Your favorite Film

[Unimaxium]

I'm kind of new to photography, so I haven't shot many films, and it's been almost all B&W, but I have liked Ilford XP2 Super, which is a C-41 film. I should probably try one of those T-grain films like Ilford Delta or Kodak Tmax; I've heard they're good too. For most of my assignments for my photo class I shoot Tri-X, but mostly because it's simply easy to process at school. I'm also hoping to try taking a roll of velvia sometime soon and getting that processed to see how it is. But I'll wait until I have a digital film scanner for that so I can actually do something with the shots (I can only print B&W anyway at school, and only with negative film of course).

 

[Shutterbug]

I want some old, Panatomic X.

;___;

 

[doxx]

Tri-X @1600 developed in Diafine

 

[myopia]

ilford deltas for bw. fuji velvia 100 and provia 100F for color.

 

[fmw]

Provia for color and Delta 100 for B&W.

 

[burtharrris]

Tri-X @1600 developed in Diafine

Does the Diafine keep the grain down? Do you shoot that for 120 or 135?

 

[LWW]

10 to 15 years ago I dearly loved a film by Kodak called Ektar. It came in 25, 100, and 1000 speeds.

Not sure what happened to it, but it spoiled me for anything else.

LWW

 

[JIP]

When I still shot film I was a big fan of Fuji Reala for all my senic/vacation shots I also liked Kodak Portra for medium format (weddings).

 

[ksmattfish]

I guess I'd pick Tri-X 400, as it is very versatile for me. In general though, I think the individual charateristics popularly attributed to particular films are overrated. Give me anything, I'll still get the job done.

Does the Diafine keep the grain down? Do you shoot that for 120 or 135?

It depends what you mean. I find that Tri-X at ISO 1600 in Diafine has slightly less grain than if I pushed Tri-X 2 stops in something like D-76. But if comparing Tri-X (at any ISO) in Diafine with Tri-X at ISO 400 in D-76 (developed normally), the Tri-X at 400 in D-76 (or similar developer) has finer grain.

I'm shooting Tri-X 400 (not TXP-320) in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, and I've tried it all in Diafine. If I need the extra 2 stops, or want the contrast controlling effects of a compensating developer, I go with the Diafine. Otherwise I stick with the basic phenidone liquid developer I use.

 

[photogoddess]

Depends on what I'm shootin.

HP5 - B&W although I love Acros 100 for portraits too!
64T for night time landscapes - LOVE the blue blue sky (special thanks to my honey Malachite for showing me the benefits of this awesome film)
Portra 160 for portraits (I hear the new batch is awesome but haven't used my test rolls yet)
SFX for faux IR and HIE for real IR B&W and
Velvia for regular landscapes :mrgreen:

 

[GilTphoto]

Fuji Velvia for landscapes, Fuji Provia 400F for wildlife.


http://GilTphoto.com

 

[montresor]

All the Ilford Deltas, Fuji Acros (cheap to buy and looks good), Reala for color. A special place in my heart for Delta 3200, esp. in 120. Tri-X from when I was a little bitty baby.

Films I'd like to try -- the old-formula high-silver rolls from J and C Photography.

Film I'm waiting to try -- found a refrigerated pro-pack of Agfa Scala 120, ISO 400, in the back of Dodd Camera's cold case (sale priced at $4.95), and a place online that swears they'll develop Scala till the end of time. Now it sits in my fridge, waiting for just the right moment....

 

[burtharrris]

is that the black and white slide film?

 

[Jeremy Z]

I like Kodak T-Max400 best for B&W. It has VERY fine grain for a 400 speed film, and if developed in the right way, can still yield very good contrast. (though not as much as Tri-X)

For color, it depends on the application. I don't think they make it any more, but I did like Kodak Royal Gold 25 quite a bit for large prints. I made a 20x30 size print of a 427 Cobra, which came out beautiful.

Velvia is a bit too saturated for my taste. I like the more neutral Fuji slide film better.

I also like Fuji's plain, Wal*Mart 400 speed print film, whatever they're calling it these days.