35mm- What's your favorite and why do you like it

Logan Becker submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Looking for different films to try out

I've been shooting almost exclusively with Ilford HP5; I want to know what brand/'blend' users prefer over others, what their most appealing characteristics are, their availability, compatibility with various chemistry, and perhaps a few visual examples. I don't want to stop using HP5; I love the rich shadows I get from it in daylight, particularly for portraits- however I want a little variety. What do you think?

Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Can you fix the link please

Original Agfa APX100 developed in Rodinal, APX25 in Rodinal as well but only with a tripod. These days Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD.

I'm not posting on your link as it's not remotely a resource it's an opinion. I love HP5 but only in larger formats (the same would go for Tri-X).

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Original Agfa APX100 developed in Rodinal, APX25 in Rodinal as well but only with a tripod. These days Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD.

I'm not posting on your link as it's not remotely a resource it's an opinion. I love HP5 but only in larger formats (the same would go for Tri-X).

Ian

Click to expand...

I am still finding my way through the site, don't know how to start a thread in the forums yet 0.o

Kodak Portra 400
Kodak Tri-X 400

Ilford HP5+ is my favorite. It has great tonality, plenty of latitude and is good for my type of photography. I was a Tri-X user until recently but switched as at the time Kodak was not supportive of film photography in the same way Ilford have always been. Also I wanted to support my "Local" manufacturer. Quality is beyond reproach and the switch has been seamless. If anything I now prefer the results with HP5+ after long enough to get really acquainted with its nuances. I like how it renders mid tones and in particular skin tones. The grain is sharp and not overly pronounced, but in my eyes just right. Delta and T-max are too clinical and smooth for my tastes. I rate it @ Ei200 and develop in HC-110 dilution H.

Forma 200, shoot at 100, developed in D76 or shoot at 200 and develop in MCM 100, push to 400 and develop in HC 110. I have not had any issues with quality control, gain is medium, fine with 35mm, and available in MF and LF so my development times are set.

Used to be Plux-X, now Illford Delta 100.
I like the medium speed film, as it gives me the ability to adjust my exposure in broad daylight.

Tri-X or similar 400 speed film, just about turns my SLR camera into a box camera, with the shutter speed and aperture maxed out or practically maxed out; 1/500 sec at f/16. I used it in high school, where it was the standard film used by the yearbook photographers.

Tmax 100.

It's what I show to people who think film is grainy and blurry. If only I had some in 120...

Acutally, I would like Panatomic-X, for a fine grain slow (ASA 32) film.
I think Illford Pan F Plus (at ISO 50) is my only decent current option. But it is only 1 stop slower than Delta 100. I would rather have had it down at ISO 25, to make it a 2 stop difference.

Pan-X and Delta 100 look essentially identical.

John Bragg said:

Ilford HP5+ is my favorite. It has great tonality, plenty of latitude....... I rate it @ Ei200 and develop in HC-110 dilution H.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you typically shoot at 1200 most times.?
Do you simply prefer the way the film looks in that scenario, or are you also trying to pick up some extra light.?
Thank You

Kodachrome 64, ColorPlus 200, Ektar, and Pan-X/Delta 100. You don't want to know why!

Tri-X in Ilfotec LC29.

CMoore said:

Are you saying you typically shoot at 1200 most times.?
Do you simply prefer the way the film looks in that scenario, or are you also trying to pick up some extra light.?
Thank You

Click to expand...

I shoot at Ei 200 not 1200. One stop over from Box Speed. Better shadow detail results and highlights are controlled by development time, dilution and agitation. I find that the negatives produced like this suit my vision of what a black and white film should look like. Purely a preference borne from experience.

Logan Becker said:

Logan Becker submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Looking for different films to try out



(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

Max 400 because of the great skin tones for figure work

FP4+ in Caffenol-C-H. Sensational, especially if slightly overexposed and expired. Gritty but fine and sharp at the same time.

Favorite 35mm portrait print film:
Fuji Portrait 160NPS or 160NPC
Kodak Portra 160NC or 160VC


Favorite 35mm landscape slide film:
Fuji Velvia 50 (great for green)
Fuji Velvia 100
Kodak Ektachrome E100vs (great for orange and red)


Favorite 35mm black & white film: None (I prefer medium format or large format for B&W)

35mm & 120
Kodak Plus X
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Portra 400
Kodak Portra 800
Kodak Vivid Color 400
Kodak Ultra Color 400

4"x5"
Ilford HP5+
Kodak Vivid Color 160

John Bragg said:

I shoot at Ei 200 not 1200. One stop over from Box Speed. Better shadow detail results and highlights are controlled by development time, dilution and agitation. I find that the negatives produced like this suit my vision of what a black and white film should look like. Purely a preference borne from experience.

Click to expand...

Good Grief...My Mistake. Sorry.
I thought that second letter was the Number One.
I need to put on my reading glasses before i ask a question. One of the hazards of approaching 60 years of age.
Thank For The Correction

My favourite changes over time. Right now it is Portra 160 pushed one stop for colour and XP2 for black and white.

I generally stick with Ilford stuff partly because it is generally a little less expensive than Kodak. I've got "on hand" Delta 100 & 400, FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 3200.
I've got 3200 loaded in my F-1N and fp4+ in my AE-1. Today I shot 2 rolls of HP5+ rated at 400 which I'll develop in D76 and about halfway through the roll of 3200 rated at 6400 which will get souped in Microphen.
For Color I tend to stick pretty much to Ektar100.

As a relative newby in the course of returning to film, I've standardized on Ilford's HP5+ and FP4+, but admit to similar urges to experiment with other emulsions. Standardization on Ilford has something to do with an estimate that this is the sweet spot of the quality-value equation together with a sense that Ilford's tie to my main focus on B&W ought to merit the benefit of the doubt and full support on the basis that they provide a wide array of materials supporting the field. I do not sense a similar commitment and dependency on the part of either Fuji or Kodak for the future - though with Kodak (Alaris), my impression may be out-of-date. That said, I don't mean to demean or avoid either company's products as they are excellent. Yet neither seem to offer much reward for choosing to standardize on their materials. By contrast, bulk load Ilford and an already modest cost drops further - even to the point where you'll shoot often enough to improve. FWIW, since returning to film, I've been sufficiently satisfied with Ilford I have yet to try the much hallowed TRI-X... and don't feel that "pull". T-MAX on the other hand is more appealing or at least has been used in more shots I've admired that I look at these with admiration. Same for a slew of films developed in D-23.... so I find it difficult to attribute the results to the film, the developer and/or the photographer except by consistency. I have a slew of developers but am using mostly HC-110 and (increasingly) FA-1027 (which seems to be a Clayton's variant on D-76 if I read it right).

For daliances with other films, my choices in B&W run along similar lines of thought: smaller firms like Adox, Bergger, Ferrania and Foma where film is their life's blood and B&W their main gig. While I could buy any of these (including Ilford) on discount from Freestyle and others, I'd prefer to see them make it under their own flagship brand, and won't. I'm trying to stay away from the rebrands, but fairly can't ferret out all the duplicates. Theory here is that this approach will generally keep things simpler, more reliable, etc. - even if it costs a tad more.

I'm doing a bit with color, but only a bit. I'm a hybrid-est, and so digital color is "okay" here (for me) - at least while I re-figure out film color. This may wait for a Medium Format camera to really replace digital... but that's a while off, and I'm sort of resisting the whole camera-as-big-as-a-house thing and sticking with 35mm. Here I guess I'm sticking with Portra 160/400 and Cinestill for now - all very much Kodak, and so far, I'm leaving development to pro labs. There's enough infrastructure to put in place to control the film process that color development, though I hear it's not much harder... just didn't seem worth the squeeze at this point. With color, I don't feel there's the same degree of creativity as B&W 'cause you either nail a skin tone or you miss and "the miss" defines the viewer's experience - even more than perhaps it should. Of course, the last statement attests that I am NOT a hipster or lomographist.

Good luck and have fun!

Kodak Tmax 400 shot @ 800 with a nudge in development time in Xtol.

I am able to get nice tight grain and incredible sharpness in full sunlight at 1,000-2,000th of a second at F11 and then do just great with a 1.4 lens in low light, heck of a usable range.

I also shoot it at 800 in 120. In 4x5 it stays at 400 99% of the time. It's my all time favorite black and white film.

B&W: Ilford Pan-F plus, Kodak TMY2
Color neg: Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 400
Color slide: Velvia 50