Film Recommendations

I tried Agfa color negative film (400) (after reading about Afga in the "magazines") for going away programs for someone at my church. Well, I'll never use anything other than Kodak or Fuji again. The color was bad, the contrast was bad, and the grain was even worse. I have a Canon 10s. I used a Canon 50mm lens, with a Canon Flash. The pictures looked like I took them with one of the small instamatics from the 70s. Live and learn. Unfortunately, I can't redo five rolls of pictures for this one time event.

I've been looking at a lot of slides that were shot back in the 60's and 70's lately. I did not use Fuji at that time. Fuji was relatively new to the US market, and I had a lot of family working at Kodak. I used Kodachrome, Ektachrome (processed normally and pushed), and Agfachrome. Oddly, the Kodak relatives didn't seem to mind Agfa nearly as much as they did Fuji. I later worked for Kodak myself.

Agfachrome was available for about $7 for two 36 exposure rolls, processing included, so it was attractive to a college student on a budget.

The good news is that the Kodak products have held up extremely well over time. They haven't been projected very often, but colors have remained pretty close to my memory, and all of the color casts remain "pleasing." The bad news is that many of the Agfachrome slides are noticeably less "real" looking than I remember them. The colors seem to have shifted toward green or blue.

I would be very careful about using brands other than Kodak or Fuji for any critical projects.

You've not mentioned Fuji Reala among the negative films, which is a pity, because it is really, really nice. It has many different shades of each color and also very high saturation. It's much better than Super G+ (OK, also a bit pricey), however it should be noted that in dull weather the difference is not that large. Reala is ideal for portratuire and I use it for landscapes too (and for also everything else, except where very high resolution and fine grain are required). The new Reala incorporates the technology Fuji uses in APS films.

It seems like we have a different Film/Photography world up here in Toronto. B&W is still very popular. Colour Materials are far from producing real B&W Fine Prints. Anyway no one mentioned Ilford. I use their FP4 a lot and find it pretty well stacks up to the T-max 100 which I also like when I'm in the mood. Paper and film for B&W images are very much appreciated around these parts and I expect that will be so for along time to come. When I have to shoot colour prints I find GPX an excellent product.

I'm one of those folks that didn't like TMax 400 (TMY). Well, I started using the new Kodak developer Xtol, and TMax 100 looked so nice in Xtol that I decided to test some TMY. Guess what? TMY in Xtol looks positively great IMHO. I started using it, even in 35mm. I like it - the grain is very fine and sharp, the tonality is, to my eye, excellent. If you've given up on TMY (like I had), you really ought to try some in Xtol. A scan can't really do the film justice, but send me a note and I'll send you a scan or two from a test I shot on TMY 135.

I've been using Fuji Sensia 100 for a while now, and I've been very pleased with the saturated colors it produces.

Some samples can be found at http://www.kjsl.com/~javier/photo/photo-exhibits.html

Concerning TMY, I've had excellant results when developed in PMK Pyro and printed on variable contrast papers. The steepness of the curve in the highlights is controlled very nicely by the built-in low contrast filtration of the pyro stain. Finally, the speed of TMY (close to 400 ISO in PMK) makes large format photography of vegatation in wind feasible.

Charles Schuetze Anchorage, Alaska

I bought 5 rolls of Sensia 400 in 9/96, shot one of them in open sun, and refridgerated the other four. The roll I shot in 9/96 turned out acceptably well. Grain was acceptable and colors were good. I didn't get around to using the other four rolls until recently. Two were shot with an EOS 1N and EOS EF lenses. Two rolls were shot with a Nikon 35 Ti. All four rolls were processed by Fuji in Phoenix. They were mailed on different days (several days apart), but two were returned together twice, leading me to wonder if Fuji batch processes specific emulsions instead of running all E-6 films together. I've noticed that my Velvia often comes back bunched together too.

All four rolls of Sensia 400 turned out horrid. I used these rolls in overcast, and late in the day when light was low. Grain was huge. Colors were weak and washed out. On each roll there were a few frames shot in open sun, and these frames were all acceptable, although not as good as what you can get with Kodak and Fuji ISO 100 emulsions.

I won't be doing more experiments with this film because it isn't worth it. In the low light situations where it ought to have represented a reasonable choice, it really stunk.

I just wanted to second the recommendation someone else made above for Fuji Reala. I like Reala a lot, for its fine grain, excellent sharpness, and good color rendition and (medium) contrast. I've gotten good results with partial frame enlargements to 11x14! I haven't tried pushing it beyond that though.

A couple notes about exposure and printing, though: 1. You don't want to underexpose it. Contrast and color are good, but grain is much more evident when underexposed. For this reason I usually override the DX coding and set it to ISO 80. A little bit of overexposure is much, much better than a little bit of underexposure.

2. The color balance is tricky to get right in the printing stage unless the lab has a balance neg for Reala. I had almost given up on using Reala when I finally found a lab that does it right. The results are great now. So if you want to give it a try, don't assume that poor results are due to the film; it's probably the lab's fault.

I just finished a week of cleaning up an reorganizing about 1000 of my father's Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides. These were all taken between the end of WWII and the early '60's. They have been stored in an attic environment for the last 30 years. They were filthy, but they cleaned up well with a static master brush.

I was impressed with several things. First, even in these poor storage conditions, once these slides were cleaned up, colors were very natural. Second, about half of the slides were in the 828 format (slightly larger than 35mm, but still mounted in 2"x2" mounts), and the other half were 35mm. All were taken with a single focal length lens. I didn't get the impression that the single focal length was terribly limiting. Third, these slides were generally sharp. The 828 camera had a 48mm f/4.5 "luminized" 4 element lens. It was avery capable. Lack of sharpness nearly always appeared to be due to camera shake problems that come with an f/4.5 lens and ASA 25 film. Fourth, I was impressed with the lighting abilities that they used for indoor work. I only saw a few shots with either red eye or harsh shadows behind the main subject. The vast majority of the shots showed no distracting red eye and no distracting shadow. Fifth, Kodak apparantly expected consumers to be smarter in those days. For $.25, my Dad bought a Snap Shot Kodaguide that provided the basis for exposing all of the Kodak films of the day without a meter. It was quite straight forward, and anyone who owned one of these would pretty quickly learn how to judge a scene. Finally, based on looking at these slides the past week, I am impressed by how well you can do if you actually think about what you are doing, instead of relying on the modern technology to save you.

Last comment. He also had a bunch of 126 slides that were taken with a Minolta camera in the 70's. I know for a fact that that camera had a meter in it, and that there was no way to provide photographer selected compensation. These slides were uniformly well exposed. If Minolta knew how to do this in the 70's, why are so many modern P&S cameras so incapable of dealing with slide film?

Kodak's new black and white film TMax T400CN is a remarkable product. It is a C-41 emulsion that produces a monochrome image, like Ilford XP2. Unlike XP2, T400CN produces images with a nearly straight exposure curve, similar to other TMax films. XP2 is more like a traditional B&W film that has a longer toe and prominent shoulder. Kodak claims that T400CN offers grain and sharpness comparable to other EI 100 B&W films, and my experience so far is that this claim is valid. While I'm one of the people that likes TMY (when processed in Xtol), T400CN has become my EI 400 film of choice. The downside is that T400CN is a C-41 emulsion and may not have the permanence of silver films.

Some of the film comments surprise me. And what happened to Ilford?

Ultra 50: I find this a wonderful film. Either the formulation has been changed or there is a complete difference in processing. I get very fine grain and a broad spectrum of saturated colors. I use it quite a bit, always in 120.

Scotchchrome 640T: Well you are right that this is a terrible film. On the other hand, that is no reason not to use it. I push it two stops and cross process, I get incredibly grainy stuff that, properly used, is very effective. I used to shoot a lot of Scotchchrome 1000, but it was discontinued. This is one of the only high-grain color films left.

Ilford XP2: I really like the tonal range of this film, and it is what I usually shoot in black & white. It has a very smooth, almost creamy, feel to it. I haven't tried the new Kodak equivalent, but since I don't care much for the newer Kodak b&w formulations (I still use Tri-X on occasion), I haven't been real motivated.

Previously my film of choice was EPP100 4x5 but Kodak informed me that E100S doesn't suffer from the reciprocity effect like EPP100 does. They were right. It also renders the color of river water here in the Italian Dolomites more accurately.

Ultra 50 - tried a roll on store advice, unfortunately shot end of vacation portraits of the entire family with it and guess what? We all look like pumpkin heads or tomato heads in a frame of ridiculous blown out colors. Live and learn.

Would highly recommend that you try Kodak PMC 400. It is, by far, the best 400 ISO color negative film I have used. I have been able to make virtually grainless enlargements from 110 size areas of 120 format negatives. Shadow detail is exceptional while still maintaining highlights. Contrast and color rendition are great. Low in contrast and color that is very, very slightly warm. If you're tired of the screaming Fuji (not the rock group) color greens & blues, try it.

For B&W I like using Ilford Delta films. They offer fine grain comparable to Kodak Tmax films and are not as contrasty as Tmax. For color I like Fuji Astia. Skin tones are right on the money, the film pushes up to 2 stops without too much fuss. Kodak E100S is nice too. For nature colors nothing beats Fuji Velvia. I often hear people recommending "over" or "under" exposing their film. That is an esthetic judgement, and only you can decide if you like the final results. Run a test on each bach of film, as emultion characteristics differ, and then decide. MacBeth color chart is the standard for calibrating colors in the industry. Good luck!

There is an alternative process for B&W film that I've done some experimentation with. It involves using older tech film like hp5, or Tri-X. You need to play with the development a bit but the results are worth it. Expose the film at ISO 50 or so, (3 stop over). Then using D-76 diluted approx 15:1 (water/stock) develop for approx 20 min. The resulting neg is bulletproof thick, but the tonal range is huge, and there is no grain to speak of.

You mention that you don't know why someone would use B&W film today, except maybe longevity. Well, I suppose it depends on your purpose for taking photos.

For me, longevity is the most important thing about photography. It allows me to capture a moment (maybe even an emotion) and show it to someone at a later time. I would like to think that someone 100 years from now would enjoy some of the images I've captured.

And I think it is almost selfish to only worry about using the photo in the near future. Any color film will quickly fade compare to B&W, but digital is even more temporary. I'm pretty skeptical about the longevity of any digital format. Even if a file isn't stuck on some obsolete media, there's always the chance that the format of the image couldn't easily be converted.

For commercial work, color (or better yet, digital) makes more sense, because you're going to be using the photo right away, and it'll have a pretty limited life.

But, imagine if all the great paintings of the world had become unviewable after 100 years! The world today would have lost so much, and I like to think that the world of the future will have something to gain from the photos made today.

I may sound like a Luddite, but I'm really not (I do have a CS degree). I think digital will be great for journalism and professional work where the photos are taken for some commercial reason, but I photograph for myself, and I'll keep using Tri-X for a long time, and I'll be making home-movies with a 16mm camera on B&W film knowing that some future generation might enjoy what I've done, while video tapes, and color film will have long ago become junk.

Concerning neg. (because results always depend on every step and handling) to me Tmax 400's contrast is too extreme in some cases (exposed at 400 ASA, develped in Tmax Dev. according to Kodak instructions) leading to good black but very thin high tones. Tmax 100 when pushed is even worst. Compared to Tmax Tri-x gives a far more stretched (rich) tonality. Maybe interesting lightly blurred shots seem to be 'sharper' with T technology films.

I didn't see any descriptions of lith films. I've been working with them on and off for two years to make landscapes and other "real" pictures (i.e., not title slides). Because I don't want to futz around with copying from regular B&W negs onto lith film (I use 35mm format), I shoot the image directly, in-camera. Strictly tripod work!!!!! The films are very slow but extremely fine-grained.

I've tried Kodak Ektagraphic HC and AgfaOrtho with three developers each: Agfa Neutol, Agfa Rodinal, and Kodak Super RT. The Rodinal suits me best but it's expensive.

Note that the Kodak film has a yellow-brown cast to the emulsion, whereas the Agfa film has a blue cast. This doesn't matter for B&W prints but it does for color prints.

Re: Kodak TMax400CN. It is more predictable than Ilford XP2. It is so fine-grained that I could not find grain to focus on with my good quality grain focusing devise in a 6x7cm neg when making an 8x10in. image. I'm going to have to buy an image focuser.

Kodak and Fuji films are often very good but I used, by misstake, Konica VX 100 and became very surprised. How deep and clear colors! Maybe the filmbase is a little bit to thin but the colors are the best I ever have seen!

I see a lot of comments about which films are good and which films are bad. But I also see that most people don't find out what the manufacturer intended the film to be used for. For example the person using ultra 50 for portraits. Thatfilm was intended for high contrast vivid unreal saturated colors. That is why all manufacturers make a portrait film. Or why would you try out a film at an unreplacable outing. I would suggest that person try another photo lab because it was obviouse to me that the labe didn't print the order properly. I have been a photofinisher for 25 years, most of the self standing drugstore or discount stores are operated by people with less knowledge than the person bringing in the film. Also most overnight photolabs are now owned by kodak or Fuji. Would it be benificial for them to print thier competitors film to it's maximum standards. Most labs use a standard process in color and black and white. They do not use d-76 or a certian process they don't have time for that. If you want optimum processing in black and white the best result is to do your own. When people come to my lab we ask questions and make recomendations, and we usually get the customer the film they need for the proper reason. Not because the supplier is our owner. I regularly use Agfa, fuji, Konica , ilford and even Kodak occasionaly. But I us the film the way the manufacturer intended it and i find I get the results they intended me to get. If you are getting bad color try another lab, and be sure that it is really another lab. In michigan Arbor, Rite Aid, K-mart, Meijer,and Target are all processed by the same photolab but done under the store name. Isn't it amazing that in the 80"s k-mart tried to do one hour processing and found it was not cost efficient or profitable. why is it that they are in all thier stores now. I welcome any questions about photography at my e-mail address.

Speaking as the resident retrogrouch, let me put in a good word for Ilford Pan-F (ISO 50), where a very fine grain is necessary. I have seen this film exposed at ISO 50 under a No. 4 photoflood (about 1/30 @ 5.6), developed in Pyro/PFdiamlene/Metol/ss developer and enlarged to 16x20 in a diffusion enlarger produce Extalure prints that were essentially grainless while presenting a full tonal range (this was 35mm, remember) Zeiss Sonnar 85mm lens. Subject matter: human portraiture. By same token, Tri-X processed identically has produced very fine grain and 35mm negs enlarged up to 11x14 w/ cold light show little if any grain and 16x20's are just fine, also, thanx. It's exposed at ISO 200 unfiltered or 300 with a G filter on sunlit landscapes. My personal fave was Royal Pan, discontinued in the early 90's, alas, which had a tonal scale as long as your arm and could REALLY record scale when developed in pyro (above). If anyone knows of any emulsion that comes even close, I'd like to hear about it so I can start shooting it.

Just a brief comment on my recent experiences with different films. I shoot mostly slides, as contrast and colour are better. When I have a really good one I go to my trusty Kodak pro-lab and order a high quality print.

I have tried Fuji's Velvia and Sensia, the latter is ok, but the former is too saturated for the sort of climate I live in (Portugal, plenty of sunshine available). I reckon it works better for touristy adds and countries with dull weather. So lately I have settled with E100SW, which gives a much more natural rendition of what is going on around the viewfinder. excellent results with flash too.

As for print film, I like Reala for 100 ISO and Royal Gold 400 for my P&S. B&W I like Tmax 400, I have just made a 20x25 cm enlargement of a portrait and the somewhat grainier texture is just beautiful.

Next I will try the new E200, if grain and rendition are the same as the E100 emulsions I may change again my preferences. I just love APS, it has provided a whole new range of improvements to 35mm film emulsions and technologies.

I've tried 'Scala' by AGFA. This is a very intersesting B+W slide film for those of us without darkrooms, and who shoot only slides. It's rated at ISO 200, but can be shot at 100 or 400, just not on your envelope. There are only 3 labs in the country to process it. I have used it with great results on automotive subjects. I've shot it at 200 and 400 ( higher to increase contrast) and got the results I had hoped for. Try it!

I agree and disagree with some of your recomendations for one .

B&W - I have been usibg the Agfapan 25 and it is incredible, but I also can say that the Ilford Delta 100 is just as good and when you don't want to use a tripod it's the way to go.

Secondly- Royal Gold 25 is very nice, but I have had much better results with the Agpha Ultra 50.

Their are my two cents!

Michael

Why is it that everyone posts information that suggests fast films are the only choice for photographers? I use Kodachrome 25 and 64 for 90% or higher of everything I shoot. Face it, the slow Kodachromes are not only superior to the fast stuff, but if the photographer knows what he is doing, sufficent.

One major user of Kodachrome used to be National Geographic. Go through issues from the 40's, 50's and 60's and you will see virtually every image with a tag line that says Kodachrome by (Photographer's name).

Please, whoever is reading this, use more Kodachrome 25 and 64. You will obtain far better results.

Robert Maxley's comment about Kodachrome is misleading. Kodachrome in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, was a different emulsion than Kodachrome is today. Kodachrome II was a highly saturated, high silver content emulsion which came in only one speed: ISO 25. Today's Kodachrome 25 and K64 have much lower silver content, are not as saturated, and was introduced in the '70s to help Kodak with the higher silver prices. Don't let the branding fool you. K25 and K64 are not like Kodachrome II.

Film what kind is a good question. Next question is : When I travel will the undeveloped film be destroyed by Airport Anti Terrorist scanners/x-ray machines. This summer the new scanners are being deployed. How bad are the new scanners? David Attenborough, lost 5 weeks of film work for the BBC series Birds of the World! see Popular Photography june 98.

Piaw Naw's comment on Kodachrome is itself somewhat misleading. While the 25, 64, and 200 emulsions are not the same as Kodachrome II, the K14 *process* has not changed. And these are great, if tempermental, emulsions.

For a number of reasons, the K14 process is inherently superior to the E6 used for virtually all other transparency films. K14 offers higher resolution (though not necessarily higher *acuity* ) and better permanence than E6. In addition, many (including myself) prefer the Kodachrome palette to any other. The only other slide film that I really like is Fuji Sensia.

I want to say that I just finish testing the new fuji 100-1000 film. Man this film blew me away when I push it to 1000 I shot it to 1000 and pushed to 1000 this film kicks ass I think atleast a photographer should carry one or two of these films. It's a transparent film which shot to 1000 and push to 1000 the color saturations are beautiful. I have to give it up to fuji they rule. Tony

About a year ago, I commented that T400CN is a remarkable film, that it had become my EI 400 film of choice (over TMY/Xtol). Well, T400CN isn't actually my EI 400 film of choice, it turns out. Instead, I find I still prefer TMY for the same uses I always have, and T400CN is an alternative to TMX (!). Ironic, eh? When it really comes down to it, I believe TMX has a bit of an edge in sharpness, and I like the ability to manipulate the neg contrast in processing sometimes. However, T400 may have an advantage when shooting people.

In reference to the comment on not to use 200 speed slide films, but to use 100 ISO's pushed.

I would agree to that until lately. The new Elite Chrome 200 from Kodak is tolerable. The Agfa CTX 200 is more than tolerable...I will be using it alot for my animal/bird photography, mainly hand held.

I will no longer use Kodachrome 200 while the above two films are available.

I was amazed at the lack of coments regarding Fuji Neopan B&W films. Available in 400 and 1600 I have found them to be not only the finest grained film in their ISO's, but also some of the most inexpensive. I recomend XTOL. Regarding TmaxCN: Working at a Pro lab for many years I have seen this film take off in popularity. I have found it to be a great film, though a little flat so I shoot it with a yellow filter. Keep in mind, this film is not as archival as other B&W films but it's great for portraits and weddings. Cross Processing:I would recomend Agfa for anyone interested in xprocessing. Highly saturated images without the blue/green cast I've found with kodak and fuji films. Color print film: There is nothing out there as good as Fuji Reala and Fuji 400HGpro. I've seen thousands of professionaly shot negs on every film in the market and nothing else comes close.

I didn't see a mention of Kodak Pro 400 color negative film. I've gotten good results with it both outside and under flash. My wedding photo friends seem to like it for people and clothing, especially the MC version of the film.

They also like Pro 100. I've tried a roll or two but haven't done any comparing.

Among slide films I still like Kodachrome 25 better than Velvia for landscapes and living things. Better color balance to my eye.

I shoot sports on the newspaper staff of my local community college. Lighting conditions, not only in our gym, but also outdoor at night sports, are absolutely dismal. I need to use a 540ex or a Quantaray PZ-1 (Sunpak 4000af)... Or actually, both linked to a hotshoe distributor, to get an exposure. It's usually simpler to push a film, and in the push-processing department, I've found Tri-X to be hands and feet over TMAX400, which I've also tried. I am doing experiments with Neopan, so I'll get back to you on that. Anyway, you can still retain the tonal quality that TriX has when exposed at 320, and even though it gets grainy, you don't notice at all when you screen the image for newsprint. Esp. if you use the Curves adjustment in Photoshop... but more on that later. I just think that it's interesting that noone mentioned this property of TriX over Tmax. Other than that, I still love Tmax for every day B&W use, and I do alot of that.

Since there seems to be very little comment on it (perhaps it isn't required? :-), I thought I'd throw in my $0.02 about Astia.

In case the above wasn't a dead giveaway, I'll come right out and say I love it! I've tried E100S, E100SW, and Sensia 100, and Astia is the best I've found so far. To keep it short: Colors seem accurately rendered, yet they also seem more saturated than the other 100's (but not nearly as heavily as Velvia). It has higher contrast than Sensia, and appears to be sharper than any of the 100 speed chromes I've tried. The best word I can find to describe the slides from this film is "vibrant".

Will this film ever replace something like Velvia? Hardly, but I think it will take it's place along side it as one of the best slide films around.

Re: Alexey Merz's comment about K-14 remaining the same process between Kodachrome II and K25/64. This is not true. The process used to proecss Kodachrome II was, I believe, K-12, not K- 14. It might indeed be the same process and Kodak might have renumbered the process without changing the chemistry involved, but I suspect that they had to do something to the chemistry to account for the lowered silver content of K25/64. There's nothing wrong with K25/64, if you like it go ahead and shoot it. Just don't confuse what you can buy today with what Ernst Haas used to shoot "The Creation."

I understand that many folk's perceptions about B&W photography rarely extend beyond the grainy and tonally-disadvantaged pictures in the newspapers. I currenly use Plus-X film developed in PMK Pyro. The subsequent prints are tonally beautiful and so sharp you can hurt yourself.

The current trends towards APS and the insidious digitalization of our lives is a disturbing trend. By continually lowering the bar of our expectations we are degrading our ability to both evaluate and to appreciate a technically fine image.

Creating technically excellent images takes time, effort, and exacting standards. By relegating certain films and processes to the dustheap simply because they are "outdated" and not "modern" only serves to deprive the artistic community of many time-honored options.

For myself, there is no substitute for a meticulously produced and technically perfect contact print. Nothing can come close to the stunning beauty of such an image.

Having seen Mr. Greenspun's many Velvia images, I was afraid that if I shot chromes, my pictures too would be unrealistically vivid. However, I've discovered the Agfachrome RSX 50... And I'm in love. Shot some yesterday at the zoo, dropped 'em off at the local 2 hour lab... and they look EXACTLY like the animals we were taking pictures of. Color is THERE. Nice and sharp.

And, It makes Fuji Sensia II 100 look like a sandbox in comparison (i.e. full of grain).

Well, that was yesterday... This is today.

Out shooting fountains and other interesting pieces of concrete around the town today.

Agfapan 25 is remarkable. Developed in Rodinal, noted for how it makes the films come out somewhat grainy... and dropped it on the enlarger.

I was looking at 16"x24" from a 35mm negative with no discernable grain.

I didn't print it; Just inspecting on the enlarger. If you haven't tried this black and white film, you owe it to yourself.

Note to technical pan film users: if you like techpan, but hate technidol's mandatory oddities for developing (i.e. drop the reel into a vat of technidol), TRY Agfapan 25. It develops like a "standard" film. 6 minutes in Rodinal 1+25.

In regards to slide film useage in the U.S.A. There are a lot of Camera Clubs in the U.S.A. that still use expressly slide film. The Photographic Society of America (www.psa- photo.org) is a very good place to ckeck out clubs that still use primarily slide film. If you would like to know more about camera clubs, please check out their web site, or email me and I will locate the club closest to your city. The P.S.A. is a world wide organization with members from all over the world and welcomes both amateur and professional photographers.

For a much less grainy high speed black and white film, try fuji neopan 1600. it has far smaller grain particles than Kodak TMY 400 and is more resistant to development abuse. I use it to shoot ice hockey in the NCAA Final Four event last year and was very impressed.

It's becomming a cliche', but....why has no one mentioned Fuji NHG-II print film? I recently shot a couple of rolls of this for an assignment for school and was thrilled with the lack of grain. Not "lack of grain for an 800 speed film". The skin tones looked great and there was no oversaturation of color. I beleive that proper development of this film key. The reason behind this statement is that a woman in the same class showed prints that were a little washed out and quite grainy. The interesting thing is that her rolls were from the same pro-pack that I shot from (I sold her two rolls). For those of us shooting medium format, this kind of good, fast film is a really great thing.

Umm, are you taking drugs, or am I doing something wrong. As far as I can tell, Kodak 400 speed film is incredibly inferior to Fuji 400. I don't pretend to be an expert, for example I don;t notice much difference between Kodak and Fuji at 100 (though I do notice the bright colours of Agfa at this speed), but I notice a big difference at 400. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Kodak 400 is the most noticeably inferior film i've ever bought from a major manufacturer.

Films: I have been taking photographs since 1964, when I was 14. Some things have changed, but others haven't.

Slide films: Kodachrome professional films are hands down the best slide films OVERALL. The color accuracy, sharpness (acutance), and durability are simply stunning. Velvia is a sick joke. If you think the saturation of Kodachrome is poor, it's probably because you're using a Japanese zoom lens. Use a Leica M or R camera with a single focal length lens on it. Expose properly (about 1/3 stop less than the meter says). Get your slides back. Rejoice and enjoy.

Fuji Astia is a good choice for and E-6 film.

For Black and White, I have the following observations:

Remember that the point of working with a 35 mm camera is spontaneity! Therefore: Forget the zone system (It's useless and detrimental in 35 mm work!)

TMY is admittedly a difficult film to work with. I prefer to use Ilford Delta 400 film for this reason. My best advice is to use a highly dilute, non-phenidone developer to help with the highlight problems.

Other advice for 35 mm B&W: Use a condenser enlarger! Use a Leica enlarging lens (Focotar 2, 50 mm f/4.5. Costs about $800? ALL OTHER LENSES GREATLY INFERIOR!). Develop film to CI about 0.42. (Use a developing time about 0.7 to 0.8 of that recommended by Kodak.)

Any other advice is caca!

I am taking photos in the Brazilian savanahs. I have compared Provia to E100S and E100SW under a variety of conditions. I have found all to give excellent results under most conditions (I "feel like a hero!"). However, when there is a cloudy sky (very common in the rainy season), and especially if any of these clouds are black, then Provia gives a nasty, very cold, blueish colour, under these conditions the E100S and E100SW give a better, warmer result. Also, the E100S and SW give fabulous, saturated colours, which are more realistic than Provia. For this reason, I now use mostly E100SW.

Hi, I saw no comment on Kodachrome 25. This still remains, IMO, the all-time classic color film by which all others are measured. Zero grain. Absolutely accurate, not jazzy colors. Spectacular film! The color renditioning is so perfect, it cannot improved upon. Films can be made faster but not better. I beg to differ with the asserion that TX-400 is a grainy film>>>it is only grainy if you follow Kodak's development times, which OVERdevelop the film. Using either HC-110 or Xtol, TX-400 is a relatively fine-grain film with much better lattitude than T-MAX.(I don't care for T-MAX at all) It is best test for personal ASA and development times as outlined in Fred Picker's book, The Zone VI Workshop. I develop about one-half the time recc. by Kodak for HC-110 and TX!! Great result, fine grain!!

Recently I have been asked by a number of people to sell some of my work. I have always had a philosophy that I would be pleased to share my work with those that liked it free of charge. However, I recently received a request for several large prints. Needless to say I was not overly satisfied with the Ilfochromes that I had made from 35mm Velvia and Astia chromes. Please, do not get me wrong, they were made with contrast masks on exhibition grade material with museum quality printing and attention. The buyers loved them! I was just not satisfied.

A local lab told me about results they had recently gotten from the new Kodak Portra 160 VC and Portra 400 VC films in both 35mm and medium = format. I looked at a 16"x20" enlargement of a bird photo made from a 6x6 negative. The image was sharp and fairly well saturated. I was still skeptical.

I ordered 10 rolls from B&H. Last week armed with my F5 and a AF-S300/2.8 and 2X extender I burned 5 of the rolls. I shot everything I could. High contrast, low contrast, low light, bright light, deep shade etc. I then has it processed and contact printed. I selected a frame and had it enlarged to 11x14 at a local custom lab. This evening I picked it up. The image was fantastic. Everyone in the lab was ongratulating me on such a fantastic image.

The color was very nice. Colors were saturated and very close but not quite as saturated as the results I get from Velvia, but more saturated than Astia. BUT, the most impressive thing was the lack of grain. I had to use a 4X loupe to find any grain. Again, this is from an 11x14 print from a 35mm negative. Sharpness was very impressive. I compared that print to an 11x14 Ilfochrome made recently and there is no question, the Portra 160 VC appears (to my eye) to be as sharp if not sharper than Velvia. Color saturation was vivid but natural.

Shadow areas held detail like nothing I have seen. Highlights, especially those that were a bit hot printed with full detail. Something I could not get to happen with Velvia.

Monday I will be ordering 60 rolls of the Portra. Hell, to pick up almost 2 stops with these results is reason enough for me to burn some negative film. I am not saying that I will no longer shoot Velvia and Astia or even Ektachrome E100SW, but for sure the envelope is being pushed.

Mike

in reading the previous comments, i noticed that only one person mentioned Agfa Scala film. (This is B&W slide film) i shot my first roll of this a few weeks ago, and its very interesting film. very smooth look, w/little grain. it also seems to have a lot of "pop"..the images seem very vivid. also, its nice to once again be free of printers decisions. the only big drawback is that this film is a licensed process, and i had to send my film to a lab in FL that took 3 weeks to process it.

so, go try this stuff, if you want a little change from the usual. just buy the mailer from B and H when you buy the film, and dont expect to get your slides back anytime too soon.

one other issue: Kodak reccommends that if you want to push elitechrome 200 1 stop, you should shoot it at 320. however, when you send it to kodak, they'll only develop it as a 1 stop push to 400. DOH!!

You haven't tried the Fuji R MS 100/1000 yet? Buy a dozen rolls! Can be rated anywhere from 100-1000. At ISO 800 it is easily the best colour slide on the market. The sharpness is awsome! The colours are vibrant and clean with good skin tones. Lovely film. Available in 135 and 120/220.

For special purpose Kodak films see the Kodak web site instead of any dead trees versions.

I mostly shoot TRX 400, people in low lite situations. Trx is great & versatile. If I want grain I push it & develop it in D76. If I want to lose the grain I use a med. format camera & develop it in Acufine.

Recently I started a series outdoors in the SUN! Heavens I'm gonna have to learn to develop Tmax 100.

I find the ilford films too flat for my tastes. And I've had a couple of die hard fans press various speed ilford film into my palms saying "Try this -- you'll be a convert yet!". I'm always disappointed.

I have used varies B&W film, Tri-X 100 to 400, T-Max 100 to 3200, Ilford Delta, XP2, HP2. and others. But for my money I would but the Ilfords. They give you better contrast and the grain is more finer (if you like to see the grain you should use the T-Max, it would give you grain size of softballs.) Personally I try not to use Kodak at all. My B&W paper is Ilford, and my Color paper is Fuji as well as the color film I use. And I have "taken picture for 9 years non-stop.

Much of what we do is taught in schols, or one can self teach by visiting the public library, or making a lunch and perusing this site until their eyes water. Even as I say that, I was astonished to learn, only a few years back, maybe five years ago, that most, nearly all photo related publications are geared toward slide shooters. Whereas more that 97% of shooters here in America shoot prints, every piece of advice in American publications is slanted toward slides. Why? Why aren't we print shooters considered?

I am a long time (37 years) PJ (Phohtojournalist), who, having shot more than 460,000 frames of 35 mm emulsions, have never shot a slide.

Can we print shooters get a break from all the up-tight, gotta do this to get that result slide talk? After all, how many readers of this post will be slide shooters? Must slide shooter's think of themselves as somehow above the crowd, we, the great, unwashed mass of uuugh!, print shooters?

When advice is given, what is good for the slide shooter'

XP-2 is currently my B&W film of choice. The reason most people have trouble figuring it out is that it works differently from any other film. With XP-2 (in its recommended ISO range) the highlights do not block. This creates a situation where overexposure puts additional exposure in the shadows, thus lowering contrast. Conversely, underexposure creates more contrast. Fortunately, this is just what we want. In open shade, the light is dimmer and flatter. Increasing your EI to 800 adds 1/2 filter grade. In bright sun, where the contrast is often too high, we usually have an excess of light. Rating XP-2 at 200, 100, or 50 will reduce the contrast 1/2 grade per stop.

The caveat here is that if your roll of film is all over the map with respect to EI, your proof sheet will look like a checkerboard. It is much better to shoot the entire roll at or near the same EI.

In reponse to the post by Piaw Na, May 24, 1998, on Kodachrome films. 1. Kodachrome K-14 process was introduced in 1974. The silver price at that time was not in the rapid upward spiral that you are thinking of. That happened in 1979-80. Remember that a new process like K-14 (or E-6) takes many years to work out. The price of silver was not likely a factor in the development of the K-14 process. Other costs (labor, marketing, advertising, materials other than silver), in any event, overshadow the cost of silver in film. 2. Yes, Kodachrome 25 and 64 (1974) are different from the older (1961/1963) KII and KX: they are far better films. As for "low silver content", this is absurd. The "silver content" is applied in layers in any color film, and even in some B&W films. "More silver" actually means nothing: how is the silver distributed? How are grains shaped? How thin are the layers? Thinner layers generally suffer less from irradiation and other blurring effects. Finding more efficient ways to capture light with smaller and more uniform grains is what constitutes progress in emulsion making. In any event, it is the yellow dye in the K-14 films that is substantially different. The new films also had a prehardened emulsion (introduced also with E-6 Ektachomes) that made the used of a hardening bath unnecessary; this bath caused a yellow stain in the highlights that may be what you fondly remember about the K-12 Kodachromes. It made the film look somewhat warmer, but the colors were less accurate. Take a good look at a Kodachrome 25 slide and compare it to the reality. The resemblance is stunning!

To all you colour junkies(southern hemisphere spelling) out there- give Agfa Ultra a go. Totally over the top - just like turning the bass and treble up full on your hi-fi- but magic with the right subject matter (no faces!). A purists nightmare but heaps of fun and particularly good in low light situations with a tripod. 50 asa colour negative.

As far as black and white film is concerned I'm sure there's one film that beats them all. The HP5plus by Ilford. I've been working as a sportsphotographer for a local newspaper for over a year now. Because of old-fashioned produktion processes it's neccesary for us to use black and white film. In the past year i must have used them all; kodak, fuji, etc. HP5 is the only 400 film that i know of that can be push processed to iso 3200. The Quality at iso 3200 is excellent, I prefer it to Kodak TMY (T-max3200). The developer i reccomend for use with HP5 is Ilfotec HC. Just try it I guarantee you'll love it.

Dennis Boxem, The Netherlands

I would like to make a recomendation of Kodachrome 64 Professional, which I believe to be the best color film. Granted, it is a bit costly to shoot $12/roll film, spend $6 on processing, and then spend $40/print or so having Ilfochrome prints made, but the images are simply astounding. There's a reason why, after sixty years, Kodachrome is still the benchmark color film. Velvia is also wonderful--comparable, in fact, to Kodachrome in most situations--but why change for the sake of change. Kodachrome is my favorite.

For color-negative film, I use Royal Gold 100, an excellent, professional-quality film at a consumer price. I have not been able to tell the difference between Royal Gold and the Kodak professional film.

Tim Breihan <breihant@cbc.stl.org>

I too am amazed at the relative lack of enthusiasm for Agfa Scala 200 B&W slide film. This is great stuff, people! I have 16x20 enlargements from 120 AND 35mm that are sharp and relatively grain-free. You can pull or push one stop with no discernable image degradement. The mailers from B&H are cheap ($5.95 for 120 or 35mm). I just wish it came in 4x5 size. The only other B&W film I use is TechPan.

As for E-6: Velvia and Astia are it. Kodak just can't seem to make a decent slide film. Kodachrome is great if you can get it developed properly. But even A&I can't seem to get it right.

C-41: Only Fuji Reala (100) seems to have a sharp, grainless emulsion that is useful in almost any lighting situation. Prints from Reala negs look so GOOD. Kodak has simply dropped the ball; why they ever discontinued Royal Gold 25 (a/k/a Ektar 25) is the great film secret of the century.

I haven't heard any mention of Fuji Neopan 400... I've had good experiences with this B&W film, I really like it when rated at normal ISO and processed in Diafine. Fairly tight grain, nice, smooth tonal range that fuji's known for... without any color balance problems. :)

Question: Has anyone heard of an Agfa 160 Portrait film? In their professional line. Anyone know how good this stuff is? I'd like to try it, but I'm not excited about spending the money just for a test.

With the renewed interest in B&W film, you may wish to experiment Ilford HP5. Can be puhed three stops (to 3200) with no serious problems if developed properly. Also it's available in bulk at #30 for 30 metres in the UK. It's not quite as tight as Neopan at its normal rating but it's exposure latitude and price are strongly in its favour. In response to an above comment, neopan 400 is as flexible but I haven't actually pushed it too far. I ahve managed to print the pushed HP5 up to 16x12 with an acceptable amount of grain.

I used Kodachrome until, what I believed to be, the bitter end. It's still available and the film may be as good as the past. The problem with Kodachrome is obtaining consistent, high quality processing. Kodak seems to have abandoned the process and focused on digital and avoiding antitrust suits. I vaguely remember that the network of Kodak labs processing Kodachrome with excellent results were spun off in an antitrust suit. The quality has never been the same. I have gone to Fuji for E-6. I like Sensia.

My father used Kodachrome in the 50's and 60's exclusively. His slides are still in excellent shape with good, punchy and balanced color. For life of the image and fine grain, Kodachrome cannot be beat. If you could only get good processing, I would use it today.

On black & white film, I did not see any mention of Kodak Technical Pan. Processed in Technodol, it renders the sharpest and finest grain negatives that I have seen. The tones are contrasty but smooth, with good separation. Prints from 35mm look like prints from a normal 4x5 (almost). The shadow detail can block up at the rated 25 ISO. However, scanning Tech Pan may be good due the almost colorless base left after processing.

When processing Tech Pan, the vigorous agitation method described in the processing instructions - that come with Technodol - is critical. Everyone I know who has been disappointed by Tech Pan has failed to follow the agitation instructions. Another processing point, don't use a strong acid stop bath. Tech Pan emulsion seems to be prone to pin hole spots from a strong acid bath. I use a water stop bath or a weak acid, about 1/3 normal strength. I prefer to shoot at ISO 16 and get more shadow detail. My processing time is the time recommended for ISO 25. 6x6 negatives shot on a Rolleiflex with an f3.5 Tessar are unbelievable. Under my grain focuser, I cannot see grain. I see more image detail. Tech Pan is the only Kodak film that I use. For all other black & white work, I like Ilford Delta 100 and 400 processed in T-Max or one to one in Ilford ID-11.

I would dispute some of what was said about AGFA Ultra 50 speed. In particular the comments about course grain and color. I have enlarged 16x20 35mm shots of this film with NO APPRECIABLE. Certainly far less grain than what you get with any of the 100 speed films I have used (in either the pro or amateur print films).

The color range though super high in saturation and contrast is one of it's stronger aspects. As long as you don't make the mistake of shooting people, or subjects with high degree of "Bright White" such as snow, or a low contrast shot such as fog, you can have a lot of fun with this film. In my case I use it pretty heavily for nature and sunsets shots. If anything when I shoot a sunset with it many of the colors that I missed are suddenly "popping out". I have recommended this film in the camera store I work in for years without any complaints, and will continue to do so. Again so long as you understand this strange film it is a lot of fun to shoot with.

One minor note: I should mention I have seen many lab processors groan and on occasion freak when the get ULTRA 50 to process. As it can really be a tough film to color balance in the lab. So try and avoid using the one hour mini-labs with this film.

after more than twenty years working with different film material my first and most important advice to people asking me wich film they should use is: it`s not important wich film you use, but you should work with the same film over a long period. because it`s the experience with the instrument you are using that makes the difference. if anybody develops his own films for years by himself, he will find out that films behave different in different chemicals. so nobody should wonder that a fuji film processed by a kodak lab doesn`t look perfect or vice versa. very often bad results are not based on a wrong film material but on using and treating it in a wrong way.

On the Velvia/Sensia debate: I recently did a Velvia/Sensia shoot-out. I shot three rolls each of the two films on the same weekend, similar shots, same lighting, etc. All of this was outdoor/nature work. The Velvia gave lovely color saturation, contrast, and tone. The Sensia fell disappointingly flat in all three categories.

I too was dissapointed that little was said of the Ilford products. For B&W I use 400 Delta exclusively, in both 120 and 35mm. I develop in ID-11 1:1 (with a 10% increase in time for the 120) and the results are wonderful. I also use Ilford MG IV paper. I switched from Kodak B&W to Ilford about 10 years ago and never looked back. Using 400 in my Canon I can consistintly get very good enlargements up to 16x20. Same film in the 6x6 and the sky's the limit (almost)and the tonality is beautiful. If you need to understand what tonality is (hard to describe) just look at two prints, one from a 35mm and the other from a 6x6. If you run 100 Delta through the 6x6 the sky IS the limit.

For color I use Fuji film and Kodak Paper. The NPS at an ISO of 160 is wonderful for skin tones and the contast is "oh so perfect". For other shooting I use Reala, and I find no faults. Funny, but customers always turn over the print and look for that "Kodak Professional" printing on the back. Kinda like the "Hallmark" commercial. I can find no discernible difference between the Fuji and Kodak papers, so I use the Kodak paper and let the customer find the "right words".

I was just reading your page and I think that you should have said more about kodachrome 64 which is still by far the best film, whilst fuji is nice and rich kodachrome is so natural, and great in low light. Dont forget that The National Geographic still prefers kodachrome.

I just got back from Ireland and, believe it or not, found a camera shop that still had a bunch of rolls of Royal Gold 25. I ended up buying all 10 rolls that he had left over in his fridge. The expiration date was last month, but I'm praying that the test shots I took today will come out okay. So, my point is, when travelling check out the little out of the way camera shops and you might come across a pot of gold.

Much has been said about the extremely saturated color rendering of Velvia. Some people find Sensia to be less saturated than they would like. Well, folks, it's quite easy to get what you want! Underexposing any slide film intensifies colors, overexposing reduces them. If you expose Sensia 100 at ISO 160, and Velvia at ISO 32, you get pretty much the same color rendering. The grain of Velvia is still better, but you pay for this both in money and in exposure time.

It's easy to get "National Geographic style" colors by underexposing Sensia or almost any other good slide film. But of course, that's just one aspect... The other qualities of that magazine's photos are a bit more difficult to duplicate! Mainly, shooting 100 rolls to select the 5 best frames!

I agree with those who say that Velvia is really an ISO 32 (or even 25) film. It comes out much too dark and contrasty when exposed at ISO 50. But if you like that (why not...?) it's OK!

Dont forget that The National Geographic still prefers kodachrome.

That's not what the National Geographic says. They are online, and it is quite easy to find their views on film. If you click here, you will find out that: Brand and type are up to the photographer, but most use three or four different emulsions, depending on the situation.

Dont forget that The National Geographic still prefers kodachrome.

That's not what the National Geographic says. They are online, and it is quite easy to find their views on film. If you click here, you will find out that: Brand and type are up to the photographer, but most use three or four different emulsions, depending on the situation. Going to the source is best for this type of information.

Careful testing of TMax 400 a few years ago lead me to believe that it would not yeild a true 400 e.i. when processed in commonly used developers such as HC-110 and D-76 even when using Kodak's time/temp. reccommendations; the shadow areas show no detail (they fall into the toe of the curve). One gets good results rating it at 100 e.i., but what's the point? Just use TMax 100. I now employ TMaxT400CN almost exclusively, and both I and my custom processing lab love it. Bob Pliskin

I think that Agfa film has garnered a bad reputation for what it used to be like, not how it performs nowadays. While it doesn't quite have the sharpness that Kodak and/or Fuji have, it also doesn't have the price, either.

I've been using the new HDC+ emulsions for the past few months, and I'm very impressed with the color rendition (although I never have been able to reproduce the warmish-red cast the film gets when you run it through conventional overnight service; it really made my pics of Santa Monica glow!)

Phil mentions that: Velvia is sold in Europe as a consumer film where there is "no refrigeration in the store and none indicated for longer term keeping". This is not true (not where I live in Germany anyway). The film is marked as "for professionals", it states on the box "keep cool, process promptly" (I've actually never seen transparent film sold w/o this indication) and the store where I buy my film keeps it in the refrigerator. The paperslip reads "keep unexposed film in the refrigerator at 15 deg C (59 deg F) or lower [...]".

I haven't seen anyone talk about Fuji Provia 100. I perfer this film over Sensia or Velvia in many situations. It has more saturation than Sensia and less than Velvia. It blocks up more than Sensia but less than Velvia. Try to underexpose by 1/3 of a stop for best results.

Here are some other random thought I have on film:

Velvia and Ultra 50 are wonderful films when you want exagerated color. The later seems to be the most saturated with out so much problems blocking up.

Grain of Sensia (old version)/Provia 200 and 400 is a bit poor - better off pushing the 100 one stop or using Fuji 800 print. I can't speak for the new version of Sensia, Sensia II, since I have only used the 100 (no complaints).

Fuji 800 print is a great film when you "feel the need for speed".

I had a friend who used some Scala (around 1995) - it looked nice.

What ever happened to Kodak Ektar? - I used some back in 93(?) and it was great.

Any one into Color Infrared slide film (E-4)? A bit of a pain to buy and process in the U.S. Here in Geneva, Switzerland I just hop down to the local photo shop to buy and process(sent out like the rest of their film and back in a few days). If you like color shift, Velvia and Ultra you might be into this film. There a few sites on the net where you can see some peoples work.

Man, what a great time to be a photographer! We've got so many new films coming out all the time that sometimes it's hard to stay on top of them all. I'd like to add a coment on what Phil has to say about 200 speed films, and higher speed slide film in general. I have been doing some field tests lately, and was surprised with what I have discovered. The new Agfa RSX II is amazing film. I know that Phil says to stay away from anything other than the 'big two' (Kodak, and Fuji), and not to bother with 200 speed film, but this stuff is well worth a look. I have tried the 100 iso version and liked the results, but was hesitant to try the 200 speed film because of what I had heard. I've got to say that after getting my slides back this film is great! Sure, you're going to get a little more grain than 100 film, but as far as colors go, this film is awesome. I'll have to admit that until recently I had pretty much given up on faster slide film. There just wasn't anything decent out there, but I've since had to revise my opinion. For a 200 speed film this stuff is sharp, but what really makes it special for me is the colors. I'm willing to trade off a bit of grain for realistic colors any day. Don't get me wrong, I still have my favorite Fuji & Kodak films, but I think that it's a matter of finding the right film for the job.

I'm going through shooting a bunch of Kodak E100VS, the new version of E100S with increased color saturation, and I'll let everyone know how it turns out if anything particularly interesting happens. However, and this is what I thought was notable enough to post, I was in Wal-Mart tonight and noticed they had Kodak Elite Chrome "Extra Color" film. Is this in fact a consumer version of E100VS? Looking at the Kodak web site it looks like it, but of course they don't say.

Anyone who says, "I'm not sure why Black and White film makes sense any more. When I want black and white, I can just choose 'desaturate' in PhotoShop and it is done", is hardly a person qualified to offer opinions on black and white materials.

For my money, T-Max anything is crap: difficult (and expensive) to develop and fix, with a soft, easily scratched emulsion. (Anyone who likes T-Max, and who has a few days with nothing to do, is welcome to come over to my studio and spot the scratches off prints made from 8x10 T-Max before I switched over to Tri-X.) Ilford Pan-F and the Delta films, on the other hand, are beautiful, especially in PMK.

Anyone who wonders if *I* am a person qualified to offer opinions on black and white can check out my page at: http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

I thought the previous statement:

>Anyone who wonders if *I* am a person qualified to offer opinions on black and white can check out my page at: http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

was a pretty arrogant challenge. Then I went and viewed Peter's work on the site at that URL. My response was, "It isn't arrogance if you can back it up." Peter, your work is beautiful. You definitely understand B&W photography, not to mention composition.

(I wonder if Phil will ever add threading to his comments server: the discussion on this page is very interesting but is getting out of hand.)

Regarding Fujuchrome Multi-Speed (RMS):

I have some example pictures on my web site, mostly shot at ISO 100 and ISO 400. Two of them (Ruins in York Museum and View West... are available in larger (1024x1536) format JPEG images.

Note the shadow detail, in particular on the first example (bushes in lower left still has detail). The colours are clear and natural. This really is a fine film! I always keep a few rolls in the bag.

More examples and discussion at http://cybaea.com/photo/film.html.

One day I will have enough web server space available for the PCD files. For now you'll have to live with the damage JPEG does to the image.

TCN400 and B&W+

Does anyone have any information on Kodak's new Black and White+ film, especially how it relates to TCN? I've been using TCN for a couple of years now, and really like it. I bought some B&W+ assuming it was just TCN repackaged to be more consumer palatable, but the film itself looks and feels different from TCN. I've found precious little on Kodak's webpage.

Thanks, Brad Daly

I've just used the consumer "Kodak Select" B/W 400 plus, which is the TMax CN 400 in consumer dress. Results were overall fine, even though conditions were overcast and I was using a Rollei Prego 90. The mild surprise came in the printing; seizing on a deal on 5 x 7 prints, the lab (Qualex)gave me pictures that were remarkably akin to sepia tone. This, Qualex tells me, is the result of printing the B/W film on color paper. My local lab informs me that I won't get a true B/W output unless I print on B/W paper. However, the sepia effect (particularly when the subjects are historic 1812 battlegrounds, and an old lighthouse on the St. Lawrence River) is not displeasing. You just have to remember to specify the type of paper you desire for the preferred effect.

Just a point about longevity. I shot two rolls of film one foggy morning in the fall of 1976. One of Agfachrome (speed forgotten but probably 200) and one of Ektachrome 160 (high speed Ektachrome it was called) both were stored together in lousy conditions. The ektachromes have many areas where the blue layer is all that is left, especially aroung the edges of the picture area. The agfa is a crazy quilt of colours - I doubt I can save any of them. I have Fugi chromes going back to 67 or 68. They have not shifted a bit -- I would say as stabile as my Kodachromes from the same era.

Back in the '70s and '80s I used slide film almost exclusively: Ektachrome, Kodachrome, and Agfachrome. I tried Fuji a few times, but gave up on it: the flesh tones were truly cartoonish. (Funny that after all this time Fuji still seems to have problems with flesh tones.) However, by the '90s I got tired of having to drag out the slide projector just to show friends and family a few pictures, so I started using print film.

Well, I've just about decided to go BACK to slide film...I'm totally frustrated with modern consumer print films because too often I'm not getting the results I expect. I don't think it's the fault of the films, though. The problem seems to be that all the photofinishers are using highly automated mini-labs now, and these machines insist on correcting for color balance and exposure. That's great for most people with mass-market point-and-shoot cameras, but unfortunately for me I found that the mini-lab computer was constantly second-guessing my intentions. (And usually getting them wrong.)

I asked one of the better shops in town if they could turn off the auto-correction when they printed my rolls, but they told me the mini-lab wasn't set up to handle that. The only alternative was to print off a contact sheet, and then choose the pics I wanted to get enlarged. That's practical when shooting pictures at something like an anniversary party, but not so great when I have a whole bunch of travel shots.

Guess it's time to dust off the old slide projector again. I'd rather have good shots that are inconvenient to show, instead of crappy prints that are convenient (and embarrassing) to show.

I just got back my first three rolls of Kodak's new Black & White + film and ran off some contact sheets. Here are the differences i noticed:

First, the film base seems to be about 1 stop darker than that of Kodak's T400CN, the professional C-41 b-w film. It has a much redder cast than TCN, which has the brown we're used to seeing on color negatives.

Second, the film base seems a little stiffer, which probably won't make any difference to anyone for any reason, unless there's any difficulty getting it to lay flat in some negative carriers.

Third, and most troublesome, it seems to have different contrast characteristics when printing than does TCN. I did contact sheets at grade 3 on Ilford Multigrade IV RC Glossy and ended up with some dull, gray skin tones. I fear that the extra red in the base may have an adverse effect on multigrade paper. Some TCN I printed at the same time looked perfectly good for a contact sheet. I didn't have time today to do any full-frame projection prints, so we'll have to wait and see on that.

Also, I spoke with a Kodak representative on Friday and discussed this film, he told me some of what I've noted above--darker film base, different color/cast--which are designs intended to make the film easier to print on one-hour photo lab machines, that is, that the film is really intended for people who plan on one-hour prints being their final product. He also stated that B&W+ actually has an even finer grain than TCN, which will be pretty impressive if true. TCN already has an incredibly fine grain. I'd love to see what Kodak could do with a 100 speed C-41 film.

--Brad Daly

You really should view the minilab results you get with chromogenic films (T-Max 400CN, Ilford XP2 (and Super) as proofs, in the old-fashioned sense. The black-and-white results spook operators and maybe some machines. I've been working on a series of portraits this week. My minilab prints are, variously, sepia or blue. But when I have the negatives printed onto Kodak Polymax, a true black-and-white paper, the results are wonderful. I get a full tonal range, from nearly pure white (the "nearly" may be a function of the paper's color) to absolute blacks.

I have been using XP2 and now the SUPER form, and really like the unique qualities the film renders. The lab I use, a good one hour mini lab, suggests that the Kodak 400CN is a better film. They say they get more consistent results when printing on colour paper in the sepia range, and a truer B&W tonal range which prints well on there B&W paper. I am still however a fan of XP2. I like the altered tonal range (shorter?) and find it handles being underexposed up to a stop quite well. The only problem seems to be on overexposure where the colours start going wild - anthing from bright orange to intense purple - when they attempt to print sepia. All in all I use it for most scenarios at the moment. Now my challenge is to find a B&W film-developer combo I like as much. Any suggestions?