# 35mm color and B&W film recommendations?



## gryffinwings

Looking for some recommendations on 35mm film for color and B&W.

I'm currently using Fujifilm 200 film that I got at walmart recently, but I don't know how good it is. I can get Kodak Gold 200 at Target. I can get 400 and 800 also for both brands if I needed to. That's for color anyways.

For B&W film, I have no idea what to get or what to use. Recommendations and more information on this would be really helpful.

Thanks.


----------



## SamSpade1941

Ilford HP5 works well I think you can still buy Tri X Pan its just expired stock.


----------



## SamSpade1941

Kodak Ektar 100 was  good for color film


----------



## ann

another vote for ILford, hp5+, don't shoot color so I can't suggest anything


----------



## JAC526

For color I've used Fuji 400H Pro.

For black and white I've used Fuji Neopan 400.

I've liked both quite a bit.


----------



## Corto

If you don't develop yourself and need to have it done locally I suggest you try C-41 B&W films like Kodak BW400CN Professional ISO 400 or Ilford XP-2 Super 400.

These can be developed by any regular 1hr photo lab. 

For Color? Nothing wrong with any Fuji or Kodak offerings. 

Just choose a Speed that works for the kind of light you like to work in.


----------



## timor

Corto said:


> If you don't develop yourself and need to have it done locally I suggest you try C-41 B&W films like Kodak BW400CN Professional ISO 400 or Ilford XP-2 Super 400.
> 
> These can be developed by any regular 1hr photo lab.


Thumbs up. A very good choice for someone with no darkroom


----------



## Fred Berg

I agree that Kodak BW400CN is a good choice; I also like the T-Max films from kodak as far as B&W is concerned.

I use Farbwelt from Kodak, which could be something like Gold or Ultramax I think, and especially like the pastel hues of the DIN 27 variant.

Ektar from Kodak is also very nice.

Fuji Superia DIN 24, 27 and 30 are all very good.

Agfa Vista DIN 24 is nice, although I find the colours are a bit subdued and this might not be for everyone. It is also available in DIN 27 but I haven't tried it myself.

Agfa APX DIN 21 is OK as far as B&W goes and Agfa Precisa is very nice if you want to try slide film (I find Kodak  Elite Chrome a touch to warm).

Don't be put off trying non-branded films either. These are often very good. Looking on the box to see where it was made will give you an idea which maker is behind it: made in Japan = Agfa or Fuji, made in USA = Kodak, etc. The little plastic tubes that the films are in are very distinguishing and a dead giveaway on this point. It may not be the makers' best films, but at a few cents a roll they're worth trying out.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

gryffinwings said:


> Looking for some recommendations on 35mm film for color and B&W.
> 
> I'm currently using Fujifilm 200 film that I got at walmart recently, but I don't know how good it is. I can get Kodak Gold 200 at Target. I can get 400 and 800 also for both brands if I needed to. That's for color anyways.
> 
> For B&W film, I have no idea what to get or what to use. Recommendations and more information on this would be really helpful.
> 
> Thanks.



I shoot film professionally...so learn from my experience!




*Fuji Superia 200 is easily absolutely the worst color film i've ever seen or used in my life. by a long shot. *

_Kodak Gold isn't much better_..it's better, but _not_ _by much._



The color neg films to shoot that make you go "wow, I really like film" are:

-Ektar 100
-Portra 160 and 400
-Fuji 400H (shot at around ISO 100)
-Ilford XP2/Kodak BW400CN



Need ISO 800 or 1600? push Portra 400. 
Fuji 400H cross-contaminates beautifully and gives you perfect pastel tones. 
Ektar 100 blows up contrast and color..incredible grain. 
BW400CN blocks up blacks better than anything..LOVE IT. 
I'd rather shoot XP2 over Tri-X or TMAX any day of the week..phenomenal skin tones. 


If you're intending on scanning images..DON'T shoot real B&W..scans like sh*t compared to color neg B&W. 
If you're intending on printing in a darkroom..DON'T shoot XP2 or BW400CN..they print like sh*t compared to real B&W.

The only real B&W film I ever shoot anymore is Delta 3200. And that's because it's grain is gorgeous and it can be shot with impunity between 400 and 1600. 


The Superia 200 you picked up at walmart:










Total crap film.










What Real film looks like....



Ektar 100:





Fuji 400H:





XP2:





Portra 160:





Delta 3200:






Oh, and along with shooting real film...send it to a real lab like Richard Photo Lab. Otherwise your film is almost guaranteed to look like crap and you'll just keep faking it with digital.


----------



## Fred Berg

Taken in January with Fuji Superia 200













These are the scans made by the lab, no editing except to resize them for posting. I find this film is quite nice.


----------



## Corto

"If you're intending on scanning images..DON'T shoot real B&W..scans like sh*t compared to color neg B&W."

I dont think so, Ilford Delta 400:


----------



## Buckster

Corto said:


> "If you're intending on scanning images..DON'T shoot real B&W..scans like sh*t compared to color neg B&W."
> 
> I dont think so, Ilford Delta 400:


Yeah, I haven't had any problems scanning negs from TMax 100 and 400 either.


----------



## timor

Sometimes too much advice is more damaging then too little. We are talking to film newbe . He should rather probe around what is available to him starting from some basic point and progress as his appetit  for shooting film grows. He should gain his own experience rather, then listen to ours successes and pitfalls. We should discuss with him problems as he progresses in experience rather, then shout warnings beforehand. In film photography one thing is for sure, that if I can't do it it does not mean that you can't and vice versa.


----------



## Corto

timor said:


> Sometimes too much advice is more damaging then too little. We are talking to film newbe . He should rather probe around what is available to him starting from some basic point and progress as his appetit  for shooting film grows. He should gain his own experience rather, then listen to ours successes and pitfalls. We should discuss with him problems as he progresses in experience rather, then shout warnings beforehand. In film photography one thing is for sure, that if I can't do it it does not mean that you can't and vice versa.



I agree 100%.


----------



## 1holegrouper

For B&W I keep going back to T-MAX 100. Color is usually something from Fuji.


----------



## bhop

timor said:


> Sometimes too much advice is more damaging then too little. We are talking to film newbe . He should rather probe around what is available to him starting from some basic point and progress as his appetit  for shooting film grows. He should gain his own experience rather, then listen to ours successes and pitfalls. We should discuss with him problems as he progresses in experience rather, then shout warnings beforehand. In film photography one thing is for sure, that if I can't do it it does not mean that you can't and vice versa.



I agree to a point, but often a film newbie will start out with crappy film and get frustrated and quit shooting film. That can be avoided by advice being given here.


and, I also agree with some of the others that 'real' b&w film IS NOT hard to scan..


----------



## SamSpade1941

timor said:


> Sometimes too much advice is more damaging then too little. We are talking to film newbe . He should rather probe around what is available to him starting from some basic point and progress as his appetit  for shooting film grows. He should gain his own experience rather, then listen to ours successes and pitfalls. We should discuss with him problems as he progresses in experience rather, then shout warnings beforehand. In film photography one thing is for sure, that if I can't do it it does not mean that you can't and vice versa.




I am not seeing the bad advice here, most of the film being suggested is rather forgiving stuff. I know that T Max and Tri X Pan are both very forgiving films to work with, Same for HP 5. Lord knows that Tri X pan over the years probably did more to help than hurt me when I failed to do my part choosing the right exposure on my old F2.  

Even the Ektar 100 is not horribly unforgiving, its not like I told him to go out and start blasting away with Kodachrome 25 or Ektachrome 25.  Most of the films suggested are relatively amateur friendly for new film shooters. 

One of the ways we gain experience is to ask those who have had prior experience before us and build on it and derive on our experiences from there.


----------



## gryffinwings

So is the fujifilm film 200 that I got at Walmart decent film?


----------



## SamSpade1941

a friend of mine shoots it IIRC as thats where he gets most of his film. I will ask him what he thinks of it but I think its pretty forgiving stuff .


----------



## Corto

It is fine, shoot a roll and see if you like it........


----------



## Alex_B

For colour + scanning: Fuji Velvia 100F .. I got the best results from that one.

B&W: 
- the modern B&W films like Ilford Delta 100 seem to perform a bit better on a scanner when it comes to reduce grain.
- Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ show very pronounced grain when scanned from 35mm negatives, sometimes a bit too much for my taste. for larger formats it scans very nicely.

... my (subjective) experience with scanners and film.


----------



## timor

SamSpade1941 said:


> I am not seeing the bad advice here,


 I am not saying advice is bad, but too plentiful. Everyone is "advertising" personal experience, at the end OP still was not sure about his Fuji 200. And he should shoot what he has on hand and take it to the nearest lab and come back with the results to the forum.


----------



## Buckster

timor said:


> SamSpade1941 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing the bad advice here,
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying advice is bad, but too plentiful. Everyone is "advertising" personal experience, at the end OP still was not sure about his Fuji 200. And he should shoot what he has on hand and take it to the nearest lab and come back with the results to the forum.
Click to expand...

Read the OP's first post - All of it.

He didn't JUST ask about the Fuji 200.  He asked for recommendations from the forum members for color and B&W films.  Now, what should we offer him as a response?  Films we haven't tried, or films we've tried and like?


----------



## gryffinwings

Lets just say I would like to know what films you tried that you liked and why. And also if anyone has input on regular films you find at walmart or target, such as the ones I mentioned.

I'd also like to know what to stay away from.


----------



## Chris R

My 2 favorite color films are Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra 160 or 400. They really "wow" me.... I've tried pretty much every color negative and slide film I can get my hands on and keep wishing I just stayed with these 2.

But, in the end it really boils down to preference. Film isn't really too expensive to experiment with yet... Buy several rolls and test them out. Also do some searches on sites like Flickr... You'll get a good idea of what each film has to offer.


----------



## timor

Buckster said:


> Read the OP's first post - All of it.
> 
> He didn't JUST ask about the Fuji 200.  He asked for recommendations from the forum members for color and B&W films.  Now, what should we offer him as a response?  Films we haven't tried, or films we've tried and like?


 Perhaps you're right, I was just thinking in terms what our new colleague can do right, where he is. Every make of film was shot by somebody, every film has proponents as every film has a potential to deliver good results, but not every film is a good starter. I could to recommend my most liked film, but I won't as this film is out of practical reach of most of my fellows fotogs, not to mention a newbe. So I did, what gryffinwings ask for; my local walmart does not carry any classic b&w film anymore, only stuff for C-41 process. So why not, Kodak BW400CN is a top shelf stuff, perfect to start adventure in b&w photography for someone without own capacity to develop films.


----------



## Buckster

timor said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the OP's first post - All of it.
> 
> He didn't JUST ask about the Fuji 200.  He asked for recommendations from the forum members for color and B&W films.  Now, what should we offer him as a response?  Films we haven't tried, or films we've tried and like?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're right, I was just thinking in terms what our new colleague can do right, where he is. Every make of film was shot by somebody, every film has proponents as every film has a potential to deliver good results, but not every film is a good starter. I could to recommend my most liked film, but I won't as this film is out of practical reach of most of my fellows fotogs, not to mention a newbe. So I did, what gryffinwings ask for; my local walmart does not carry any classic b&w film anymore, only stuff for C-41 process. So why not, Kodak BW400CN is a top shelf stuff, perfect to start adventure in b&w photography for someone without own capacity to develop films.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the OP appreciates your opinion and input, along with everyone else's who's given theirs.


----------



## timor

Well, I hope so. I also hope, that one day he will develop films by himself, as this is such an experience. For me every time I open the tank.


----------



## gryffinwings

Actually I'd love to be able to get into developing my own film, I just don't have the time or space to do it, mainly since I'm in the navy. That's why I'm just going to work with photography shops that do it.


----------



## timor

gryffinwings said:


> Understandable. Just find a good one.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks

1holegrouper said:


> For B&W I keep going back to T-MAX 100. Color is usually something from Fuji.



Agreed, particularly for a newb to film.  As long as you have light enough to work, TMAX 100 is a great film.  It's usually fairly cheap, easy to find, and easy to process.  In addition, it creates crystal clear images even on big prints.  

Once you've worked with that a bit, then go experiment with other films.


----------



## gsgary

I shot T-Max 400 for the first time last week but and a big but it was 16 years out of date and the results were very good so now i need to try some fresh T-Max
And these were with an old AGFA rangefinder


----------



## PlanetStarbucks

As much as I like Tmax 100, I've always found the Tmax 400 kind of wonky.  Even new it would come out grainy in all but the best situations.  Albeit, sometimes that made a photo pretty interesting.  Those pics above are definitely more grainy then usual 400 though...probably what 16 years of exposure to cosmic radiation will do even in a completely dark environment.


----------



## timor

Tmax is hard to destroy. I am shooting now 10 years old one (TMX) kept mostly just in  the room (bulk). Slight fog, no problem with printing.
The pic of dog looks just right.
But I don't think TMX is a film for beginners, rather TX or HP5+, films with forgiveness in exposition and development.


----------



## djacobox372

Ive tried just about everything.  Heres what ive settled on:

Fujifilm acros 100 bw (my go to film)
Kodak tmax 400 (when i need something a little faster)
Efke 25 (awesome in bright sunny days, or when using a tripod)
Velvia 50 for color


----------



## gryffinwings

I just got my first roll of film developed, it's fujifilm 200, it seems that this film is best suited for bright sunny conditions, lower light conditions created a little grain, but the ones in full day light were amazing.

Would it be better to change to Fujifilm Superia 400, will this film have better low light performance than the 200?


----------



## Sw1tchFX

It will, but with the cheap stuff you have to shoot it at something like 100 or 200 unless you want the grain. It's designed to be run though disposable cameras on daylight trips. If you're shooting in lower light, just use Portra 400 and push it a stop or two. 

Seriously though. Ditch the cheap stuff, buy a roll or two of the pro stuff (like Portra 160), shoot it at half box speed, send it to a pro lab (NCPS, RPL, IFL), and it will look 100x better than what you're shooting with now.  Not even exaggerating.


----------



## gryffinwings

It should be noted that I am a newb with film using an old Nikon EM that I got very cheap. Ive been to the only real photography shop and they have only the lower ASA film, and explaining about the techniques that your using with certain films in different lighting sutuations would be very helpful.


----------



## gsgary

PlanetStarbucks said:


> As much as I like Tmax 100, I've always found the Tmax 400 kind of wonky.  Even new it would come out grainy in all but the best situations.  Albeit, sometimes that made a photo pretty interesting.  Those pics above are definitely more grainy then usual 400 though...probably what 16 years of exposure to cosmic radiation will do even in a completely dark environment.



These were developed in Rodinal which i have since found out does make most 35mm films more grainy


----------



## gryffinwings

I'm currently decided to use Fujifilm Superia 400 until I decide on something better, because it's cheap and results I've seen elsewhere were pretty decent.

Can anybody tell me if Kodak Ultramax 400 is basically the same as Kodak Portra 400? I heard this on another for that someone was getting basically identical results.


----------



## Danmunro_nz

It has probably already been said in here, but Kodak Ektar 100 is a great film. I just got my first roll back from the lab and all I can say is it is the best film I have tried to this day. Beautiful colours, minimal grain and very forgiving for over/under exposure.


----------



## CAlbertson

gryffinwings said:


> Looking for some recommendations on 35mm film for color and B&W.
> 
> I'm currently using Fujifilm 200 film that I got at walmart recently, but I don't know how good it is. I can get Kodak Gold 200 at Target. I can get 400 and 800 also for both brands if I needed to. That's for color anyways.
> 
> For B&W film, I have no idea what to get or what to use. Recommendations and more information on this would be really helpful.
> 
> Thanks.



What film to use depends on the subject. Generally you want a softer look on a portrait ad colors to "pop" on a landscape.  Also you can only change you ISO when you change film so you have to know what kind of lighting to expect.

Try Kodak "Portra 160" for "people photo" in controlled lighting.  You wil not find it at Wallmart, go to the pro photo stores or order it from Freestyle Freestyle Photographic Supplies - Traditional Black & White Film, Paper, Chemicals, Holgas and ULF

For B&W you really have a wide choice.  And it is the only kind of film to shoot.  Go to Freestyle Photo and buy their "artisa EDU" brand.  The 100 ISO film is $2.50 per roll.  It is kind of like the older Kodak films, classic thick elusion that responds to push/pull development.  The kind of film that Ansel Adams wrote about.  

At the other end of the spectrum are the kodak "Tmax" films.  They have a smoother "modern" look and should be proceed exactly "by the book using the tmax developer"

Kodak tri-X 400 has a harsh grainly look that you might like.

But the cheaper "EDU" film is worth trying and if you use a lot of it, like I used to then buy the 100 foot spools and the price goes to under $1.50 per roll.  Then you process and scan it.  The result with my 2400 DPIscanneris 8.6 MP files wich is enough to capture the film grain


----------



## CAlbertson

Danmunro_nz said:


> It has probably already been said in here, but Kodak Ektar 100 is a great film. I just got my first roll back from the lab and all I can say is it is the best film I have tried to this day. Beautiful colours, minimal grain and very forgiving for over/under exposure.



Ektar 100 is my #1 outdoor photo film before I bought a dSLR, good color and grain, as you said.  I've got many, many dozens of rolls of it on file  But it is not an all-purpose film.  100 is slow.    The ISO 160 portra is so much nicer for making smoother looking lower contrast images.


----------



## old.frt

""Well inspector, we opened up his computer and we found a plethora of   tree porn.  Some just posed, single tree shots and some were full on   forest orgies.  You can see he had a bit of a thing for dogwoods, too.    Everyone knows dogwoods are the whores of the perennial world."

--  Bentcountershaft""

Thank you for the best tag I have seen in years!
-p-


----------



## ktan7

For color, I would go for fuji 400H.


----------



## Josh66

CAlbertson said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for some recommendations on 35mm film for color and B&W.
> 
> I'm currently using Fujifilm 200 film that I got at walmart recently, but I don't know how good it is. I can get Kodak Gold 200 at Target. I can get 400 and 800 also for both brands if I needed to. That's for color anyways.
> 
> For B&W film, I have no idea what to get or what to use. Recommendations and more information on this would be really helpful.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What film to use depends on the subject. Generally you want a softer look on a portrait ad colors to "pop" on a landscape.  Also you can only change you ISO when you change film so you have to know what kind of lighting to expect.
> 
> Try Kodak "Portra 160" for "people photo" in controlled lighting.  You wil not find it at Wallmart, go to the pro photo stores or order it from Freestyle Freestyle Photographic Supplies - Traditional Black & White Film, Paper, Chemicals, Holgas and ULF
> 
> For B&W you really have a wide choice.  And it is the only kind of film to shoot.  Go to Freestyle Photo and buy their "artisa EDU" brand.  The 100 ISO film is $2.50 per roll.  It is kind of like the older Kodak films, classic thick elusion that responds to push/pull development.  The kind of film that Ansel Adams wrote about.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are the kodak "Tmax" films.  They have a smoother "modern" look and should be proceed exactly "by the book using the tmax developer"
> 
> Kodak tri-X 400 has a harsh grainly look that you might like.
> 
> But the cheaper "EDU" film is worth trying and if you use a lot of it, like I used to then buy the 100 foot spools and the price goes to under $1.50 per roll.  Then you process and scan it.  The result with my 2400 DPIscanneris 8.6 MP files wich is enough to capture the film grain
Click to expand...


Man, you "like" to quote "stuff", don't you?  LOL.

Arista EDU is Fomapan, I believe.  Arista Premium 100 is Kodak Plus-X, and Arista Premium 400 is Kodak Tri-X.  I don't think you can get it anymore, but Legacy Pro is Fuji Acros.

Whether or not you would like the option to push the film is a factor too - Some films push better than others.  Fuji Acros absolutely sucks for pushing, for example - but it has better reciprocity failure characteristics than anything else.  Plus-X, Tri-X, and T-Max all push pretty well.  Kentmere 400 also pushes well, and is pretty cheap.


----------



## timor

O|||||||O said:


> Whether or not you would like the option to push the film is a factor too - Some films push better than others.  Fuji Acros absolutely sucks for pushing, for example - but it has better reciprocity failure characteristics than anything else.  Plus-X, Tri-X, and T-Max all push pretty well.  Kentmere 400 also pushes well, and is pretty cheap.


I am not sure about pushing Tmax films, they react too quickly with strong blocking of the highlights. And as Acros, Tmax is a tabular emulsion film, for pushing classic emulsion is always better.


----------



## Josh66

I've found T-Max 400 easy enough to push ... in T-Max Dev, anyway.  I haven't shot much T-Max 100.

I agree that the classic emulsions are better for pushing though.


----------



## Matty-Bass

Just throwing in my two cents as a semi-rookie in the film field...

I only have experience with black and white, but I love most of Ilford's films which would be available at most camera shops or online at www.bhphotovideo.com. Specifically, I love Delta 400 and HP5. Tri-X is also great. I've also shot the Kodak BW400CN and had excellent results, amazingly rich contrast and low grain, shoots at 400 which is sort of an all-purpose speed for average lighting conditions.


----------



## cptkid

My favorite b&w film of all is Neopan 1600 (very very expensive and hard to find now days)


But i mainly shoot with HP5 & Delta 400.


----------

