Which film for a Newb with a TLR?

[tMats]

Hi everyone,

I just recently purchased a Rolleicord V in very nice condition. This is my first film camera and also my first venture into taking photography more seriously.

What 120 B&W and color films would you recommend for a newby? I guess criteria I'm thinking about is cost (cheaper, I can afford to buy more) and latitude (I'm sure I'll be making tons of exposure mistakes). Anything else I should be including in the criteria?

 

thanks!

[AJG]

Do you have a light meter? You will want one to get accurate exposures.  You can download an app to a smartphone or buy a meter (anywhere from $10 for a 1950's selenium meter that might work well enough to hundreds for something new that would probably be unnecessarily complicated for you at this point).  As for film, 400 ISO films like Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5 would be a good choice for B&W and I would recommend color negative over reversal film for both lower cost and greater exposure latitude.  Arista films are a reasonable lower cost alternative for B&W.  If money is a big issue, developing your own B&W film is inexpensive and easy to do, as well as giving you results fairly quickly.

[SCL]

I've used Arista EDU 400 several times quite satisfactorily. As AJG mentioned, developing and printing/scanning your films is a great way to not only reduce costs but also to have complete control over the process and be able to adjust many factors.

[Niels - NHSN]

Foma have had QC issues with their 120 film in the past. I have not used their 120 for a while -for that reason- so I don’t know if they still have issues. It is my understanding that Arista EDU is repackaged Foma film. - just something to be aware of. 
BTW I have only had good experiences with Foma in 35mm rolls and 4x5 sheets both of which I use regularly.

400 iso is the way to go as it will allow more flexibility with regards to experimentation with shutter/aperture combinations.

If you find issues with Foma/Arista 120 400ISO film then I’d recommend Kentmere 400 which should be cheaper than HP5+/TriX and of better quality than Foma/Arista.

I do agree with the recommendation to develop the BW film yourself.
It is uncomplicated if you just stick to the film vendor recommended choice of chemicals and procedure - steer clear of things like “stand development”, caffenol etc. Not only is it cheaper, but also much more satisfying.

Good luck.

 

 

 

[tMats]

Thank you all for the recommendations! I think I'm going to give both Kentmere 400 and Tri X 400 a try. After looking at various examples, I'm drawn to the "old school" look of Tri X, but Kentmere will definitely allow me to practice more. 

I don't have a light meter of any sort so I'll look into those. I was just going to try practicing Sunny 16 but if I can get a meter on the cheap, why not use it check my light assessments.

As for developing, I wasn't thinking about doing it my self but you all got me looking into it. There's some startup up costs so I'll have to do a RoI assessment to pitch to my wife for acquiring more equipment on a venture I just got started in 😆

[AJG]

B&W developing is really inexpensive--a tank and reel for 120 film, chemicals, some storage bottles for chemicals (wine bottles with screw tops are fine) and a couple of graduates are all you really need.  A closet at night should be dark enough for loading the tank and then the rest of the steps happen in room light.  If you get into it more you can buy a changing bag so you can load the tank any time.  Get one with a frame to hold it off your hands if you do buy one since these bags are usually lined with rubber to make them light proof and your hands can get hot and sweaty if the bag is draped over them while you're loading.  Good luck!

[tMats]

As I looked into the developing the negatives my self, I quick realized that I would still need to scan in the negatives to be able to see how the photograph turned out.
Is there a way to get an idea for what the photographs look like without having a full scanning setup? I know I'll eventually get into it, but the startup cost is too high for me at the moment...

thanks!

[Niels - NHSN]

A smartphone. Put the negatives on a lightbox or similar - use an app to convert to positive. There are dedicated apps out there for this purpose. You can also use a digital camera, but a newer smartphone is sufficient for “work-scans”.

[conrad_hoffman]

Definitely develop your own film. Use tried and true methods, avoiding household product formulas. Cool idea to use the cell to get a quick positive and figure out how you're doing. I'd avoid color entirely. IMO, digital is the best thing to have ever happened to color. Color film is expensive and it has little to recommend it when you're starting out. Maybe later, maybe never. Black and white film has its own look and merits and you can go far without breaking the bank. A TLR is a great camera to start with. The format is large enough to give you high quality images. Everybody likes 35mm for the versatility and convenience, but it's always a struggle to get the highest quality. Used light meters should be a dime a dozen these days, unless you want one of the classics like a Luna-Pro or Sekonic 398a. Make sure you get a light meter that uses a current battery, not a mercury cell. A Luna-Lux SBC might be a good choice as it uses an ordinary 9V battery and is extremely accurate. There's also much value in using the sunny 16 rule and learning how to compensate for cloudy days and such. My very first forays into photography were without a light meter and the practice has served me well. Don't worry too much about latitude- get used to bracketing your exposures. Depending on your subjects, don't be afraid to use a tripod, monopod or even a minipod to steady your shots.