# Film recommendations



## jbylake (Sep 11, 2009)

Long story short (PM me if you want to know), I have 3 very mint camera's that I bought in the '70's- early 80's, 1 Canon A1 and 2 mint AE1's, and a bunch of Canon FD Glass.  I used to be a fairly decent and knowledgable photographer, but never on the pro level.  For reasons to lengthy to explain, I had to quit the hobby.  I've recently had all the equip checked..rated Excellent ++, and have been re-training myself. 

Here's the question.  I shoot almost exclusively B&W, but also some color.
I've just bought a new hi-res scanner, so sans the photo equiment we had at the base photo hobby shop.  Now, after all of these years, I could use some tips on which film to buy...100, 200, and 400 ASA.  I know B&W film has advanced since my hey day...can anyone make any recommendations for film(s) and maybe a little explanation if you have time?

Thanks Much in advance for your help...

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## jonahr (Sep 11, 2009)

100: I really like Ilford Delta 100, Ilford FP4 (ISO 125 but i shoot it at 100) and Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (I would highly recommend rating it at ISO 80)

400: Ilford HP5, Fuji Neopan 400

A lot of people I have spoken to, particularly those shooting film for the first time in years seem very inclined to go for Kodak film. Other than the newest generation of TMax I really don't think Kodak's B/W film can stand up to the competition. You really can't go wrong with any of Ilford's films and I've really been enjoying Fuji Neopan lately. Fuji's films are really great in that they cost almost half as much as most Ilford and Kodak.


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 12, 2009)

Firstly, I highly recommend http://www.freestylephoto.biz they have an excellent selection, prices, and fast shipping.

fujifilm neopan acros or tmax 100 are good choices.

If you're looking for somethign cheaper fuji neopan SS is half the price of the forementioned brands--while not quite as fine grain as acros or tmax, it's still produces excellent results.


----------



## jbylake (Sep 12, 2009)

Thank you both!  I'll heed your advice and try out your suggestions..
J.:mrgreen:


----------



## blash (Sep 12, 2009)

jonahr said:


> 100: I really like Ilford Delta 100, Ilford FP4 (ISO 125 but i shoot it at 100) and Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (I would highly recommend rating it at ISO 80)
> 
> 400: Ilford HP5, Fuji Neopan 400
> 
> A lot of people I have spoken to, particularly those shooting film for the first time in years seem very inclined to go for Kodak film. Other than the newest generation of TMax I really don't think Kodak's B/W film can stand up to the competition. You really can't go wrong with any of Ilford's films and I've really been enjoying Fuji Neopan lately. Fuji's films are really great in that they cost almost half as much as most Ilford and Kodak.



I agree with this (except for the Delta 100, but only because I've never shot any so I don't know it). I preferred Agfa APX-100 and APX-400 for supremely fine grain but unfortunately B&H finally ran out of stock this past summer. Kodak is much better for color photo than it is for B&W - TMax was highly disappointing but Portra 160 NC and VC is wonderful.


----------



## jbylake (Sep 12, 2009)

Thanks, I'll try your suggestion also.  In some of my B&W stuff, not all but some, I do like a little grain, where it fits.  Just wierd that way, I guess.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## minolta09 (Sep 15, 2009)

iso 100 : Lucky B&W :cheap, around $2/roll
              Ilford pan100 around $4/roll

iso 400 : Ilford pan400 around $5/roll

for your reference, i bought from www.lomofilmonline.com
i got my films around 1week


----------



## biprauk (Sep 19, 2009)

Lovely post! Thanks for the useful information.


----------



## Photoboy1980 (Oct 9, 2009)

I know this is an old post.. but if you are shooting B&W for the most part, I would revisit Kodak's films. I've used T-Max 400, 100 and also Tri-X 400. All gave great results!


----------



## cooltouch (Oct 9, 2009)

Well, Kodak's still making Tri-X.  You probably shot with it back in the day.  The ISO 400 T-Max does as good of a job, IMO.  Kodak's also back to making Plus-X Pan again.  It's a solid ISO 125 film.

A few days ago, I bought some Kodak BW400CN -- it uses the C-41 process, so anybody who prints color negs can print this stuff.  I don't know anything about it, but figured I'd give it a try.

Years ago, I bought some cheapo no-name B&W film that was supposedly made in Hungary or some place, but it was so cheap, I figured I'd give it a try.  It ended up being fairly high contrast, grainy film, but its effect was remarkable.  Some of my coolest B&W photos were done with that cheapo film.

I don't really think you can go wrong with B&W.  Each film has its own character, and I guess the thing is finding the way to best exploit it.


----------



## Photoboy1980 (Oct 9, 2009)

"I don't really think you can go wrong with B&W. Each film has its own character, and I guess the thing is finding the way to best exploit it."

Good point cooltouch!


----------



## den9 (Oct 9, 2009)

would fuji T64 be good for city lights at night?


----------



## compur (Oct 9, 2009)

den9 said:


> would fuji T64 be good for city lights at night?



Yes! I've used tungsten film for night shots.  It produces some neat color
effects.


----------



## den9 (Oct 10, 2009)

picked up some film today, they had no tungsten film, and i picked up black and white what it was slide? does this really matter? what are the benefits? im not developing my own film. i also picked up expired film, would this film still be ok to use? its about a year old.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 10, 2009)

Well, if you are just going to scan the negatives, meaning you can do post processing of the photos on computer, why not get color negatives then turn them into b&w as you wish? I don't really know what the difference is between a true b&w negative vs turning a color photo into b&w, but I figured this will give you more options to how you want the final result to be.


----------



## den9 (Oct 10, 2009)

never really thought of that, good idea.


----------



## cooltouch (Oct 11, 2009)

> Well, if you are just going to scan the negatives, meaning you can do post processing of the photos on computer, why not get color negatives then turn them into b&w as you wish? I don't really know what the difference is between a true b&w negative vs turning a color photo into b&w, but I figured this will give you more options to how you want the final result to be.



The most obvious difference between color and B&W negatives, besides the presence and lack of color, is that B&W had a greater dynamic range than color negative film.  Depending on the subject, this greater lattitude might make a difference.

I have shot in color, then in PP converted to B&W, then added colorized effects -- sepia toning, etc. -- and this worked quite well.


----------



## den9 (Oct 11, 2009)

what would i need for infrared pictures? should i use infrared film or a filter? if i use a filter should i use black and white film?


----------



## Battou (Oct 12, 2009)

I might suggest that wile you are retraining your self to just pickup what ever the local drug store has to offer....seriously, if you've been out of film for any amount of time you are bound to botch some shots due to digital habits and/or rust. Get the cheap stuff and knock the rust off first and then move on to the high end films being suggested here.


----------



## cooltouch (Oct 12, 2009)

Battou said:


> I might suggest that wile you are retraining your self to just pickup what ever the local drug store has to offer....seriously, if you've been out of film for any amount of time you are bound to botch some shots due to digital habits and/or rust. Get the cheap stuff and knock the rust off first and then move on to the high end films being suggested here.



Unfortunately, I've been finding that the local drug stores around here, like Walgreens and CVS, carry a variety of disposable 35mm cameras, but no film.  Walmart still carries a small variety.  My local Walmart even had pro packs of BW400CN.

But here's a counter to your argument about using cheap film.  First, most film you buy nowadays -- even the cheap stuff -- is of excellent quality.  Second, if a person is interested in a particular type of photography, they should get used to the film that suits that photography the best from the get-go.  May as well make it part of the overall learning experience.  Just MHO.


----------



## jbylake (Oct 12, 2009)

Wow, glad this thread got revived, a lot of experience being shared here, lot's of useful information.  Except for T-Max color, I can't find diddly squat around here, as far as B&W goes, I have to order on-line.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## den9 (Oct 12, 2009)

Battou said:


> I might suggest that wile you are retraining your self to just pickup what ever the local drug store has to offer....seriously, if you've been out of film for any amount of time you are bound to botch some shots due to digital habits and/or rust. Get the cheap stuff and knock the rust off first and then move on to the high end films being suggested here.






*  Second, if a person is interested in a particular type of photography, they should get used to the film that suits that photography the best from the get-go.  May as well make it part of the overall learning experience.  Just MHO.*




i never used film previously, but im currently using expired ilford 125 iso black and white, im not sure how thats gonna work out.

i want to do star trails so i want to buy fuji T64


----------



## cooltouch (Oct 12, 2009)

You'll probably be okay with the Ilford.  If you're concerned, just use the roll for testing something: lens sharpness at varying apertures is a good one. That's always been a popular one with me.  I could shoot several rolls of film just testing the sharpness of all my various lenses   Or bokeh tests.  Find a subject that has some distance between it and a background, then shoot at varying apertures with any lens you have that might be good candidates for nice bokeh.  Just a couple of ideas, and there are many more.  Anyway, if on the slim chance that the Ilford was no good, you really haven't lost anything.  If it is good, well, hey, you've learned more about your gear.

Just curious, but why a tungsten film for star trails?  Because it has a relatively slow ISO?  Back in the day when I did some astrophotography, I did just the opposite.  I would shoot ISO 1600 Fujichrome to avoid reciprocity failure.


----------



## den9 (Oct 13, 2009)

i read it on a tutorial and it makes sense, it says the stars really come out with tungsten? i guess it has a cool blue effect. also low iso so the black sky isnt noisy. this is all with super long exposures. with 20 minute exposures i might use a 400 speed film.


----------



## compur (Oct 13, 2009)

den9 said:


> what would i need for infrared pictures? should i use infrared film or a filter?



Both.



> if i use a filter should i use black and white film?


B&W infrared film with IR filter is best.


----------



## den9 (Oct 13, 2009)

i just went far out of my way to have bw film developed thinking id have it within 3 days. 1-2 weeks!!!


----------



## bhop (Oct 13, 2009)

den9 said:


> i just went far out of my way to have bw film developed thinking id have it within 3 days. 1-2 weeks!!!



Dang.. that sucks.  You could've done it in around 45 minutes at home. :badangel:


----------



## jbylake (Oct 16, 2009)

Battou said:


> I might suggest that wile you are retraining your self to just pickup what ever the local drug store has to offer....seriously, if you've been out of film for any amount of time you are bound to botch some shots due to digital habits and/or rust. Get the cheap stuff and knock the rust off first and then move on to the high end films being suggested here.


 
Good sound advice, my problem is that I can't find any BW film around town anywhere.  No camera shops, had a Ritz, but they're gone now.  Have to order online, but I could buy some of the cheaper "Lucky" at 2 bucks a roll.  Shoot up about 5 or 10 rolls, then try some of the "better" stuff.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## den9 (Oct 19, 2009)

bhop said:


> den9 said:
> 
> 
> > i just went far out of my way to have bw film developed thinking id have it within 3 days. 1-2 weeks!!!
> ...



someday


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 19, 2009)

It would be awsome if they started making digital backs for these older series cameras...

Hey, idea, who wants to start a business venture with me! 

I really loved my Canon AE-1 and my T-70, I had some nice glass with them too. But film developing got too expensive when digital starting taking over.

My dad still has some of that old stuff too, including a first production auto-focus lens, what a noisy little thing.


----------



## cooltouch (Oct 20, 2009)

The notion of digital backs for film cameras has been around for at least a decade.

I would love to see someone start to offer digital backs for 35mm film cameras.  But naysayers continue to say that it is way to expensive and complex of an undertaking.  I personally don't think it would be -- too complex, at least.  It would probably still be quite expensive. A digital back would be more complex and difficult to use than a DSLR just by the nature of there being no interconnectivity between the back and the rest of the camera.

It would probably only be practical on a camera with mirror lock-up, since the back will have no way to meter the scene TTL with the mirror down.  So this means cameras like the original Canon F-1, Nikon F-series, Pentax KX and LX, Minolta SRT-101, and maybe a handful of others.  And everything would have to be strictly manual, not even full-aperture metering.  Any back would probably be aperture-priority by default, since it will be recording light values based on lens aperture settings.  But it would be aperture-priority suggestions in that it would suggest a shutter speed, which would have to be set manually.

As you can see, I've given it some thought too.  I'd love to be able to install a digital back onto my old Canon F-1n or my Nikon F2.


----------

