Tri X is......neither sharp nor fast.

 

I know some people have trouble developing TMAY 400 and complain that it is not

forgiving. Perhaps because i use this film all the time, I have not had this

problem. Is Delta 400 better in this regard?

 

BTW- this is an excellent thread. The advice people give is generally very very

sound and I think we owe cheers to each other and, of course, to the maintainer,

whose work is so good it is transparent.

 

Jerry

[christian deichert]

I have ten rolls of Agfapan 25 135, Agfapan 25 120, and Ultra 50 120 hoarded in my fridge, all dearly won off eBay. I am saving these for a rainy day, I guess.

 

As for blue Provia shadows, looking back at past Provia usage following my Iceland trip, I noticed it on several other rolls shot in similar conditions, and I had them all done at pro labs (E-6 and the main Wolf lab, both in Atlanta). I tried making it work, it didn't work, I shoot E100VS now -- simple solution. I had actually been shooting E100VS almost exclusively before the big hype for Provia's grain came out, at which point I started shooting that more. Now I'm back where I started and wiser for it.

[doug_brightwell1]

I'm glad to see this update on what films people think are the current best of

the crop. I alway wonder about this.

 

Although my question is similar, it's different enough that I don't want to derail

this discussion. If I should create a new topic, my apologies. Lemme know.

 

But if it's of interest to anyone else, here my variation to the original question:

What are the 2-3 top 120/220 color films for landscapes and scanning?

 

I want to shoot landscapes when the sun is very low in the sky, and at dusk. I

sometimes shoot color film during the last 10 minutes before the sun goes

down, with a polarizing filer at f16-f22 at exposures of 2-16 seconds.

Brightness range is always wide, often 9-10 stops.

 

Usualy I shot 120/220 Fuji Reala because of greater latitude and smooth

tonalities. I scan them on a FlexTight Precision II (Believing that color negs

and an Imacon scanner are a good match.)

 

I then manipulate the hell out of the color saturation, curves, lightness/

darkness, hue, etc. I never go for an "accurate" rendition of the original scene.

Quite the oppositie.

 

Given that, does it really matter what film I shoot? Aren't most of the

discussions on photo.net about "best" films geared more towards photogs

who have their film printed at professional labs, where the inherent

characteristics of the emulsions are more determining factors than with digital

manipulation.

 

In other words, I think the only issues I need to worry about is:

 

- fine grain & sharpness

- transparency versus negative

- wide latitude (to capture as much "data" at the time of the shot)

- ISO if faster shutter speeds are every an issue

 

Otherwise, how much red is in the rocks, or what type of blue is in the sky is

immaterial to me. I can change those parameters anyway to taste, and often

do in rather substantial increments.

 

I do want to avoid overall color casts, and have personally always found

Provia 100f to be way, way blue. Not just in the shadows. But I supose I could

always correct for that if I wanted to shoot transparencies.

 

Just wondering if my assessment makes sense, or if I was missing something

about film selection when the shots are destined to a scanner.

 

Thanks,

Dooug

[syd]

By all means don't feel that you are derailing the discussiion, I started off asking about a specific thing but I am interested to hear what others have to say about your query also! It's all along the same lines and if this thread can broaden itself into dealing with the multitudinous aspects of best film for ... whatever in 120 roll, whether it be b&w or colour, print or E6 then why not? It will be an easy thread for people to pull down later, print out and have as a stand alone, up to date discussion on a wide variety of areas surrounding this topic. You've got *my* blessing.

 

And on that note I bought some of the film and am about to head off to my local Grand Canyon to take some magic hour shots. My new ammended question is still on topic regarding film but in this case it relates to best films for shooting star trails with long time exposures? I am planning on using the RB Pro-S because it is mechanical and doesn't require batteries to shoot some star trails. Does anybody have any 120 film reccomendations for this, I am looking for good reciprocity and any advice on colour shifts, I know Velvia will shift to green unless an FLD is used for example. Any and all advice in this regard is welcome. Thanks all and keep the advice, info and experiences coming!

 

P.S I know there is a section at photo.net on Star Trails and I have read it, I want current info and recommendations now...

 

Syd

[mr_callow]

no specific order<p>

chromes:<br>

100sw -- good saturation, speed and resaprocity<br>

epp -- easy to use and true to subject a little grainy

<br>ept -- very grainy but I like it<br>

100s -- some where between 100sw and epp<br>

They all xprocess well to boot

<p>

 

negs color:

<br>160nc -- great pallette better shadows and faster than nps

<br>100t -- as above when compared to Npl

<br>reala -- best grain, great night photo film low contrast high sat.

<br>NPC -- high contrast and sat.<br> ultra 50 -- still have a brick frozen in the fridge --good contrast great sat. ok grain<p>

 

B/W<p>

<br>Tri-X -- love the grain and tonal range

<br>PXP -- as above -- got a bunch free

<br>T-Max -- good contrast and grain

<BR>FP4+ -- got a bunch free a bit like pxp<p>

 

Specialty<Br>

EPD for the grain when Xprocessed rated at 100 developed Normal-1

<p>

Nothing I shoot that moves needs to be frozen, I like/shoot for saturation so I tend to overexpose and shoot slower films. The one exception is 160nc -- I love the subtle palette.<p> I'll be posting a catalogue of a couple shows I have going at jdc-art.com. Most of the design house shots are done in 120 (mamiya6) and about a 2/3rds of the Livingroom gallary stuff is 120 (6x9 back on a sinar)-- the films used are those listed.

[fattfreddie]

I've used most of the slower B&W films listed, and Fuji Acros suits me the best. Nothing else comes close.

 

fR3d

[gregg_cook]

Nobody approaches the issue you raise for long exp.

 

For B&w Delta 100 shoots almost like 400 at over a minute b/c of good reciprocity.

 

Go no further, unless you need lower light then go to hp5 or delta 3200

 

I like all of um in xtol 1-1 with a water bath for contrasty daylight.

 

For color neg Nps 160 is great until shot at over a second or two and the highlights

block up and go muddy.

 

Then go to kodachrome or provia,

 

because provia is good at exposures of 5 sec or more.

 

although the rdp11 provia was better to print on ilfochrome.

 

over and out!

[allan_yates]

Fuji Velvia ISO 50 - can't go wrong.

 

Fuji Velvia ISO 100 - one stop faster than the original, but does not deliver on very pale, subtle color tones, i.e. pastels, like Velvia 50. Strong on saturated, bold colors.

 

B&W - still working on that one myself, but at ISO 100, my choice would be either Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji Acros 100; at ISO 400, either Kodak Tri-X or Ilford Delta 400.