35mm b&w/color film recommendation wanted

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, gteague said:

thanks, that's very helpful. since i'm basically starting from scratch, i might try the delta b&w first. and of course i don't know the quality of the lab i'm sending it to yet.

what happened to the ultra high resolution tech pan (25? 32?) film? it was a pain in the butt to work with, but was about as sharp as you could get back then. just curious, i doubt any lab would process it as any user wanting such results would want to process it themselves.

it's like going back in time even talking about film anymore. the folks i talked to at the lab said the film nostalgia has only cranked up enough for them to go all in on processing in the last year or two. 

/guy

It is for sure the photo labs are going to drop rapidly, much faster than the drop of available films. You might want to develop the films by yourself ASAP. That is, NOW!

I have a vague impression that TP 25 is not much finer than Tmax (still finer than Delta). Practically Tmax is just as fine. true or not does not matter anymore since it is discontinued. If you are shooting for really fine grain, Tmax and Ektar 100 are not the bad starting point.

If you decide to do so, get a swimming pool type heater. use your wash basin or bath tube for temperature controlled water bath, Also use one shot developer. Down load the phone app “Dev It” as your darkroom timer,. You can find almost any film/developer/time/temperature combination (it Has built in Massive film develop chart). 

You then only need to work out your own agitation method. Start with really mild shaking, assuming a little kitty is in it! There you go.

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

9 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

I have used the Delta 100, and liked the results after developing in DD-X instead of my usual Rodinal. The DD-X gave nicer tonality to go with the fine grain.

Modern films tend to prefer its own brand developer: Kodak for Tmax, Ilford for Delta. ...at least to start with before switching to other developers.

[Advertisement]

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

[gteague]

when i was 11 years old and had co-opted my grandmother's folding kodak 620, she used green stamps (remember those?) to 'buy' me an all plastic developing kit which even included the enlarger. i had no place to work except a tiny closet with no ventilation whatsoever and no air-conditioning in the house either.

obviously i don't live in the same house, but the one i'm in might be worse. so no, i'm not going back into the closet in august in west texas when i again have next-to-no temperature control inside. it's 93ºF at my computer desk as i type this, and the closet is at least 10-15º hotter than that. and as far as ice goes, i have to filter all water 3/4 gallon at a time.  

so yeah, online lab it's going to be. 

/guy

Edited August 29, 2020 by gteague

[TomB_tx]

My first try at developing was about the same age, with a Kodak kit with contact printing frame. I used 127 Brownie film - done also in a closet - but Michigan was cooler.

I've been in Texas 50 years now, retired for 11 years, but fortunately still have A/C - so while it's 103 outside my extra bath/darkroom is manageable. I also use filtered water for drinking and processing. I hope Fall comes quickly.

[gteague]

1 minute ago, TomB_tx said:

My first try at developing was about the same age, with a Kodak kit with contact printing frame. I used 127 Brownie film - done also in a closet - but Michigan was cooler.

I've been in Texas 50 years now, retired for 11 years, but fortunately still have A/C - so while it's 103 outside my extra bath/darkroom is manageable. I also use filtered water for drinking and processing. I hope Fall comes quickly.

yeah, today it's 111º in direct sun and 102º in open shade. which makes it cooler than yesterday.    

/guy

[Einst_Stein]

10 minutes ago, gteague said:

yeah, today it's 111º in direct sun and 102º in open shade. which makes it cooler than yesterday.    

/guy

Sorry, I forgot the Sun in Texas is much bigger!

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For Fuji 35 mm I prefer the Superia 400 much about the C200. Superia 200 was also good, but Fuji unfortunately abandoned it. My favorit was the Reala, but that's long gone:(

[Erato]

NEOPAN 400PR, ACROS 100 II, 400TMAX/100TMAX, and ILFORD HP5 Plus are all great according to my experience.

[carbon_dragon]

Kodak Tri-X was my main film back in the day, and Fuji Velvia 50. Thems were the days of the tripod!. I also liked Kodak HIE (discontinued) and Tech Pan (also discontinued). But Tri-X was always my favorite.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, Erato said:

NEOPAN 400PR, ACROS 100 II, 400TMAX/100TMAX, and ILFORD HP5 Plus are all great according to my experience.

I have hard time to find any good photo lab for any Fujifilm B&W anywhere away from home, not including Japan. You have to process it yourself. 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

George,

I have a Rollei 35, it has the Triotar lens and the results were nothing to write home about, well got it at a yardsale for $15. The camera is so tiny and attractive, if you have a Tessar or Sonnar lens it should be a treat to use, zone focusing but not too bad. 

As for films, I don't see Portra 160 as a subdued color film would be better in the Texas sun than a 400 speed film, Ektar has some punch to it. Fuji 200 isn't bad either. 

Portra 160 M3 40 Nokton scan by lab.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 30, 2020 by tommonego@gmail.com

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

George,

I have a Rollei 35, it has the Triotar lens and the results were nothing to write home about, well got it at a yardsale for $15. The camera is so tiny and attractive, if you have a Tessar or Sonnar lens it should be a treat to use, zone focusing but not too bad. 

As for films, I don't see Portra 160 as a subdued color film would be better in the Texas sun than a 400 speed film, Ektar has some punch to it. Fuji 200 isn't bad either. 

Portra 160 M3 40 Nokton scan by lab.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Practical speaking, when shooting with small aperture, such as F8~F16, and long distance, it's hard to tell the difference.  

 

[250swb]

Choose a lab, phone them to find out what developer('s) they use for B&W film and choose film based on that. C41 will be obvious because they'll do colour a, but if they only use a conventional developer like D-76 for B&W don't choose a T-grain film. If they confound the process by offering everything possible I would personally go with a T-grain film because it scans a fraction better than conventional film on a conventional film scanner. However, if you have a high end DSLR or similar that you can set up for film scanning there is then the option of having the lab only scan a contact sheet and you pick the good ones to scan with your DSLR. I also think that a high megapixel DSLR scan would generally speaking come out better than a Noritsu lab scan. But like everything there is a small learning curve to get your setup right and another investment in gear.

[Martin B]

From my experience, I prefer the following choices for B&W:

Ilford FP4+ 125 (can be pushed to ISO 200 easily)
Ilford PanF+ 50

Both have a great greyscale tonality which I prefer over super contrasty film types. I have never been a big fan of Tri-X 400. No matter which kind of developer I use, it always comes out too grainy for my taste. If I really need faster film speed, I am using Ilford HP5+ 400 which can be pushed up to ISO 3200 from my experience without problems and still keeping grain in check. One B&W film I would never use again though is Ilford Delta 3200 - much too much grain for my taste. Better off pushing ISO 400 film if needed. The Kodak TMax 100 and 400 films aren't bad either but I dislike the purple dye required to wash off in the development process. I also find Ilford films dry faster and are slightly better for darkroom printing. Ilford Super XP2 400 can be developed with C-41 as mentioned and has the benefit that it can be used at different ISO numbers throughout the film. I used it from ISO 200 to 3200 successfully. Only issue is that the developed film is not easy to be used for darkroom printing. I have used and tested Ferrania P30 ISO 80 film, but find it much too contrasty for my taste. Not much grey tonality left between white and black here. It works for very selected high contrast scenes though. 

For color film, IMO the most difficult step is getting the white balance right when scanning color negative film. Some are easier to scan than others from my experience. One of the worst to scan with correct white balance was Kodak Porta 160 for me. In general, the Kodak Porta films don't make me recommending them even many might disagree since they currently experience quite some hype online. I find not too much special about them, and I always need to adjust the white balance quite severely with them. Maybe my Arista C-41 developer is just not optimized for this film type? I recommend the following color negative films instead:

Kodak Gold 200 - it's cheap but works really well also for scanning. Colors have a rich yellowish cast which works well especially in morning or evening light
Kodak Ektar 100: great color tonality but horrible blueish shadows. Can be corrected in digital PP but it's still sort of painful. I found blueish shadow cast often an issue with Kodak color films but especially with Ektar. It's a landscape and not a portrait film. 
Fujicolor Super HQ 200 and Superia 200: great colors, especially for greens and reds. No blueish shadow casts, shadows appear very natural with this film. Shines in sunlight. Colors can be a bit oversaturated though which can be easily adjusted in digital PP. 

To avoid all the white balance hassle with color negative film, I often shoot color slide film instead (and also develop it myself with E-6). Only problem here is that the exposure needs to be critically controlled and avoiding clipping highlights. My favorite film here is Fuji Velvia 50 film especially for sunsets and sunrises. It's not an easy film to use, and it is expensive. But when it is exposed correctly with the right scene, the image will be outstanding und unique. Fuji Provia 100F follows the lead but I use it in different shooting situations where more blue and green colors are present (less red and yellow tones). I have used expired Ektachrome 100 film which turned out nice, too. 

I will be using up my current film stock, but I will likely move away from Kodak films in the future. They have become more expensive and don't provide better quality than other films from my experience. I also doubt a bit more their quality control in manufacturing with all the changes Kodak is undergoing now.  

Edited August 31, 2020 by Martin B

[Einst_Stein]

Now I use digital camera to digitize the films.  
with my level of skill, I hate color slides. 

True, it may seem to start with easy white balance, but the troubles afterwards are intolerable. I found I am stucked with whatever the color personality of the film (partly is actually my development). Velvia for example, has uncoorectable skin tone, especially right after sunrise or before sunset.

Color negatives are much more tunable .  My photo SW has a one click command to reverse the nagative nicely, then with the click of white balance pick point on the neutral zone, voila! 

Very often I slso have a pocket digital camera for my light meter (and color meter!), I take a digital shot to decide the setting. This is also my reference for the film. By measuring the color index of the grey or skin tone, it is easy to get the film right. But I found I less and less  rely on it now. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[gteague]

got my 8 rolls of 4 types of film in today along with a minty leitz minolta cl w/40mm lens. the shipping must have stacked up because the rollei 35s is due in an hour or so from a different shipper. ironic the cl shipped from japan via fx and the 35s from colorado via usps on the same day and they got here at the same time but it's because trump has wrecked the post office, at least in my area.

i've tried iphone app scanners on my sx-70 instant prints and have had only indifferent results, so i'm likely going to be at the mercy of the lab scans although i guess the negs would be a backup if i got a film scanner.

and yeah, i'm with you einst on the slide film. i used to develop ektachrome, but it was a huge pita to keep within 1/4-1/2º tolerance in a home darkroom. not that easy in a good one.

/guy

Edited August 31, 2020 by gteague

[gteague]

well, sad news on the rollei 35s oak laurel model. it arrived without a battery cap inside. and i extended the lens according to the manual, but the focus ring wouldn't turn. and when i tried to collapse the lens, it was jammed and i didn't want to force anything. and yes, i had the shutter cocked.

called the company and they were very understanding, but the bottom line is that it's going back for a refund. luckily i got the cl in and since i have the digital cl and a couple of /m/ lenses, it's a much better choice anyway. plus, that rollei would have been too small for me to operate easily--the cl's are already pushing my limit there. oh well. /guy

[adan]

On 8/29/2020 at 2:10 PM, gteague said:

what happened to the ultra high resolution tech pan (25? 32?) film?

Kodak discontinued it in 2004, recommending TMax 100 as a substitute for the finest grain and best resolution (with simpler processing).

The deal is that there are two classes of B&W film these days (although "these days" date back to the 1980s).

High-tech "engineered grain" films that produce finer grain and better resolution for the same ISO than the films before 1980. But are also rather high-strung and picky about perfect exposure and processing. These would be the Ilford Delta (Delta-grain) and TMax (T(abular)-grain) films. Without getting too technical, the silver-halide crystals are "grown" to be flat and thin, but wide to capture a lot of light with a minimum of silver (tabular) and usually delta-shaped (triangular - ∆). The flat grains also make the emulsion thinner, for better sharpness (less diffusion of light in the "Jello."

(BTW - the delta-shape vanishes in developing the crystals into silver grains. You won't see triangles in the final pictures )

The others (Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, FP4+, Pan F) use "old-school" cubic crystals. Grainier and slightly fuzzier for a given ISO, but with more latitude and tolerance for exposure and development variations.

Ilford uses a cute trick with FP4+. As a medium-speed film (ISO125), Ilford makes it with a mix of larger "ISO 400" crystals and smaller "ISO 50" crystals. Averaging out to ISO 125. This gives it extra latitude in high-contrast situations - the big "fast" crystals capture more light and tonal detail in the shadows, while the "slow" small crystals keep adding tonal density in bright highlights, where the fast crystals are grossly overexposed and have blocked up.

Think of it as "chemical HDR."

It is the closest thing still made (at least by the big players) to the old Kodak Verichrome Pan, engineered for box-cameras and P&Ss with minimal exposure controls (shutter speeds and apertures) and thus sloppy exposures in varying light. Very forgiving.

Ooops - gotta run. But I would recommend FP4+ as a starting point for someone getting back into B&W film.

Edited September 1, 2020 by adan

[Martin B]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Kodak discontinued it in 2004, recommending TMax 100 as a substitute for the finest grain and best resolution (with simpler processing).

The deal is that there are two classes of B&W film these days (although "these days" date back to the 1980s).

High-tech "engineered grain" films that produce finer grain and better resolution for the same ISO than the films before 1980. But are also rather high-strung and picky about perfect exposure and processing. These would be the Ilford Delta (Delta-grain) and TMax (T(abular)-grain) films. Without getting too technical, the silver-halide crystals are "grown" to be flat and thin, but wide to capture a lot of light with a minimum of silver (tabular) and usually delta-shaped (triangular - ∆). The flat grains also make the emulsion thinner, for better sharpness (less diffusion of light in the "Jello."

(BTW - the delta-shape vanishes in developing the crystals into silver grains. You won't see triangles in the final pictures )

The others (Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, FP4+, Pan F) use "old-school" cubic crystals. Grainier and slightly fuzzier for a given ISO, but with more latitude and tolerance for exposure and development variations.

Ilford uses a cute trick with FP4+. As a medium-speed film (ISO125), Ilford makes it with a mix of larger "ISO 400" crystals and smaller "ISO 50" crystals. Averaging out to ISO 125. This gives it extra latitude in high-contrast situations - the big "fast" crystals capture more light and tonal detail in the shadows, while the "slow" small crystals keep adding tonal density in bright highlights, where the fast crystals are grossly overexposed and have blocked up.

Think of it as "chemical HDR."

It is the closest thing still made (at least by the big players) to the old Kodak Verichrome Pan, engineered for box-cameras and P&Ss with minimal exposure controls (shutter speeds and apertures) and thus sloppy exposures in varying light. Very forgiving.

Ooops - gotta run. But I would recommend FP4+ as a starting point for someone getting back into B&W film.

Excellent background info! FP4+ is my favorite film for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I was unaware that this is due to the crystal mix. But it certainly explains it. Personally, I love developing FP4+ with Xtol (1:1) which barely shows any grain in the final image. It normally provides sufficient edge sharpness even on 35 mm frames. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

I used to have three very favorable little film cameras, in the order the paid price (about 1:2:3): Kodak Retina IIIc, Rollei 35S, and Leitz CL. Leitz CL was gone when I decided to sell it to make some profit. Between Retina IIIc and Rollei 35S, Retina is more capable in terms of focusing,  metering, and image quality. Both are fun to carry. Rollei 35s looks cute while Retina looks classics.

But Leitz CL is the best of the three.