What's /p/'s favorite film?
I'm relatively new to b&w film and I've been shooting with tri-x 400 for quite some time now. I'm looking to get into some finer grain films such as the ones pictured here.
My new test subjects.
Can't wait to try all the tasty flavors!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Nexus 6 Equipment Make motorola Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:02:23 18:20:02 Image Width 2592 Image Height 1944 F-Number f/2.0 Focal Length 3.82 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image Width 2592 ISO Speed Rating 241 Image Height 1944 Exposure Time 16667251/500000000 sec
>>2776364
Been shooting mostly ilford, tried some tri-x, I liked it a little better for my taste but honestly there really isn't a difference
Don't know about tmax but I haven't heard anything that good about it
>>2776377
ilford is pretty expensive on amazon, do you know a place where I could cop a few rolls for cheap?
Velvia. I wish it wasn't such a pain in the ass to get processed these days.
I just got a new (to me) MF camera, can't wait to go pick up some film and shoot it, and then figure out how the fuck I'm gonna scan it.
>>2776380
I got all mine from b&h.
This is a dumb question but how much does film cost OP? Just wondering, I don't do film.
>>2776430
Cheap film can be less than $1 a roll. High end professional film can be $10+ a roll.
As you start moving into larger formats, film becomes more expensive as well. 35mm is the cheapest, 120 (medium format) is marginally more, 4x5 is reasonably expensive, 8x10 is extremely expensive.
The majority of people here shoot 35mm or medium format which is fairly cheap in the long run. Decent B&W film will cost you $3 a roll if you buy in bulk, a developing setup will cost you about $100 and the camera can be anything from free upwards. People are basically giving away 35mm cameras that don't have a cult following. My Pentax P30 in perfect working order with a 50mm 1.7 and a 28mm 2.8 cost me $10.
Tri-x, I've been trying out pan f 50 but I screwed something up and they were incredibly grainy
>>2776439
Oh okay, I just bought a roll of Kodak Gold 100 for like 5 bucks.
I thought people stopped making film? But from your picture it looks like there's still a lot.
>>2776444
Seems a bit expensive for Gold but you'll learn.
Nah film is still in production, there's just less variety these days. Kodak, Fujifilm and Ilford are the big players, tho Fujifilm just recently upped their prices.
>>2776446
>>2776446
Dang, so the one I got is expired, does that change anything?
Basically got it from a yard sale from some dead persons house. Someone in there took a lot of photos. Is there such a thing as tiny film? There were some photos that were like the size of a zippo lighter, a little larger.
>>2776453
Look up how to shoot on expired film. It's fun, and looks neat, but you might want to shoot a fresh roll first.
I think what you saw might be slide film.
Good luck anon!!
>>2776453
Expired film can cause cool color shifts and what not. It'll still work.
The smallest commercially available film was 110 film iirc, but that was much smaller than 35mm. What you probably saw were individual slides from a roll of slide film like in pic related.
>>2776462
No, believe it or she actually had slide film (thanks I had no idea what it was) with a projector.
The ones I saw weren't transparent and were black and white. They looked old too. Some stuff had dates like 1943.
Unfortunately there weren't any cameras at the yard sale. I would have bought one, only like two that looked like those Kodak instant cameras you buy at Walmart.
Thanks for the info guys.
>>2776460
What's a beginners film camera?
>>2776474
Are you completely new to photography, or just to film?
>>2776430
Everything in that picture plus the two rolls of ilford pan f cost me 49 and free shipping from b&h
>>2776430
Plus, I can develop for free at my university which is a bug bonus.
>>2776443
What did you do wrong? Did you forget to change your iso setting?
>>2776483
Film is fine for learning, it'll teach you proper exposure. I'd look for a fully manual SLR. The most popular ones are the Canon A1 / AE-1 and the Pentax K1000, but really anything that works and has a pretty popular lens mount should be fine
>>2776483
Yes of course. The nikon f3 was handed down from my father when he was into photography and I just recently picked up that rb67.
And really imo if you have absolutely zero experience with photography, don't start off with film. While many people may disagree with me, I believe it is a much better idea to start with digital and learn proper exposure, composition, etc. Then move on to film. This way your first few rolls won't be shit and you'll get a better grasp on what you're doing.
I've just loaded my daylight bulk loader. The hole in the middle of the spool is about an inch across but the rod that holds it in place is like a pencil. WTF? Do I need another piece?
>>2776559
I was expecting something like this.
>>2776562
But it felt like this.
BTW how triggered is everybody seeing all of that unused film in the light?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:09:24 19:31:21 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 822 Image Height 519
>>2776462
>The smallest commercially available film was 110
You forgot disc film. Negatives were smaller than a fingernail. Image quality was poor, but better than expected from such a small negative.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Corporation Camera Model PENTAX Optio S40 Camera Software Optio S40 Ver 1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 74 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2006:07:02 20:42:27 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/3.9 ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 12.20 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2304 Image Height 1728 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
>>2776484
I took about a year to develop them the tri-x was sitting around even longer and turned out fine. I've heard ilford film doesnt take well to sitting around
>>2776364
Ilford HP5+ is pretty much all I shoot. Easy to develop, even if you slightly mess up the dev times or whatever you can still get usable pictures. Responds well to pushing, lately i've been pushing it to 1600-3200 and its all good. Surprisingly little grain when developed in DD-X. And it looks good.
I've also shot some FP4, really like it too but its too slow for me most of the time since I live up north where I really need the speed which I'll get from films like HP5. Beautiful pictures with nice fine grain.
I recently got some Delta 3200, gonna see how it responds when pushed 2-3 stops. Maybe to shoot some night stuff or really grainy black metal type of things.
>>2776562
>>2776564
>>2776559
I don't have much experience with bulk loading, but from what I can tell, I can't see how it would make a difference? Whether it's loose or tight, it's still just going to sit there and spin around, all of your winding and frame counting is done with the sprocket counting mechanism.
Also, are you loading a 30 foot roll or 100 foot? (or 10m, 30m)
>>2776615
It's a 17m roll, which I'll be sticking with until I'm confident and until I've experimented with a bunch of brands. You're right that it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Got a roll of Fomopan 100 drying off right now. It seems fine. I can't see why I would pay more than double for tri-x over this.
>>2777072
Well two (at least) stops of speed for one.
For me the biggest risks of using films made by slovenian dirt farmers is that there can often be scratches, pinholes and other inconsistencies in the emulsion.
See pic related. Ignore the post processing, the uneven emulsion coating has made the shot unusable.
I could still use several other pics from the roll, becase subject detail masked that defect, but you just don't get these problems with Fuji or Kodak.
Astia 100f or E100G for nudes? I've got both stored in 120.
>>2777074
400S should normally be fine, it's Agfa Aerial film. Though I wouldn't shoot it at 400 speed.
>>2777074
Hello fellow Brisbanite
My favorite is one emulsion I'll never have the fortune of shooting. Too bad. It was Kodak EPR64, and it was absolutely beautiful, if the images online are anything to go by.
Those rich, deep blues and warm yellows, oof.
>>2777074
There is fomopan 400 or retropan 320, and if I need to push higher I'll use Ilford 400 and go from there. I haven't seen any problems with the emulsion yet but I'm only 50 shots in. I'll report back.
I dread the day my FP-3000B stash runs dry.
>>2777221
>EPR64
It is nice. I just want to shoot Kodachrome.
I seriously think /p/ should start a crowdfunding campaign to buy the rights to some old film types.
>>2777242
Kodachrome would be nigh on impossible to produce in the modern age. You'd need some very expensive equipment and facilities, and the chemicals used to produce it don't meet pollution guidelines in 1st world countries so you'd have to locate the factory in some shithole country. Plus you'd also need to re-start production of the unique developers for Kodachrome which is a whole other barrel of monkeys.
Having shot Kodachrome in the years leading up to it ceasing to exist, I can tell you it's not that special. It was a nice film, but it didn't look anything like the 1950's washed out aesthetic that most people think it did. The formulation changed over time, and by the end it looked really quite similar to many modern films.
>>2777245
I watched that last roll of Kodachrome doc and the colour wasn't there. It's the older look that I, and I thnk everyone else, would be after.
>inb4 this was taken on a iphone.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:11:27 18:58:51 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 776
>>2777245
You're not the first person I've heard say Kodachrome isn't revivalbe. But let's say we had a $1m Kickstarter, what does everyone think would be the most bankable film to revive?
>>2777273
name one kickstarter that worked. 1m won´t be enought to have kodachrome working.
The only bankable films are being produced now.
>>2777242
Actually, the patent was made available and free many many years ago, the info is there, and any one can do it.
>>2777245
Kodachrome is easy to make. Harder to process. Technically speaking if Fuji left out the dye couplers in their Fujichrome films, but left the rest the same - that would be a Kodachrome type film.
Technically these companies all could have produced E-6 film that looked like Kodachrome, Kodachrome looks like Kodachrome because of the resulting colour dyes in the film, their density distribution to exposure, and their wavelength, and spectral sensitivity to exposure.
With the Ektachrome process, emulsions were updated, etc.Dye couplers were fine able to be fine tuned by Kodak to whatever wavelength they wanted in final dyes, so they could have done it, but you know, progress, technically better films (I actually like modern Ektachrome better anyway).
slide film is fun
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:27
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:28
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:34
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:38
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:39
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:32
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:31
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:35
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:29
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:40
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:32
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 20:53:26
>>2776364
I'm partial to slow speed B&W. My standard go to for years has been Efke, shot a lot of their 100, some 50, and only a couple rolls of 25. The 25 gave fantastic images but is only really usable on bright sunny days. Their IR film was also rather good. I still have some 100 and 50 ASA left, but now that Efke is no longer in production I'll go with Ilford or Adox.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model HDR-HC9 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:03:23 17:36:01 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.8 Exposure Program Normal Program Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 22.70 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 400 Image Height 400 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2777344
There's RPX25, but I prefer Retro 80S, you can shoot at 25-50 and adjust processing.
>>2777352
I can also just buy some Efke off of ebay or something like that, there's still a lot out there. Although I do want to try the new film Adox has come up with to replace their rebranded Efke.
>>2777374
???
What 25 speed film? There's CMS 20, but has a very narrow dynamic range where shadows drop out, and highlights shoulder off extremely hard into extreme low contrast.
>>2777285
New55
>>2777387
Efke 25. There's still a lot of it out there.
>>2776608
>Delta 3200, gonna see how it responds when pushed 2-3 stops
lmao
>>2776608
>pushing delta 3200 2-3 stops
It's already pushed about 1 and 2/3 stops as is as it's actually a 1000 iso film
>>2777727
>12 500 should be doable,
At that rate you're more likely to get a latent image of the print on the film canister than you are from your camera exposure.
But hey, if you fucking retards want to flush money down the toilet and keep the film market percolating, who am I to stop you...
>>2776364
Tri-x 400 and ektar 100 @ 50iso are my go to films.
I haven't tried much other stuff because it's expensive as shit in Australia
>>2778296
Acros , Tri - X
Ektar , Portra 400
Velvia 50 , Provia 100
>>2778438
whoops sorry replied to wrong post
>>2778265
This.
>>2778448
>>2778265
Obviously not true. If such a low level (non-existent) exposure showed up during processing, then ISO 100k on D3200 would show up with full shadow detail too.
Regardless you'll get an image, just with missing shadow detail at 12.8k, unless you pre-flash.
>>2778296
Buy overseas, I do cheap processing if you need it.
