Film recommendations.

I'm pretty sure there may have been a discussion/thread about this sort of topic already, but after a quick search I gave up and just decided to start this thread.

After Nando started the 'deals on film' thread, I finally decided to stop procrastinating and order a bunch of film for myself. I have a basket started on Freestyle (thanks Nando )

Here's what I have in that basket so far.



I've been really loving the 35mm slides I have been getting back--and most of the skate/bmx stuff, if not all, will be color--hence the couple of 5 packs of Fujuchrome. But I was pleasantly surprised with the first roll of Ilford PanF 50 I just got back, so I'm interested in trying more black and white stuff. I know there's probably more out there than Ilford and Fuji, but I dunno...

Any input/recommendations?

That Velvia will be great in the fall, if you're into the whole changing colours thing.

I notice that its all 120. I'm sure your eager to give that RB67 a good workout soon.

One can't really judge a film by looking at small scans on the internet but I think you can get a general feel for it. One thing that I do (on almost a daily basis) is search for film and developer combinations on flickr's search engine. I've been thinking about HC110 developer lately and today I shot off searches on flickr for HC110 combined with the film I had in my stash. I once thought that I'd stick with Tri-X and D76 forever, just to ensure consistency more than anything else, but have since gotten the urge to try other films. It's fun and its cheaper to buy a new film/developer combo than to buy a new lens or camera just for the sake of wanting to try something new. I may very well go back to my original plan - who knows?

I really fell in love with the ex-Agfa APX films recently along with their Czech cousins, Fomapan. Developed behind the Iron Curtain, the Fomapan films were the communist Agfa equivalents. Luckily, both APX and Fomapan films are available as rebranded 'Arista' films from Freestyle for not so much money. Among the rangefinder enthusiasts that I've met online, APX and Rodinal are extremely popular. I've seen some photographs done with this combination with such incredibly beautiful tonality that I was confident enough Arista-branded APX and Fomapan to fill up my section of the freezer.

I also bought some Acros 100 in 120 but haven't tried it yet. I hope to develop it in Rodinal. I have an online penpal that is crazy about this combo because of the classic tones but very low grain.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Ilford films. Although they were never the most economical films, they used to be reasonably priced and usually a bit cheaper than their direct competitors from the other big brands. Now, they're pretty expensive. I tried HP5 and FP4 early on in my photography and never really warmed to them. It could have very well been my inexperience. I used the XP2 Super quite a bit and I like the results but as it is a C41 film, its not really like traditional B&W emulsion. A friend of mine really likes Delta 100 and gave me a roll to try out. I think that I currently have it one of my cameras but I don't know which one!

You might want to consider the Fuji RVP 50, which is closer (if not identical) to the original Velvia than the 100. I'm not sure if Freestyle has it. It would be an excellent choice for long-exposure shots with the RB67.

If I were ordering from Freestyle, I'd definitely would get the Arista Premium 400 that is thought to be rebranded Tri-X. The last batch sold out very quickly. You'll never find Tri-X at $2/roll! Tri-X is an extremely versatile film. Can be shot from 100 ISO to 1600 ISO. Probably works best at 160 ISO or 200 ISO. Box speed was originally 200.

You ought to start developing b&w at home otherwise sending all that film out is going to start adding up. You can use the extra money saved to get a scanner or that 37mm.

I agree with you that there may be more out there than ilford and fuji, but they're so darn good, I don't see a reason to shop around.

You've got a great list of films there, but you've missed my two personal favorites. (And almost the only film I ever buy)
Provia 100: The absolute best slide film I've ever used hands down. I also don't really know many people that use much else. From the people I've talked to and worked with, it seems to be the industry standard. The 400 is amazing and obviously more versatile, but not comparable. That said, I'm basing this on making HUGE prints. If not printing and with the huge 67 format, you may not find it to be a problem. With the bright sky and flash work you do, the 400 won't offer you any more adaptability but will limit the image quality when compared to the 100.
As I'm looking to de-saturating photos instead of increase it, I really don't like velvia much at all. As Ken said, It's great for foliage and also has unsurpassed greens, but too much for my liking.

My favorite BW film would be ilford fp4 plus 125iso.
I believe it has the greatest latitude of at least the ilford films if not one of the top amongst all brands. As BW film is much more sensitive to blue, your clear sky with cloud skate shots will be trickier with BW film. That's where the great latitude of this film comes into play.
Don't get me wrong, PanF is beautiful, fp4 is just my favorite.

Yah the PANF is nice, I look at a recent 8x8 print I had made from 120 and it turned out really nice but it left me wanting some grain. I figured the grain was tight but blown up to 8x8 you'd start to see it but no such luck.

I have used the Delta 100 135 film once (my dad bought it for me last time I saw him, it's his favorite) and really liked it. I used it for street photography in Toronto. I'd like to use it again.

The missing link for me, and I know Colin and Fernando will agree with me here, is that I need to develop my own B&W. First for my budget, the amount to have it sent off to Toronto for developing is just crazy and they often don't get it right. Recently I asked for a contact sheet which I was excited to see when it came in but when I went back to pay I realized it wasn't a proper contact sheet at all but just an 8x10 digital print from the scanned negs. I could have done THAT. Secondly for control.

The nice thing about using and getting to know Ilford stuff very well is that if you ever go on a trip to Europe, its absolutely everywhere. There is a major French chain called FNAC that is a somewhat like a mix between a Futureshop and a Coles (but with good books). You'll probably find one or two of these huge stores at any major city. They have all the Ilford films, chemicals and papers in stock! Fresh too. Even if you go to a small photography store in Europe, there's a good chance that they stock Ilford materials.

My next order from Freestyle is going to include some Adox films. I would like to try their CHS line of films, which are completely based on formulations from the 1950's. Of course, I very much would like to get some Adox ORT25 (Orthochromatic - not sensitive to red) and Adox CMS20, which are the highest resolving films made. I'll need to get Adox's special Adotech developer for these films. Surprisingly, they're not that expensive - $5.99/roll. Cheaper than some Ilford films. They should be interesting. I may even subject my Leicas to being mounted on a tripod with these films but I don't know if I could bare the guilt. I'd probably have to say 20 HBC's to absolve myself of the sin.

I've got to agree 100% with Ken about developing your own BW. Aside from the huge savings, it's just another level of control that once you start will be hard to relinquish. This is especially so when your film comes back from a lab messed up.
One of the biggest frights for me is chemistry problems (over fixed, over developed, underdeveloped, exhausted chemicals...)Many labs are guilty of infrequent chemistry refreshment or temperature cheques. Because of this, on busy days the chemistry goes weird fast. Even without considering the developer, exhausted stop or fix can instantly ruin a neg. The other problem is when these labs get so much traffic that their development times are an average for the batch they make. If you're the first batch of the day, over stopped and especially over fixing can cause huge problems, even worse is the last roll thru the batch, now you're running into archival problems as well. The other big reason would be dust and fingerprints. A busy lab where they are opening the dryer door frequently inevitably leads to those annoying spots. These are just the problems that can occur. There are also all the advantages of developing your own. Grain rendering, tonality, speed, archival properties from correct development, even the chemicals you can add after to increase the durability of the emulsion.

Nando, I'm excited to hear your opinion about the HC110. I really enjoy the results myself and others have received using XTOL (A good friend of mine was able to drastically increase the size of his 35mm prints using XTOL compared to others)but I absolutely HATE the mixing process. It's so time consuming and I have experienced the oddest results with 4x5 film. They were infrequent but troubling especially when I was using the same developing method I do with any other developers(with great results), I have had negs with terribly uneven edges. If Xtol were liquid, I may have switched from my favorite developer permanently.
I know I've mentioned it before, but I'm a huge Rodinol lover. I'm a little rusty, but whatever their most diluted formula is, gives results that have always impressed me. From grain to tonality, it seems to create a great neg to print.
I'll have to admit that I haven't played much with developer/film combinations much. I learned some odd darkroom techniques that have turned my focus to what a developer can do to a high latitude film(fp4) in order to give me a solid framework instead of a final product/feel. Everyone's different though.

One thing I would like to know from anthony is wether he got a polaroid back with his camera.
Though it's probably disappearing quick, Polaroid type 55 is sadly the GREATEST B/W film I've ever used. It yields such a detailed, low grain, smooth toned negative with the instant positive print. For anyone who shoots to print, there's no beating it. Also, the unique gluey rebait is a work of art in itself.
Maybe it's not worth trying now. It will just be a tease, and I promise that you will be disappointed with every other film on the market after.

Personally, I've never tried anything but D76. I will be onto Rodinal soon as my D76 stock is only enough for perhaps 3 more rolls of 120 or 6 rolls of 35mm. A friend of mine is working on developing a large backlog of film. I think that he's using HC110 for at least some of it. I'll hopefully be seeing some results soon and I may be scanning some of the negatives for him eventually. From what I've seen, Tri-X developed in HC110 looks very similar to Tri-X developed in D76. I like HC110 because it is so similar to D76 but the big bonus is that it comes as a liquid, which makes it much easier to handle. I'll work through my Tri-X, APX and Fomapan with Rodinal and if I decide to switch back entirely to what I was doing before, I'm thinking that I'll probably go with Tri-X and HC110 instead of D76. I'm thinking of stocking some XTOL for those times that I want to shoot Tri-X at 800 or 1600 ISO -or- I can go with BW400CN C41 for really low grain at 400ISO but that always comes with a risk of bad development at a lab. I heard great things about XTOL with newer films like the Acros and T-Max and I know of a few photographers that switched from D76 to XTOL completely for the finer grain and better 'pushability'. Personally, I'm not too concerned about grain that much. Normally, I like a little graininess. What I mostly want from my film, developer and my developing process is a big tonal scale in the 35mm format. If its good at 35mm then it should be really good on anything larger. XTOL is pretty good there too, of course, but will it be worth the hassle?

Getting back to D76 and HC110. One of my biggest turn-offs is a very active developer. I think that I would have a bit of trouble with D76 at full-strength developing Tri-X at 200ISO. Development time would be very short. I dilute the D76 1:1 so that helps in that it gives longer development time and its more manageable if I need to compensate for pulling/pushing. The problem with diluting D76 is that the more you dilute it, the grainer the negative will be. I haven't really researched HC110 to find out if it behaves the same way. That's not an issue with Rodinal. It seems to me that the more diluted, the sweeter it is (and this also helps with the costs). Beside the Rodinal 'look', one of the things that I'm most looking forward to is the longer and more relaxing development periods at, say, 1:100. I would also be able to manage more than one tank at the same time. I don't want to imagine how involving it would be to develop two tanks of film with D76 at once.

Wow. Lots to take in here guys.

I'm sure that I want to develop my own stuff in the future, I just don't see it as an option right now. I would LOVE to have that sort of control over things--especially if I had a scanner--the whole start to finish type of control would just be awesome. I guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed and have faith in the lab for the time being.

I went ahead with my order.

A roll of Velvia 50 (though I hear good things about this particular film I'm having a hard time finding practical applications for the PanF 50 that I have...just too slow), a pack of Velvia 100, a pack of Provia 400, and a couple of Ilford HP5 400's.

I'd have ordered more slide stuff at once, but I really want to feel things out before I commit to a large order. From discussions I've had with a fellow skate photog, the general consensus is that there's some other films (Kodak, specifically) that are better suited for my particular uses, which is mainly skate stuff. As I've stated before though, I seem to have been stuck on Fuji since the get-go, so I'll have to see for myself how things turn out. I think I should have just went with the suggested Kodak, but I'm hard headed like that. I expect to see some un-flattering magentas, but I figure it shouldn't be something a little PS can't help.

Also I ended up getting a Sekonic L-358 flash/light meter. Just thought I'd throw that in here

Needless to say, the Mammy is going to get quite the workout in the coming weeks, and the lab is going to hate me for making them scan crappy frames at high resolutions.

I wouldn't say that Fuji comes anywhere near rendering unflattering Magentas.
If anything, from my little kodak slide use, it's colors left MUCH to be desired.
I will have to assume that your friend is talking about velvia, a film that I'm less than partial of. Within the commercial photography community, (at least those that I have met and worked with) Provia is the most accurate film on the planet. It's representations of blue and green and yellow are far and away the best I have seen.
See what you think, I'll be interested to hear about your preferences for the application.
Jealous about the light meter.

Yes, sorry if I generalized, but it was Velvia in specific that I had heard rendered odd pinks/purples for skin tones. So I may be okay with the Provia then

I got gifted a bunch of 2003 expired Fuji NPZ 800 colour film today. It's a little faster than I usually would use but I'm thinking of rating it at ISO 640 anyway because it's so old (but always stored in a fridge).

Hopefully it performs better than the expired Gold 800 I recently used.