Jump to content

which print film..


fursan

Recommended Posts

I've just bought a 100 rolls of one of my favourite print films but it's discontinued so not much help to you.

 

Kodak Portra as Andy suggests. I tend to shoot colour neg most of the time now and do B&W conversions. If I shoot B&W film I tend to prefer traditional film like FP4 or HP5/Tri X and Neopan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! thanks a lot folks. yesterday i got a portra 160vc processed and scanned...first time

with vc and the pics turned out horrible. the whites were mostly cyan and blue.

 

portra 160 nc, though, was very good.

 

I was worried about the light in scotland at this time of the year, and also thought 160 would be low.

 

Thanks once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The light will always be low when compared to Riyadh! :)

 

I have just run a roll of Delta 100 through this morning and I was getting 125th f8 type exposures. Pretty normal for this time of year round here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For color prints I was always using Fuji Seperia (100 upto 400, sometimes 800) and besides the prints had these scanned on a CD. The scans were disappointing because of the high saturation.

Switched recently to Porta NC 160 and NC 400: prints look better and scanned pictures now have a natural look.

In B&W usually use TMax 400.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuji Reala has a nice look to it, but take some faster film in case the light's not so good. The last 'fast' colour films I used were The Fuji Superia 400 and 800, but I'm out of touch eiht what's current these days.

 

For b&w I'd suggest FP4 and Tri-X, again to give you some flexibility regarding the light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still very changeable here, so you you need to beware of overcast days, with the occasional bright spell and dramatic contrast as the weather clears.

 

I would advise Fuji 400Pro ( aka NPH ) rated at 200 for colour neg for it's outstanding overexposure latitude and fine grain.

 

Arcos 100 is my favourite B&W, but with a contrast filter it's going to be a bit slow, so better sticking to Neopan 400 or Tri-X for general shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody mentioned c41/bw. any opinions on ilford xp2 super?

 

That's a very good answer - if your not going to develop the film yourself.

Understanding how a lab would push/pull add grain/contrast to conventional film would take experimentation and time.

 

But beware the high-street labs will hang your precious film in an uncontrolled area and inevitably scratch it with poor handling. Their scanning resolution and compression will suck.

It used to be that XP2 would print with exposure dependent colour casts on RA4 paper - BW400CN from Kodak will do better. The newer digital labs might have a pure B&W setting ? ( if you want quick prints)

 

Take the time to search out a pro-lab if you can, but beware, there are not that many pro-labs around anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fursan,

 

If you are wanting to shoot BW film, then do yourself a huge favour and develop it yourself. It is not hard or expensive, and you will learn loads about your favourite film's characteristics; tweaking the developing variables will afford you much, much more creative control.

 

You will need a film picker and changing bag, a jobo tank and reels, some developer, stop bath and fixer and water. A few mixing containers and a couple sets of hanging clips will give a great developing kit.

 

But if you are not interested in BW developing, then, yea; just find a good lab. For colour film, have you tried Kodachrome 64 when it is sunny?

 

Good cheer,

thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody mentioned c41/bw. any opinions on ilford xp2 super?
I 've just had some XP2 film developed that I shot at a wedding in Ireland. I had the experience mym6is12 speaks to above, poor work in the local fast-process lab, and this is a shop I used before with excellent results. In addition, XP2 seemed to do poorly with the flat light I had there, I rated the film at 250 and I've had excellent results in contrasty light, but this was grainy & poor. I was pretty disappointed and I'm not sure if it was the processing or I made a mistake with my rating of the film in the light I was using.

 

So I'm spooked and I've ordered some rolls of the new Kodak T-Max 400 for another wedding in England in May. I should be OK there. I would also recommend Fuji Reala 100 but I think you need an ISO400 film like Fuji Superia 400.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...