new to film photography

[jbl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I rented an M7 recently and was totally blown away by the experience of shooting film. I'm on the younger side, so I grew up sometimes shooting with a 35mm P&S, but my first "real" work came on a digital SLR. After the M7 experience, I ordered an MP (my brain said M7, my heart said MP—I followed my heart).

 

Anyway... since I don't know a lot about the different characteristics of different kinds of and different characteristics of film: the difference between Astia and Provia for example, is there any good place people would recommend to look? I've done some searching here and an Google and haven't been able to find what I'm looking for. Google searching for "film reviews" yielded the wrong results :-).

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

Congratulations on the MP (it'd be my choice too).

 

I'm not aware of any film comparison sites and can only suggest that you try as many as you can for yourself. Film is relatively cheap after all. Also look at others work and the films they've used - if you see grain/contrast/colours you like then its worth a try.

 

It is generally a good idea to find a few you like and stick to them, you get to know how they look and behave in different conditions etc.

[Jeff S]

Seems like you want to know about color films, but if you decide to try b&w (highly recommended), Tri-X (400) is a classic for good reason. And, no better way to use it than to develop and print in the darkroom (ok, I'm not so young).

 

To further James' post, I think that you should pick one film and stick with it until you know it intimately under all conditions.

 

Jeff

[pipeclayed]

Hi,

 

I rented an M7 recently and was totally blown away by the experience of shooting film. I'm on the younger side, so I grew up sometimes shooting with a 35mm P&S, but my first "real" work came on a digital SLR. After the M7 experience, I ordered an MP (my brain said M7, my heart said MP—I followed my heart).

 

Anyway... since I don't know a lot about the different characteristics of different kinds of and different characteristics of film: the difference between Astia and Provia for example, is there any good place people would recommend to look? I've done some searching here and an Google and haven't been able to find what I'm looking for. Google searching for "film reviews" yielded the wrong results :-).

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan

Hi,

 

I've started with film fairly recently too (being of the digital generation!)

 

Flickr is a great place to find out more about the looks and characteristics of a range of different films. A lot of films have an entire group devoted to them and - failing that - there are plenty of more general film-related groups that seem to attract a knowledgeable and friendly crowd.

 

If you're in the UK, 7dayshop offer a wide range of films (at great prices) and their free delivery means you can order one roll at a time without it becoming expensive.

 

I've enjoyed using Tri-X for B&W and Fuji Superia 400 and 800 for colour. I also decided to buy some Kodachrome before it disappears for good, but I haven't sent it off for processing yet.

 

Enjoy!

[jbl]

I'm interested both in color and black and white, I just used Fujichrome as an example because that was the last one I was looking at :-).

 

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated!

 

Jonathan

[E.M]

for black and white I like Kodak T400CN @ 200 iso , it's C41 and can be developped in a minilab. Also Kodak tri-x is nice , but better do the processing yourself.

Colour neg. I prefer Kodak portra 160 nc , nice skintones.

 

Etienne Michiels

[jpattison]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jonathan,

 

take a look here...

 

Film and Darkroom User - Powered by vBulletin

 

John

[rleffingwell]

Hi, Jonathan, welcome to film. I don't know what country you live in but in the US, you can google Fujifilmusa.com and get detailed information about their films in comparison to THEIR films, to tell you the difference between Astia and Provia, as you said. For Kodak, google Kodak Professional Films and follow your instincts to get to their similar comparisons. Unfortunately for you, you're a bit past the days when print magazines or even electronic ones compare film. In my experience, Fuji Velvia 50 is their sharpest - if most vivid film and I sometimes find it too contrasty; Astia 100 is very nearly as sharp but to my eyes nearly neutral - as in shooting crhome or glass and getting accurate chrome or glass. Also I find Astia slightly lower in contrast than Velvia or Provia.For color-critical shoots it's my choice. I do like Provia 100 a great deal and shoot it most because I do more illustration than documentation; but, again, to my eyes, it's like adding an 81B warming filter to Astia. It is a hair less critically sharp than Astia. I don't use enough Kodak to venture an opinion. The look of Fuji transparency films exposed through Leitz glass is a real treat. Everyone's eyes resolve color differently and this forum has great experienced shooters. As others have suggested, shoot the films you're curious about. I'd suggest side by side to start in a controlled environment - same lens, same view, coimparable exposures, then begin to experiment and learn WHY you liked what you chose. Good luck.

[think]

For B&W Ilford Delta 100 & 400. If using DR5 for developing Ilford HP5 is incredibly versatile.

 

For color neg I like Kodak Portra 160NC, Fuji 400 NPH, and 800NPZ for various purposes.

 

For slides Kodak E100G and Fuji Provia 100 are nice to the eye. Make sure to shoot some Kodachrome K64 before it's too late.

[twittle]

Welcome to the wonderful world of film, and congrats on the MP.

 

There are any number of excellent films available in today's market. Sadly, however, you're at the tail-end of availability of the finest color film ever--that being Kodachrome. Shoot a roll or two while you can so you'll know what you're missing when its gone.

 

It's actually pretty difficult to make film recommendations, on the whole; too much depends on what you like. There are some great black & whites out there: Ilford Pan F Plus is on the slow side at ISO 50, but produces lovely results, Kodak Tri-X is a 400 that has wonderful grain, and there are many others. Color's a different ball of wax: Kodachrome is king, but with its loss, there are others worth trying like Ektachrome, Fuji Velvia & Astia, etc. You really need to test a few different things to see what you like best.

[Ted Lemon]

jbl - for colour neg I use Kodak Portra 160NC - rate it at 100 on your m6 and you get wonderful dense negs. I use Delta 100/400 for B/W and that does fine. Use to be a Tri x man but prefer Ilford film due to local availability and supporting their continued manufactering of emulsion based products and chemicals!.

[bcorton]

Greetings.

 

In the not too distant past PHOTO Techniques magazine used to include something like a "guide to film" every year in one of its issues. If you can find a library which has the magazine archived, you might find a lot of what you are looking for there. In any case, it's a start. Good hunting.

 

Brent Orton

[cheewai_m6]

hi jbl. i'm relatively young as well. been shooting with nikon fm2 and fm3a for a long time though. when i bought my leica m6, it was quite different using a range finder. so i am sitll learning a lot. some films cost a lot to buy, develop and print. personally, for good results, a fair price and availability, i use

 

colour

fuji superior 100 or 200. there is nothing wrong with these films. of course there are other, i personally like superior. it has richer colours than kodak gold, but skin tones are a bit too much sometimes.

 

b&w

i like kodak cn400. it's c41 so much cheaper to develop and print. the results are great for what i need. cn400 when exposed correctly, has pretty much no grain. i've also read in this forum and other to shoot cn400 at iso 320 because it is more forgiving to over exposure.

 

my opinions and what i've found through my use of the films.

[haris]

Yes, Kodak CN400 is very easy film to use, I used it from ISO200 to ISO 800 (that is original C400N, not after made films). It is broad latitude, grainless film but on one thing user needs to be carful. That film likes contrast and strong light. If you use it in low contrast lightning you might have problem. give it more light (open aperture or long exposure) than meter say, you will have less problems with it. For example I had better results before learned how to work with it when used it at bright summer light or with flash than when I used it with tungsten or overcast day light. But, after a time I stayed with "real" b/w films. But, if you want grainless photograph and must use fast(er) film, that film can be answer.

[roguewave]

jbl, start with TriX 400. It is the MOTHER of all fims. Forgiving & flexible. It will teach you if you let it. It is an extraordinary film. In many ways, it's the most elemental, so your skills will be based on an excellent & repeatable experiential base. Once you shoot with Tri X, it's easy to migrate to other films that have different characteristics. The look of TriX has never & will never go out of style. Give it a try. And, it's very easy to develop yourself. Good luck.

[jbl]

Thanks everybody, I really appreciate the recommendations, I'm trying a bunch of different film (including the Tri-X and the BW400CN) and I found some rolls of Kodachrome on eBay .

 

I feel sort of silly asking this, but I never seriously shot film.

 

I live in the US and am trying to figure out a film workflow assuming I'm not going to be developing myself (though I suppose that may change). My main interest is getting to digital scans so that I can put them online. Given that, am I better off sending the film off to a pro lab (like North Coast Photographic Svcs in Southern California) or taking film to any old lab just to get the negatives processed and quick scanned so I can filter them and then rescan the keepers myself?

 

I sent some chromes and negatives off to North Coast and was very impressed with the results, but 20mp seems a bit overkill for deleting 95% of the frames :-).

 

I understand that for E-6, K-14 and b&w, you need someone to actually know what they're doing, but for C-41 how hard is it to mess up?

 

Thanks again,

 

-jbl

[damaso]

If you're serious about shooting film, and you must be since you got an MP, then you should buy a dedicated film scanner. They aren't too much and you will get much better results than sending your film to be scanned at most lab. After a few dozen rolls it pays for itself...

[ndjambrose]

I understand that for E-6, K-14 and b&w, you need someone to actually know what they're doing, but for C-41 how hard is it to mess up?

-jbl

 

It's actually the other way round.

 

B+W is the easiest. You need no skills beyond the ability to mix liquids and read a clock, and only the simplest of equipment. A changing bag, and development tank and a thermometer are about all that's essential, plus of course the chemicals - everything else you may already have in the kitchen, or can source cheaply over the counter almost anywhere. You don't need a darkroom - development is done in daylight. If you can follow a simple cooking recipe then you already have all the skills to process b+w to a high standard.

 

C41 and E6 are both harder. They need more chemicals, have a more involved development process, and are highly temperature sensitive. E6 is also unforgiving of error in time or temperature. Both can be done by hand but usually only with a lot of experience. Most of the time they're machine processes, as automation provides the necessary precision.

 

It took me a couple of hours to learn how to process b+w film. Since then I've saved several thousands in processing costs, and have much better results than I could get from most labs.

 

If you develop your own stuff you'll also need to scan it, which is another learning curve in itself. But it's cheap to get started with, at least until you get to the point where your work demands a very high quality scanner.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Adrian Lord]

If you're serious about shooting film, and you must be since you got an MP, then you should buy a dedicated film scanner. They aren't too much and you will get much better results than sending your film to be scanned at most lab. After a few dozen rolls it pays for itself...

 

 

+1

 

I use a Nikon coolscan V and never cease to be amazed at the results.

[Steve Ash]

I just ordered everything required to do B&w processing on my own as I was not very happy about the quality (scratches on negatives) I got. Further with your own processing you can decide on the kind of developer which also affects the image.

 

Regards

Steve