35mm film recommendations

[phyliss_crowe]

Not really a beginner. Just rusty, that's all. Semi-retired now and able to spend more time with my cameras - Pentax K200D, K1000, KX (black! at last!), and a Sears KSX. Subjects will be mostly landscape, architecture, etc., and I do love macro photography. Will not be developing my own photos; will send my film out for C-41 processing.

Came across Legacy Photo Lab in Ft. Worth, Texas, today and found they stock some "unique" film brands I've never heard of so I'm wondering if anyone on here has used any of the non-"big box" C-41 brands they offer. I'm primarily interested in B&W, and for both it and color, I've always preferred ASA200, (No; I won't say ISO; I'm talking film. 🤧 ), but 400 is fine, too, if it doesn't have too much graininess when enlarged to 11x14 max. I can always fix it in post, I know, but it would be nice if I didn't have to, just because.

Thanks for your help!

 

p.s. I use VINTAGE lenses - Takumars, Vivitar, and some early K-mount Pentax, primes and zooms.

Edited September 26 by phyliss_crowe

[John Farrell]

For my ancient cameras, I use monochrome film bought from B&H in New York - I get it posted to me here in New Zealand. I buy 100 foot rolls, and bulk load the film. Over the last few years, I have used Kentmere 100, and Arista Edu Ultra 100. Both of these are available in 400ISO.

[rodeo_joe1]

The 'off brands' of C41 colour negative film were always inferior to the likes of Fuji, Agfa and (of course) Kodak, in my experience. Although I did like the results from Konica. That was when film was ubiquitous and affordable, but even back then you were hard-pushed to find a good and consistent processing lab. 

In short, I would stick with the biggest name-brand you can still find. 

Incidentally; the various national standards for film speed - ASA, BS, DIN, Weston, GOST, etc. we're all amalgamated into a unified ISO standard (and identical to ASA in the linear version) way back in the mid 1960s. Long before digital photography. So you shouldn't exclude using the ISO abbreviation on the grounds that it has any 'digital' connotation. In fact we should be thankful that the parochial speed-rating chaos that existed before ISO unification didn't continue its confusing existence into the present day. 

That the Swiss Gnomes that run the ISO are greedy little swine that refuse to allow free and public access to their 'secret' standards is another matter entirely! 

[AlanKlein]

What will you do with it?  Print?  For internet?  Do you plan to print chemically or digitally?  Will you scan?  Do you prefer higher saturation or more modest contrast?

[chuck909]

As far as I know, only Kodak (and Ilford - sort of) is making color film.  Fuji - not sure, but some at least of the Fuji color films are made by Kodak.  Yes, Ilford is making color film, but from what I have seen, it has a long way to go before it is acceptable.  A lot of the off-brand/never heard of films are really Kodak movie films cut for still cameras.  If you are primarily into landscape, I'd suggest Ektar 100 of Kodak Gold 200. 

[Bettendorf]

Phyliss hasn't logged on since the day she posted this.  I don't think she or he is interested.

[Tony Parsons]

On 10/20/2024 at 9:49 PM, Bettendorf said:

Phyliss hasn't logged on since the day she posted this.  I don't think she or he is interested.

Well, she did join in 2007 - maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt ? Much could have happened in the interim.

[Bettendorf]

Good point.

[glen_h]

On 10/15/2024 at 2:50 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

 

(snip)

Incidentally; the various national standards for film speed - ASA, BS, DIN, Weston, GOST, etc. we're all amalgamated into a unified ISO standard (and identical to ASA in the linear version) way back in the mid 1960s. Long before digital photography. So you shouldn't exclude using the ISO abbreviation on the grounds that it has any 'digital' connotation. In fact we should be thankful that the parochial speed-rating chaos that existed before ISO unification didn't continue its confusing existence into the present day. 

That the Swiss Gnomes that run the ISO are greedy little swine that refuse to allow free and public access to their 'secret' standards is another matter entirely! 

I sometimes still use ASA when describing old enough cameras, or old,
though maybe not old enough, film in one of them.

Some standards organizations now release versions for personal use.

Others release the draft versions, close enough to the final version.

[c_watson1]

Obvious drive-by/zombie threads...Seriously?

[atomray]

If you want low grain and realistic colour representation Kodak is your best bet. A lot of the non-Kodaks are repackaged Kodak niche film / motion picture film (and they aren't always up front about it) - which is fine, just be aware of what it is. Lomography is for more experimental / fun to shoot vibes - the colour renditions often aren't intended to be accurate. Harmon Phoenix is in development with income being fed into further refinement, but probably not what you want.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/30/2024 at 6:39 AM, glen_h said:

Some standards organizations now release versions for personal use.

Others release the draft versions, close enough to the final version.

Really? Because AFAIK there are no regional standards organisations anymore. They're all under the ISO umbrella and charge a standard, extortionate, rate equivalent to around 40 Swiss Francs for any standard that's in current use. Downloaded or paper version. 

I did manage to find some old Indian Standards online, which were roughly equivalent to older ISOs, but the ISO police the Internet and take down anything that even remotely gives a clue to what's in their standards. You can't even find a dimensioned technical drawing of a stupid ISO hotshoe!

I can picture their stunted hominid forms, stooped over in semi-darkness and stroking their database, muttering "Precious, precious. Mustn't let anyone get their hands on the precious. Well, not unless they pay through the nose for it!“

Edited Wednesday at 08:55 PM by rodeo_joe1