Film recommendations

jbylake · Sep 11, 2009

Long story short (PM me if you want to know), I have 3 very mint camera's that I bought in the '70's- early 80's, 1 Canon A1 and 2 mint AE1's, and a bunch of Canon FD Glass. I used to be a fairly decent and knowledgable photographer, but never on the pro level. For reasons to lengthy to explain, I had to quit the hobby. I've recently had all the equip checked..rated Excellent ++, and have been re-training myself.

Here's the question. I shoot almost exclusively B&W, but also some color.
I've just bought a new hi-res scanner, so sans the photo equiment we had at the base photo hobby shop. Now, after all of these years, I could use some tips on which film to buy...100, 200, and 400 ASA. I know B&W film has advanced since my hey day...can anyone make any recommendations for film(s) and maybe a little explanation if you have time?

Thanks Much in advance for your help...

J.:mrgreen:

jonahr · Sep 11, 2009

100: I really like Ilford Delta 100, Ilford FP4 (ISO 125 but i shoot it at 100) and Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (I would highly recommend rating it at ISO 80)

400: Ilford HP5, Fuji Neopan 400

A lot of people I have spoken to, particularly those shooting film for the first time in years seem very inclined to go for Kodak film. Other than the newest generation of TMax I really don't think Kodak's B/W film can stand up to the competition. You really can't go wrong with any of Ilford's films and I've really been enjoying Fuji Neopan lately. Fuji's films are really great in that they cost almost half as much as most Ilford and Kodak.

djacobox372 · Sep 12, 2009

Firstly, I highly recommend http://www.freestylephoto.biz they have an excellent selection, prices, and fast shipping.

fujifilm neopan acros or tmax 100 are good choices.

If you're looking for somethign cheaper fuji neopan SS is half the price of the forementioned brands--while not quite as fine grain as acros or tmax, it's still produces excellent results.

jbylake · Sep 12, 2009

Thank you both! I'll heed your advice and try out your suggestions..
J.:mrgreen:

blash · Sep 12, 2009

jonahr said:
100: I really like Ilford Delta 100, Ilford FP4 (ISO 125 but i shoot it at 100) and Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (I would highly recommend rating it at ISO 80)

400: Ilford HP5, Fuji Neopan 400

A lot of people I have spoken to, particularly those shooting film for the first time in years seem very inclined to go for Kodak film. Other than the newest generation of TMax I really don't think Kodak's B/W film can stand up to the competition. You really can't go wrong with any of Ilford's films and I've really been enjoying Fuji Neopan lately. Fuji's films are really great in that they cost almost half as much as most Ilford and Kodak.

I agree with this (except for the Delta 100, but only because I've never shot any so I don't know it). I preferred Agfa APX-100 and APX-400 for supremely fine grain but unfortunately B&H finally ran out of stock this past summer. Kodak is much better for color photo than it is for B&W - TMax was highly disappointing but Portra 160 NC and VC is wonderful.

jbylake · Sep 12, 2009

Thanks, I'll try your suggestion also. In some of my B&W stuff, not all but some, I do like a little grain, where it fits. Just wierd that way, I guess.

J.:mrgreen:

minolta09 · Sep 15, 2009

iso 100 : Lucky B&W :cheap, around $2/roll
Ilford pan100 around $4/roll

iso 400 : Ilford pan400 around $5/roll

for your reference, i bought from www.lomofilmonline.com
i got my films around 1week

biprauk · Sep 19, 2009

Lovely post! Thanks for the useful information.

Photoboy1980 · Oct 9, 2009

I know this is an old post.. but if you are shooting B&W for the most part, I would revisit Kodak's films. I've used T-Max 400, 100 and also Tri-X 400. All gave great results!

cooltouch · Oct 9, 2009

Well, Kodak's still making Tri-X. You probably shot with it back in the day. The ISO 400 T-Max does as good of a job, IMO. Kodak's also back to making Plus-X Pan again. It's a solid ISO 125 film.

A few days ago, I bought some Kodak BW400CN -- it uses the C-41 process, so anybody who prints color negs can print this stuff. I don't know anything about it, but figured I'd give it a try.

Years ago, I bought some cheapo no-name B&W film that was supposedly made in Hungary or some place, but it was so cheap, I figured I'd give it a try. It ended up being fairly high contrast, grainy film, but its effect was remarkable. Some of my coolest B&W photos were done with that cheapo film.

I don't really think you can go wrong with B&W. Each film has its own character, and I guess the thing is finding the way to best exploit it.

Photoboy1980 · Oct 9, 2009

"I don't really think you can go wrong with B&W. Each film has its own character, and I guess the thing is finding the way to best exploit it."

Good point cooltouch!

den9 · Oct 9, 2009

would fuji T64 be good for city lights at night?

compur · Oct 9, 2009

den9 said:
would fuji T64 be good for city lights at night?

Yes! I've used tungsten film for night shots. It produces some neat color
effects.

den9 · Oct 10, 2009

picked up some film today, they had no tungsten film, and i picked up black and white what it was slide? does this really matter? what are the benefits? im not developing my own film. i also picked up expired film, would this film still be ok to use? its about a year old.

molested_cow · Oct 10, 2009

Well, if you are just going to scan the negatives, meaning you can do post processing of the photos on computer, why not get color negatives then turn them into b&w as you wish? I don't really know what the difference is between a true b&w negative vs turning a color photo into b&w, but I figured this will give you more options to how you want the final result to be.