# Good Alround 35mm Pro Quality Film Speed / Brand



## winston (Jun 6, 2007)

Hey, any recommendtions on a good all round pro quality film, used for Night / Day and Flash ? I am thinking 400 ASA?  Let me know.

Thanks.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2007)

I personally shoot as much 200 as possible.  I did before I retired and am going to again when I come out of retirement on my next birthday this month.

It gave me one more stop on my strobe in a church situation, and added very little more grain to the pictures.  400 actually is better for strobe and low light but I always felt it had a little to much grain when it went above 8x10.  I think most of the pros I knew felt like mem, we shoot hoping to make bigger prints.  There is just more money in them.  I like 100 for outdoors, two hundred for strobe light in a low light situation and four hundred for natural light shots from the balcony type shots.  

But if I had to go with just one speed, 200 for me.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 6, 2007)

What kind of professional work? B/W or color? Slide or negative?


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 6, 2007)

Mystery, what 200 film did you like?

Dave


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2007)

Mostly used fuji supra negative. 

Tried to avoid kodak but the last wedding I shot last month I used fuji and it was a hell of a mess, so damn red. Very hard for me to clean the color at all. Next I'm going to go with just plain old kodak gold 200. To be honest since im going to be scanning it and then working it in a ps clone, I'm not sure that it matters. Except I had such trouble with the red from the fuji.

I used to shoot kodak vps 160 when I was in it last time. Even some vph 400 but that was 120 stuff. they did make a vps in the 35mm though. To be honest I heard that the new kodak high def 35mm 400 was actually the old ektacolor/royal gold film. If that is the case and if is the same as before it is dynamite film but it scratches easy or it did. To be honest these days with the clone thing that wouldn't be as big an issue. the colors were a little cooler than kodak usually is though.

But I'm going to shoot koday gold to answer your question. By the way did anyone ever shoot any mitsubishi film. Now that was a great little film but I only saw it for a few months then it was gone.

I only shot negative film mostly.... These days I shoot 100 asa black and white.  Actually at the moment Im shooting asa 50.  I bought a long roll from freestyle.  

Color slides I almost never do.  I have about twenty more rolls of konica slide 100 pro film (so they say on the box)  I have been having it cross processed.  Works pretty darn good as a negative film.

The films I stayed away from were polaroid 34mm and anything else that was rebranded 3m film.  Also lucky color though it might have improved now that they have a lot of the kodak technology.  Konica was pretty bad as well.

I prefer fuji super g or what they sometimes called supera.  But like i said the last fuji i has was so red.  Koday is a little warmer but I think the will be more managable after the scan.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 6, 2007)

Mysteryscribe.. did you shoot mostly negative film for its push/pull abilities? Did you make your own prints and dodge/burn in the darkroom with color?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2007)

NO to most of that,,, I develop the negatives at a commercial lab then I scan them into the computer and edit them digitally. for color. 

Black and white I do my own negs and then scan them. I have really bad balance i can't work in a darkroom at all any more. I do all my loading of film ect in a dark bag.

I shoot negative film because it is easy for me to find and have processed. We are doing this same discussion on a different thread. What I do is kind of a hybred system. All the digital things everyone else does but I start with film not a digital camera. 

I'm one of those weirdos who likes the whole film ritual thing. More thought about what you are going to do because it isn't "free". Each trip of the shutter costs you money.

One thing i should have added, as a working pro film shooter you want as much security as you can get.  It isn't like digi where you can see what you have.  Negative film is much more forgiving than slide exposure wise.  I would never shoot slides for meatball photography.  Ie weddings or events requiring quick thinking and lots of shots.  Slides are just to exposure critical.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 6, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> NO to most of that,,,  I develop the negatives at a commercial lab then I scan them into the computer and edit them digitally.  for color.
> 
> Black and white I do my own negs and then scan them.  I have really bad balance i can't work in a darkroom at all any more.  I do all my loading of film ect in a dark bag.
> 
> ...




Oh I agree about the film ritual. It feels more substantial, like I'm purposely capturing a moment of reality on a palpable medium.

If it was readily available and there were places nearby to have it processed, would you shoot slide film? I'm just curious, because my brother's wedding photographer shoots negs, but only because she dodges and burns in the darkroom.

I personally REALLY prefer the look of slide film, but then I'm not a professional (yet?).


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2007)

I wouldn't no. I got a wild hair and shot a wedding with it once. Not working it was there with another photographer we both had heard all the slide things so he asked me if I would like to check it out. 

First thing I do when I go to a wedding is set up my auto strobe. I set it at the recommended setting and the camera matched it and off i went. If I had been shooting negatives everthing would have been great. remember the is one to two stops of latitude in the negative material. There is zilch in the slides. The auto strobe isn't a 100 percent perfect. It would vary the exposure a half stop to a full stop at times when it got fooled. 

Some of the slides were dark some were completely washed out. I lost my urge to shoot slide then. Now if you were to be shooting out doors and the camera picked up the background you could dodge out the faces and get bye, not with slide film. Printing it is not something I can do.

So here is what I do now. Shoot the neg get it processed in a commercial lab. Then scan it. I can digitally burn and dodge it. I can change the color as well as the over all exposure. Even clone out the scratches and dust. Lots of other cute thing that I almost never bother with. So for most photographers now, the digital darkroom and film is a really nice match. Most have gone full digital but if like me you just perfer film and dont shoot a high volume the hybred system is the way to go.

Slides are nice when you can be 100percent accurate with your sexposure.  That is mostly a cumbersome thing when you are shooting a couple of hundred exposures in three hours.  I know the studio guys use a lot of slide film.  Also landscape and art photographers but that isn't what I did a lot of.   That is not to say I never shot slides, I just did not do it routinely.   My staple was negative material and it will be if I go back to work in july.


----------



## nealjpage (Jun 7, 2007)

I always liked Tri-X as a good all-around black and white film.  400 speed, easy to work with, readily available...


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> I always liked Tri-X as a good all-around black and white film.  400 speed, easy to work with, readily available...



For B/W I love Tri-X or Ilford HP5. I think since he mentioned different light sources he's referring to color due to white balance though.


----------



## montresor (Jun 7, 2007)

Ilford Delta 400, occasionally Tri-X, for b&w. Have shot Fuji Pro 400 H in 120, not bad.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

I'm glad to see others come in on this.... Frankly my experience with films had two periods. In my early days I would shoot nothing that had people in it unless I used kodak vps. The reason was that the prolabs wouldn't even print anything else at the time. Everything was color balanced for it.

After the invention of the 1hr lab I switched to fuji commercial films. The reason was simple, one hour labs did a betteer proof job than pro labs in my opinion. Suddenly I didn't have to keep bricks of vps laying about. Wholesalers started to call me and offer me deals on good commercial films.

I am not your typical photographer with brand loyalties. There are a few film makers I avoid others are on my list of okay. What I would try very hard to avoid is the mixing of film types on the same job. Half a job on kodak and half on fuji would be a nightmare.

Most of the photographers here most likely have very different experiences.

However I will say this the best black and white portrait film I ever shot was panatomic x.  It had an asa of about 30...  The stuff could be blown up to the side a of house with no grain.  When I was first bringing 35mm into my business grain was the number on problem... here they call it noise.  It looks the same to me.


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 7, 2007)

I asked because I just shot a couple of rolls of Kodak Gold 200 and was less than impressed with the results.  I normally shoot positive film anyway but in the past I have used various pro negative films (Reala, UC 100, NPS 160, Porta 160) and the Gold left me quite disappointed with the results.  I used it because I needed some cheap film and had only a drugstore available to purchase from, and that was the best they had.  It was in-date.  Basically, it came out somewhat grainy, and I don't know how to describe the colours but they lack the subtlety and range that I'm used to.  It was shot with an FM2n and mostly with an 85/1.4.  So I'll be curious if you try it what you think, and if you really like the results better than a pro 400 film (I know there's an obvious cost difference there..).  I haven't used enough pro 400 negative films to comment myself so I'll be curious about others' experiences.

Dave


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

selmerdave said:


> I asked because I just shot a couple of rolls of Kodak Gold 200 and was less than impressed with the results.  I normally shoot positive film anyway but in the past I have used various pro negative films (Reala, UC 100, NPS 160, Porta 160) and the Gold left me quite disappointed with the results.  I used it because I needed some cheap film and had only a drugstore available to purchase from, and that was the best they had.  It was in-date.  Basically, it came out somewhat grainy, and I don't know how to describe the colours but they lack the subtlety and range that I'm used to.  It was shot with an FM2n and mostly with an 85/1.4.  So I'll be curious if you try it what you think, and if you really like the results better than a pro 400 film (I know there's an obvious cost difference there..).  I haven't used enough pro 400 negative films to comment myself so I'll be curious about others' experiences.
> 
> Dave



I have to say that I've been less than impressed with Kodak Gold in general as well. It looks like a grainy, dull joke to me compared to shooting positive film. I find Provia 400 to even have less grain than Kodak Gold, and it's much more vibrant but still will great skin tones.

I have to say, I've never had a problem getting positives exposed right, under any conditions. My ME-F has an amazing average meter, and all I have to do is shoot aperture priority and click for +/- 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2... I know what can trick the meter well enough to do it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

Ah well if you have good luck with slide film I'd use what I have the best luck with.  Maybe my eyes are bad enough now that it isnt a problem with me any more.

Guess what film this is..






this is from a wedding I shot a couple of months ago.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Ah well if you have good luck with slide film I'd use what I have the best luck with.  Maybe my eyes are bad enough now that it isnt a problem with me any more.
> 
> Guess what film this is..
> 
> ...



Everything looks fine but the skin tone -- obviously a well-done wedding shot from someone with a lot of experience. Obviously if she naturally has blotchy skin or something, you can't do anything about it and I'm guessing that's what happened here, but the skin tone is quite red and unflattering. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say the fill flash is just a bit too much, turning the breast of her dress into a distracting blown out highlight, although I like what it does to her hair. It also causes a bit of an unnatural shadow under her chin. I dunno -- I'm not a pro wedding photographer so take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but I would have cut off a bit of her arm for flattery and left the entire bouquet in for aesthetic and I mean when taking the original shot. Maybe moved a bit lower to get the hands in as well. Hindsight's 20/20 though isn't it? I wouldn't have been able to do half as good of a job.

I have to agree -- it's a matter of what works best for you and in a pro's case, your customers. If you're comfortable shooting negs and you and your customers prefer it, then thats the way to go. The same goes for slides. Thats the best part about photography -- we can all shoot what we like and are comfortable with, only restricted by our customer if we are doing pro stuff.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

True on all counts.  I should have done a bit of bluring on the blotchy skin.  Most likely a case of nerves.  And it is originally even more red.  The flash isn't fill it's the only light in an otherwise dark room.  Yes those things do burn out whites.  But generally in a print is isn't all that noticeable to the customer.  I have found over the years if a custoemer's face is well lite that's about all they notice.  But what film has the characteristics you see here.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> True on all counts.  I should have done a bit of bluring on the blotchy skin.  Most likely a case of nerves.  And it is originally even more red.  The flash isn't fill it's the only light in an otherwise dark room.  Yes those things do burn out whites.  But generally in a print is isn't all that noticeable to the customer.  I have found over the years if a custoemer's face is well lite that's about all they notice.  But what film has the characteristics you see here.



If it works for the customer that's all that matters.

Hey, I'm not capable of telling you what film is which just by looking at a scan. I probably couldn't tell from a print. I don't have years of experience. I only know what has worked well for me. :thumbup:

What film is it?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

It's actually a house brand of fuji.  No one could tell me which fuji it was.  It has the classic red tint of fuji though.  I had to tone it down a lot to get to the point you see.

That is pretty much why I decided to shoot the royal gold next time.  Kodak is more yellow than red.  The grain might be a problem but I think it will be used in a photo book prints no larger than 8x10.  If they are sharp enough I can always toss the despeckle filter on it.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> It's actually a house brand of fuji.  No one could tell me which fuji it was.  It has the classic red tint of fuji though.  I had to tone it down a lot to get to the point you see.
> 
> That is pretty much why I decided to shoot the royal gold next time.  Kodak is more yellow than red.  The grain might be a problem but I think it will be used in a photo book prints no larger than 8x10.  If they are sharp enough I can always toss the despeckle filter on it.



That sounds like it would work. FWIW, I've never had problems with Provia being red for skin tones, only Velvia. I've never really dealt with their color negs.

I'd be interested to see how Provia 400 would do for low light wedding shoots, or Kodachrome 200.

Do you do a lot of tele work for weddings? Is it all 35mm?

Do you think it would be possible or even a good idea to shoot a wedding in MF?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

Me too but you have to shoot it.... lol...  I don't experiment on someone else's dime.  Now on my own dime I'll try anything but I'm not going to get married again to experiement with film.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Me too but you have to shoot it.... lol...  I don't experiment on someone else's dime.  Now on my own dime I'll try anything but I'm not going to get married again to experiement with film.



Haha, of course. I guess you could ask somebody if you can come take pictures at their wedding for practice and offer them the results for free. 

The reason I ask about MF is that you could shoot a wedding with something like Provia 400 with MF and available light, and still get biiiig enlargements without grain.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

When I first started I used to shoot nothing but 120 aka med format.... used to shoot vps 400 but still had to use strobe.  Those churches are way darker than they look.  And those flower girls wont stand still.  Actually seems like someone always has to scratch their nose.


----------



## cigrainger (Jun 7, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> When I first started I used to shoot nothing but 120 aka med format.... used to shoot vps 400 but still had to use strobe.  Those churches are way darker than they look.  And those flower girls wont stand still.  Actually seems like someone always has to scratch their nose.



 I wouldn't know. Couldn't you use a softer flash (maybe with a reflector or diffuser) with a faster film?

I guess outside weddings are a bit easier, no?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2007)

No they aren't any easier at all.  You just have different lighting problems.

People are terrified of strobe lights and I have no idea why.  

As far as softer, I like the light and the effect.  I never had a customer complain so it if ain't broke, I ain't gonna fix it.  The reason I used 400 speed film is it added more distance on the strobe.  When you have thrity or forty people strung out across the front of a church, you need to be able to shoot from a pretty good distance.  When you open up enough to get that much distance, you can easily have a dof problem.  What I always wanted to do was to have at least a 5.6 or smaller aperture to give me enough depth of field for a staggered line of people.

I'm not really convinced that the average person gives a rats rear about all the things that photographers seem to obsess over.  

Oh my there is a hot spot on her dress of about the size of a pickle jar lid, how it the world can you stand that.  Oh because the face and body are all there and pretty well lit.  That's what I think people are looking for.  thats just my approach, not saying it is right for anyone else.


----------

