Do Nikon system film photographers have their own film preferences?

[steve_fay]

<p>Some other postings on photonet suggest that photographers (select your own adjective) devoted, attuned, biased, or fanatical about a particular camera manufacturer's line -- Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. -- may also have a different frame of mind when it comes to other photographic preferences or approaches. </p>

<p>So my question is: Do photographer's who've decided to specialize in Nikon film bodies and Nikon lenses, also exhibit any TENDENCIES toward preferring particular FILM makes and models and types? What have you noticed about yourself and among other Nikon film photographers you know? </p>

<p>Okay, okay, I know that film and equipment and what people choose to photograph with what emulsion are (and perhaps ought to be) separate categories, and it isn't logical that equipment line should affect film choice -- but the issue isn't logic: it's about people, and even artists in some cases.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>My tendency, as a Nikon film caemra user, is to use the same film emulsions in any camera (regardless of manufacturer) I use, in any format that I am using. That is what I have observed of others also.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Given that there are now, including the used market, several times over more brands and models of camera to choose from than there are brands and types of film; the point of this enquiry would be...?</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I haven't even seen film for sale in any of the general stores here in the new area I moved to in Spring anyway...</p>

<p>I think film is, unfortunately, far deader than any of the film lovers who are left want to admit.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In the last decade or so, I have shot a vast number of film cameras, exploring bridge cameras, early auto focus cameras, early Canon EOS, Nikon non-AI and early AF ones, and so on.</p>

<p>So as a shooter of many, if not most, of them, I can honestly say that my preferences for film remain as they have been since they took away my Kodachrome. Nothing whatsoever to do with the camera brand. ;)</p>

<p>I now shoot mostly C-41 films, almost entirely Fuji (because I can get it in 24-exposure rolls locally) and Kodak Ektar 100 for fine grain and something more like Kodachrome in color.</p>

<p>I used to shoot a lot of Tri-X, but I was given a huge batch of out-dated Ilford XP2 (b&w C-41),<br /> and fell in love with it. Besides, I do just 'enough' B&W developing for my fixer and developer to expire before I get to the next batch. :|</p>

[pics]

<p>About the only people that might fall into the mold of "one camera, one film" are photo-journalist. Amongst that crowd I'm sure most of them carried a Nikon F body with either Kodachrome and/or Tri-X and its been quite a while since those guys used film. Obviously the camera doesn't care what you put it in it based on whether it's a Nikon, Canon etc. I have a Nikon FM-2 that I take out every once in a while. I basically shoot the same types of film in it that I do with my other 35mm cameras and that really depends on what the subject matter is, not the camera I'm using.</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>Brian S., good straight forward report of what you do and observe. Thanks!</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I suppose the inquiry is in part sociological. If a study told us that by some margin, Ferrari drivers preferred Pirelli tires, for example, it would be fascinating. On the other hand, perhaps some model of Pirelli tire did in practice seem to match the needs of a set of Ferrari drivers, over anything that Michelin ever made. If so, that might be valuable instructive and practical information (if I could afford a Ferrari). Then there is the spiritual aspect. Some other discussion threads have described (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek-wise) Nikon and Canon users as subscribing do a different "religion." Perhaps such religious values affect other choices believers make? </p>

<p>Peter Hamm, you mean that people actually still buy things in stores nowadays? You won't find any shortage of places to buy photographic film online. ;)</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>There are diehard Nikon fans and diehard Canon fans and Pentax and Olympus etc.. and like wise there are diehard Kodak fans and diehard Fuji fans etc.. but I think they are mixed. A Nikon fans may be a Kodak fans or a Fuji fans. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Steve, the point I was making was that there's now not a sufficiently wide choice of film to draw any statistically valid - let alone sociological or spiritual - conclusion through correlating film and camera choice. To continue your automotive analogy: It would be like declaring that all model T Ford owners preferred black cars.</p>

<p>"If a study told us that by some margin, Ferrari drivers preferred Pirelli tires, for example, it would be fascinating." - Really? To whom? Outside of Pirelli, Ferrari and their advertising execs who would give a yawn?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I have shot primarily Nikon for close to 40 years going back to the F2. For B&W I have shot almost exclusively Tri-X. For color slides it was mostly Kodachrome and then Fuji Velvia (haven't shot slide film for quite a while) and for color neg it was either the Kodak portrait films (from VPS to Portra) and Fuji Superia for snapshots/casual pictures. <br /><br />But I've also used Canon, Leica, Yashica, Pentax, Mamiya and various other brands with the same film. I don't see any correlation between film and camera.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I shoot (occasionally) Fuji (mostly Velvia, occasionally Astia, Provia, Portra), Kodak (mono films, notably HIE back in the day) and Ilford (XP2, some IR film, some high ISO mono). I don't think I've been influenced by shooting Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander, Pentax (645) or Rollei, though I may have got stuck in my mindset from Canon times. My colour plans for 5x4 mostly involve Fuji (if they don't discontinue anything else), but I'm agnostic on monochrome films. With the exception of Velvia, I may never have shot enough to justify a preference for anything.<br />

<br />

But mostly I shoot digital.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Our choices are dwindling, but for black and white I only use T-MAX 100 and for color either Ektar 100 or Portra 100. I also use these with my Hasselblad though I use it pretty much just for black and white. No converted digital image will ever match black and white film.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I've never thought of matching a film to the camera in over 50 years of shooting...mostly Leica, Canon and Nikon gear. I've typically used Tri-X, Plus-X, XP-2 and occasionally some EFKE 25 on the B&W side. When it was available I used Kodachrome and occasionally Kodak Gold 100-400 for negatives. These days I don't shoot color film....I reserve color for my digital work, B&W for my film bodies (since I've got several bulk rolls to use up).</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>When I shot 35mm (F,F3 and F5) film it was mostly Fuji. The lab that I used got better results from Fuji film for the way I used it.</p>

<p>Now if I shoot film it is 4X5 or 8X10 and at least in the US it is hard to find Fuji color in those sizes. So I am kind of stuck shooting Kodak portra.</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>>>Amongst that crowd I'm sure most of them carried a Nikon F body with either Kodachrome and/or Tri-X<<<br>

<br>

I shoot newspaper. In the mid to late 1990s, my newspaper got the capacity to run color every day. At that point, I switched from T-Max 400 and T-Max 3200 to Fujicolor 400 and 1600, which I scanned with a Nikon LS-2000. I shot C41 because I could soup it myself and get it scanned very quickly. It gave me decent scans. At that point in my career, I used a couple of Nikon F100s with the vertical grip. Best film camera I ever used.</p>

[bryce_l.]

<p>Interesting topic. Having just acquired a Nikon F6 because it felt correct to have to accompany my F100, still use slide film. Started in the late 1960's with Pentax and graduated to a used Nikon F as it was time, Pentax simply did not have the range of lenses then required. The ONLY film used was Kodachrome II and then K25, K64 and K200 as required. My cameras never saw anything other than Kodachrome. Now they see Fuji Provia (just purchased 60 rolls 400 ASA) E-6 and the new to me F6 (from an estate sale) shall be used as well with Fuji. If I wanted a colour print as the final result, then digital would be the choice. However colour prints are not my photography, slides forever. Suspect the lack of suitable processing laboratories shall kill my slide photography and then no more. Current price for processing a roll of 36 exposure film is C$23.00 plus 13% tax.<br>

Have many friends younger and older than myself who have always used slide film and I suspect when slide film stops being available, their cameras shall be put on the shelf. For it would never be satisfactory to use that dastardly digital imagery. I've tried it and its nice however definitely not satisfying. Besides when your history is based on Carousel slide projectors and monthly meetings showing your latest efforts to others, what else is there? None of my friends even have or need/require a computer. So digital projection is out and not even part of the equation.</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>I still shoot some Delta 400 in an F100 (sometimes my N90s).</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Have many friends younger and older than myself who have always used slide film and I suspect when slide film stops being available, their cameras shall be put on the shelf. For it would never be satisfactory to use that dastardly digital imagery. I've tried it and its nice however definitely not satisfying. Besides when your history is based on Carousel slide projectors and monthly meetings showing your latest efforts to others, what else is there? None of my friends even have or need/require a computer. So digital projection is out and not even part of the equation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's sad that you and your friends feel so, since so many of us, including many as old as anyone still sentient, have found digital work so rewarding and even liberating. Even a bit of dust on the camera sensor hardly ever equals the specks, dust, and general crud that have always come back on the slides we sent in. I have scanned in tens of thousands of slide taken since the late 50s, and -like printing from 35mm negatives - the tedious part of the task is "spotting" just as it was in the pre-digital days.</p>

<p>I loved Kodachrome and other slide films too, but you don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to learn digital. Anyone who can master the arcane black arts of the darkroom can certainly master even Photoshop, not least because so many of the tools are direct analogues of darkroom processes.</p>

<p>I shoot lots of film still, because of my interests in old cameras--not film itself. I find that even shooting film, the way to go nowadays is to shoot C/N (or B&W, of course), scan, and then"print" by either manipulationto screen or direct projection. There are decent digital projectors available within the reach of even private owners, and all the more for a group of people in a camera club.</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>It is looking. so far, like responders aren't aware of any film preferences that go with preferring Nikon equipment...though perhaps in hey day of film photojournalism there might have been a subset of Nikon photographers who specialized in using Tri-X and/or Kodachrome.</p>

<p>I asked the question, because I didn't know the answer and was open to the possibility that some responses might defy the logical sense that these things would operate independently, based partly on the suspicion that brand loyalty involves impulses I'm not sure I understand. Why ask this question about Nikons, as opposed to Canons, or another brand? I have a friend who has decided to focus his camera use and collecting, from now, on Nikons.</p>

<p>I understand, partly, the response that the increasing scarcity of film, makes film preferences less likely in any case. But around where I live the major discount chain stores and drug stores all sell film, one of the drug stores still processes film, and between them a Kodak and Fuji are represented. Also there are two camera stores within an hour's drive, which sell a range of film brands as well as film cameras and equipment. Film isn't exactly dead. I would think that anyone who's read some of the film photography postings on this forum wouldn't need me to assert that.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only cameras that influence my film choice are those cameras with limited exposure flexibility. </p>

<p>My Nikon F3HP has a glitch in the ISO ring - the inner collar spins freely, so it doesn't accurately indicate the actual ISO selected. The outer ring, along with the exposure compensation dial, work fine. I used my handheld spot and incident meters to figure out the correct setting for ISO 100. I leave the F3HP parked on that setting, and used only T-Max 100 and Provia (when I still used color slide film). I can still use the exposure compensation dial both as intended and to nudge the film speed exposure index. Mostly I use the F3HP from a tripod for static subjects like architecture and landscapes, so this works well enough. Any film in the ISO 100 range would do but I prefer T-Max 100 for the unique tonality with landscapes and other static subjects.</p>

<p>My medium format Agfa Isolette folder has a very limited shutter speed range, around 1/15-1/200, plus B and T. That restricts my film choices, although I'll occasionally shot Tri-X and soup it in Diafine, which helps compensate for some extreme lighting conditions.</p>

<p>With my FM2N and other cameras that have a more common range of shutter speeds, from 1-1/500 or greater, I just choose whichever film I prefer for a given situation, usually common ISO 100-400 b&w films like Tri-X, T-Max 100 and 400, HP5+, FP4+.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I liked Fuji Provia 100 and Kodak E100 for portraits, , the last type of high speed Ektachrome for concerts, Ektachrome

160T for tungsten lighting, Tmax 100 and 400, 3200, and sometimes Neopan 400 for B&W, and Velvia (RVp) for just

about everything else. Camera make, model and even format size wasn't relevant.

 

I initially preferred Pro Kodachrome 25 and 64, and also Kodachrome 200 but in 1990 Kodachrome processing became

unreliable.

[RaymondC]

<p>Same film for all film cams. For me still using film than digital for my hobby for deliberate shots for scapes / travel. I like Velvia 50 RVP and I have a few propacks of E100G Kodak when they canned it. Still don't have a 120 cam yet but I have that film. Moving to 120 Hasselblad seems like a bargain really when you look at the digital cameras high end and low end SLRs or non SLRs. HP5+ is great stuff. I tend to stick to one only of each so Velvia 50 or 100 when I need speed and maybe I stick with HP5+, I have a few other rolls to try out like Tmax 100, Delta 100, and Trix 400.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Steve, your 6:13 pm post appears to be predicated on some long-outdated paradigms. Sure, there was a time when most pro photographers and many serious amateurs used Nikon SLRs. And most photojournalists used Tri-X. And most National Geographic photographers used Kodachrome. And because of those purely coincidental bits of data, it may have seemed as if most Nikon users preferred Tri-X and Kodachrome. But it was a coincidence of other factors. Many photographers used Tri-X and Kodachrome, regardless of camera brand.</p>

<p>If your loose impression sampling period was limited to the 1990s, you might presume that most photographers used Canon EOS models, and shot Velvia, or, if for PJ work, Fuji NPZ or the version of Superia X-tra 800 that was packaged for photojournalists.</p>

<p>If I wanted to recreate my youth I wouldn't choose Tri-X now. Several years ago Kodak changed Tri-X to the point that it's closer to the previous version of T-Max 400. Much finer grain than old Tri-X, finishes with a slight purplish base rather than the old steel gray neutral film base (presumably due to the iodide content, sensitizing and/or anti-halation dyes), and is generally a technically "better" film than old Tri-X. But HP5+ is closer to the look I associate with old school Tri-X.</p>

<p>Nowadays my friends who shoot film choose their materials for reasons totally unrelated to camera brand. Generally speaking if they prefer consistency and don't mind paying a bit more, they choose Ilford b&w films. If their budgets are tight and they don't mind dealing with variables they'll buy whatever is on special at Freestyle.</p>

<p>One of my friends who shoots and develops film almost daily has no camera brand loyalty whatsoever. He prowls pawn shops and thrift stores and buys anything interesting that costs less than five bucks. Awhile ago he snagged a Yashica T4 for cheap, used it awhile and then resold it. A couple of weeks ago he posted some photos taken with one of those fake "Canon" SLR shaped doodads that was actually a fixed focus lens on a body with a fishbowl quality viewfinder and old fashioned hammerhead flash. Darned thing actually took pretty good photos.</p>

<p>One of my other Facebook contacts mostly shoots pinhole cameras and his own zone plate modified cameras. I don't even remember which film he prefers.</p>

[andylynn]

Yes. Nikons are best with Kodak films, Canons with Fujifilm and Minoltas are best for shooting chromes. European

cameras should be shot with European films - it has to do with the "terroir" (or, as the Italians would tell you, wines often

pair best with foods from the same place - which is why Ferrania films never looked that good on any cameras, because

the Genovese never made cameras!). If you still have any American cameras, they only shoot B&W print films.

[starvy]

<p>Is your question more about whether certain film provides more of an advantage with Nikkor lenses?</p>