Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

What are Your Favorite Films 2016?
Old 12-10-2016   #1
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,212
What are Your Favorite Films 2016?

Many old favorites have disappeared,
yet many films are still being manufactured.

Please share your own favorite films that are still available,
and WHY they are favorites.

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #2
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 64
Posts: 851
I have started using a lot of HP5. First because I started doing much more black and white film work, second because it dries flat and third because it is cheaper then TriX.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #3
dschal
Registered User
 
dschal is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 26
FP4 and Acros, in medium format and sheets. HP5 or TMY in 35 mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #4
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,112
Slides: Fuji Provia 100F and 400X (when I can find it). Natural colors, good skin tones, fine grain.

Color Negative: Kodak Portra 160, or Fujicolor Pro 160NS. The color negative equivalent of Fuji Astia, my favorite slide film of all time (RIP).

B&W: Ilford XP-2, for the C-41 processing, and ability to use IR dust cleaning on my scanner.

My subjects are primarily my family: wife and children. Accurate skin tone reproduction is what counts to me.
Also, I don't have time to develop my own film, or spot dust out manually. So, lab processing with ability to use IR dust cleaning on the scanner is also important. Hence, my choice of films listed above.

Least liked film:
Fujicolor 200 cheapo film. Skin tones look beet red, the way Velvia renders skin tones.

Kodak Ektar 100 - maybe good for scenics, but a bit too saturated, and tends to render skin tones magenta.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #5
p.giannakis
Registered User
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 1,305
Tri-X and T-max 400 are the ones i have been using most but i also tried Fomapan 200 and Ilford Pan 400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #6
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,191
^ Acros & Provia 400X in MF and FP4+ & Provia 100F in sheet . The Provia 400x is discontinued , but still available from Japan . I do have a soft spot for Ilfords Delta films in MF too. I'm turning more to home developing for C-41 and E-6 as the lab stuff is getting
so full of hair and dust that scanning is taking ages to correct .(Thank you digital ice) Works well, but certainly adds time to the process . Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #7
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,955
This year I started with TMax 400, and really like the tonal range and fine grain structure.
I tried a few developers, and ended up with HC110 and TMax. TMax has a bit more grain edge sharpness.

I photograph some family with B&W, but more street when it is in my budget.

I have recently been shooting Eastman XX-5222... I like this better than TMax 400. Better Shadow details,
great tonal range, well defined highlights. Grain is little bigger, but, still very tight. I shoot it at 400 mostly and like the results in both HC110 and TMax developers.

So, Eastman XX-5222 is my "Goto" B&W film for 2016, and 2017+
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #8
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,717
I have some FP4 Plus and some PanF Plus that I'm using next year.
__________________
Happiness is having the time to do the things I want to do!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #9
Peter_S
Registered User
 
Peter_S is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kåfjord (Troms/Norway); Burgenland (Austria);
Posts: 611
FP4+
Great tones, forgiving for errors in development and lovely character. Dries flat. Great in ID-11, sharp with FX-39. In 120 format the grain/resolution advantages of Acros/Delta/PanF are insignificant to me, and small derivations in development eliminate them anyways. Starting to prefer it over Delta 100 for landscape, too.

HP5+ is great when it gets dark. Great at ISO800, boring (pardon me) at box speed.
__________________
Voigtländer Bessa 667W
Leica T + VL Ultron f/1.8 21mm
Contax T3
Nikon Coolscan LS-8000ED

www.ps-photo.net

Twitter
Voigtländer Photographer
LFI Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #10
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,549
Cost is a consideration Down Under as common Ilford and Kodak films often sell for over AUD$16 a roll locally. I've mostly been shooting 35mm APX100 (dev in Rodinal) after finding it for AUD$3.50 (36 exp). I also have some Foma 200 in 35mm and 120 in the fridge which was AUD$6. Developed in Fomadon LQN. It has a nice retro look.

However my favourites are FP4+ for slow film, and HP5+, Tri-X 400 and TMAX400 for faster. I really like TMAX400 @800 in TMAX developer for lower light shooting.

Have recently bought some old favourite Tri-X in 35mm, having found it "cheap" for AUD$9 locally - around the same price as buying from the US once postage is considered. I started out on Tri-X and have always liked the look.
__________________
Lynn
RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #11
LukeBanks
Registered User
 
LukeBanks's Avatar
 
LukeBanks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Posts: 37
2016 has mainly been about Fomapan 400 for me. Cheap b/w with nice grain, develops well in Rodinol at PhotoFusion (my local). Ektar 100 was a new colour favourite at times.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #12
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 855
Tri-X or HP5+, both mostly at ISO 400 and developed in D-23 replenished. Tri-X has tighter grain but I like the tonality of HP5+. I also like to support Ilford, as it continues to make black and white paper.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #13
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Provia 100f, I absolutely love it and shoot it a lot. I've really come to enjoy Portra 400 as well. As for BW, Tmax 400 and HP5
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #14
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 418
Last year I thought to use Portra 400 and Provia 100F, on medium format and I sidelined 35mm.

Shot a bit of Provia until spring, switched to Portra. Winter light and Provia look nice, so I ought to take the film out of the freezer.

Then retook 35mm and that's a pageant. Have some fine Kodak but ended up mostly using the format as casual with cheaper film.
So far: Outhouse 1 yr expired Fujicolor 200 given by a friend and found on his father estate, Superia 200 that was 3€ a roll and now Lomography color; because it's cheap just to shoot around the city.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #15
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,905
I still have a few rolls of Efke 100, original Agfa APX 100, Fomapan 400 and Ilford pan F 50 and some Kodacolor Gold 200 and Fujicolor 200 and even some Kodak Portra 160 in the freezer.

I been tempted to try either Fomapan 100 or Kentmere 100, but I cannot decide which one I would prefer in this budget line of black and white film with medium speed.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #16
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 115
hp5 400, tmax 100, fomapan 200, gold 200
__________________
work: www.mendocinosvillain.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #17
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 56
Posts: 3,369
Adox Silvermaster, TriX, Pan 50 f+, Neopan 100 and Fomapan in 35mm. I have not shot much color in 35mm recently, except for whatever expired stuff that I find in my fridge.
Portra 160 and 400, Ektar, Fuji Velvia 50 and 100, and TriX or TMax in 120. And some expired Agfa APX 25, Ultra Color 50, and Ektar 25 that I have been having good results with.

But they are all good, man.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #18
bluesun267
Registered User
 
bluesun267's Avatar
 
bluesun267 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 81
I vote for Kentmere 100. First for the unbeatable price, it's a wonderful all-seasons film. Just slightly less smooth rendering than FP4+ but with all the excellent Ilford quality control.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #19
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,173
My favorite is Ilford HP5+ and I moved to this from Tri-X about 2 years ago. Very reliable and forgiving film with great latitude and a long straight line curve that keeps highlights and shadows where they are easily scanned or printed. I continue to support Ilford because of their commitment to analogue photography. I prefer this traditional cubic grained film to Delta or Tmax as it has to my eye a more pleasing look with an inherently sharp nature and crispness that comes from its regular grain and microcontrast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #20
Orbiter
Registered User
 
Orbiter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 48
Have been using Kodak Ektar and Portra 400 for both 35mm and medium format, and am very happy with both. For medium format have been using TMAX 100 and TMAX 400. Lost a few rolls to the backing paper problem but have liked both films. For 35mm I shoot TMAX400, mostly rated at 400 but sometimes 200 or 1600. Xtol has worked well for me. In the future I may be looking for a new developr (liquid rather than powder) because we'll be downsizing into a condo and the liquid seems easier to deal with in tight living quarters than powdered developer. Might also be in the market for some different black and white films (Kodak's recent quality/supply issues have been a little annoying), so glad to see this thread to see what people like. If I change, itprobably will be to an Ilford film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2016   #21
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
 
nikon_sam's Avatar
 
nikon_sam is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4,573
Acros 100...great film to print...
Neopan 400...I still have 60+ rolls of 120...love the smooth look of it's grain...
Velvia 50...you want color...it delivers...
__________________
Sam
"tongue tied & twisted
just an earthbound misfit...I..."
pf
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #22
kymar
Registered User
 
kymar's Avatar
 
kymar is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 166
Started using Ilford Pan100 this year and quite like it. About 2/3 the price of FP4+ and I struggle to tell the difference on scans.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #23
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,679
I've been pleasantly surprised by XP2 Super this year, particularly just how versatile it is.

I've been able to take pictures at anything from 50 - 800 iso on the same roll of film with good results.

Cheers,

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #24
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 1,697
35mm : Nearly exclusively Foma 200 in LQN for medium speed and Delta 400 @ 800 in Micrphen for low light.

120mm : HP5 and FP4 mostly with a smattering of (Acros 100 until it runs out).
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Crown Graphic 4x5

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #25
Hern
Registered User
 
Hern is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 58
Ilford Pan 100, very nice tonality and low grain at box speed, and can be pushed to 400 with little impact on grain

Ilford HP5, I only use it at 1600, it is ridiculously clean at that speed

Velvia 100, great colors, I will continue shooting it as long as they don't discontinue it

Portra 400, the scans from the negatives can be worked extensively, more so than any other color negative film I've used so far
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #26
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
 
Tompas's Avatar
 
Tompas is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ostfriesland - Northwestern Germany
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
B&W: Ilford XP-2, for the C-41 processing, and ability to use IR dust cleaning on my scanner.
Me, too. Until our house is finished and I'll have my darkroom back, I'm scanning my negatives and have them printed.

I very much liked Kodak's BW400CN, but that's gone unfortunately.
__________________
-- Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #27
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 3,672
I admit that I've been using less film over the past few years and doing more digital. (Please throw soft stones!)

However, I'm fascinated by Cinestill, both the lower-speed daylight version and the higher-speed tungsten version. I plan to do some more Las Vegas night shots on the latter while out there over the holidays.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #28
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lawrence View Post
I've been pleasantly surprised by XP2 Super this year, particularly just how versatile it is.

I've been able to take pictures at anything from 50 - 800 iso on the same roll of film with good results.

Cheers,

John
Very interesting. Are you processing as C-41 or stand developing? (in Rodinal?)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #29
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,652
For 35mm, I tried Eastman 5222-XX for the first time earlier this year and love the stuff. That and Tri-X are my favorite 35mm films. For 4X5, Tri-X and Ilford FP4.

As to why I like them, great tonality.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #30
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin-b View Post
Very interesting. Are you processing as C-41 or stand developing? (in Rodinal?)
C41 process.

I'm sending it out to a very reasonably priced 'high street' lab - the low cost is an extra bonus!

Cheers,

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #31
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,768
For 35mm: Kodak Eastman 5222 (Double XX) - 95%, and still some Tri-X - 5%
For 120: Tri-X - 100%

I'm enjoying the consistency of sticking with one emulsion and exploring what I can get from it.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #32
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 462
For color negative I have been using Fuji Pro400H as I like the way it scans (4th color sensitive layer?) and the neutral grays over a wide exposure range / different lighting. For B&W it's Acros 100 although I still have a bunch of Neopan 400 in the freezer.

In both cases, the film is developed by Fuji here in Tokyo...

Casey
  Reply With Quote

Kentmere 100 and HP5+
Old 12-11-2016   #33
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 3,862
Kentmere 100 and HP5+

To me film must looks like film on darkroom prints, be available and affordable. It must be easy and no brainier to process. Film must be forgiving on exposure and developing. I prefer film which more less flat within 30 minutes.
This is why any Kodak film is out and any color film is out for me.
And this is why:
I like prints from HP5+ @200, 1200 and 1600.
I like prints from K100 @100.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #34
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 68
Posts: 4,304
I didn't shoot much film this year, involved in projects with Impossible and Fuji FP100C.

The film I shoot have been equally divided among Delta 100 and 400 of which I like the tones and find easy to scan, maybe they are a little too bit "clean" and the Ilfors XP2s when I have no time to develop and I like the possibility to use IR dust cleaning system, specially in 120 film where the large surface can collect a lot of dust particles.

But I' m experimenting also Cinestill...

So not a real favorite I'm afraid...it depends on the mood and the task

robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #35
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 403
If favorite is what I shoot the most, then it is Kentmere 100 by quite a margin. It is a very nice film with Ilford quality control. I think it is my favorite 100 I've ever shot, but that may simply be that I've shot enough of it to get used to it. I've been getting to like the 400 version also. And of course the very reasonable price in 100 foot rolls makes it easy to shoot a lot of it without worrying about the cost. Kodak makes great film, but has about priced me out on 100 foot rolls.

It is kind of amazing what a great selection of films we still have to choose from.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #36
bluesun267
Registered User
 
bluesun267's Avatar
 
bluesun267 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
For 35mm: Kodak Eastman 5222 (Double XX) - 95%, and still some Tri-X - 5%
For 120: Tri-X - 100%

I'm enjoying the consistency of sticking with one emulsion and exploring what I can get from it.

Best,
-Tim
I'm curious to hear yours (and other 5222 shooters) opinions of the difference between Tri-X and Double-X. Disclosure: I have a sneaking suspicion they are the same emulsion.

One reason is that the ISO rating of still films is a little more generous than the "Exposure Index" of Motion Picture film (you'll note the motion picture label says "EI" and doesn't use the term "ISO" anywhere). So an "EI" 250 works out to be the same sensitivity as an "ISO" 400. Of course with Kodak's streamlining lately, it would make some sense that they are the same emulsion carrying different branding for different markets.

Not trying to badmouth Kodak or accuse them of duping customers (I love and use both products, whether or not they are the same) but I've yet to come across a conclusive comparison of the two films by a still photographer using the same developer, times and exposure with both. I shoot Double-X in 16mm and have never tried it in still form but I do shoot Tri-X in stills. I feel like it has been taken for granted they are different films because they have different names and people don't realize the "box speed" is derived from two different standards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #37
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,905
I went and priced a three roll pack of Fujicolor 200 24 exposure in 35mm at my local corner drugstore and the price is now a whopping $24.85 CAD take away with tax.


No more 3 roll pack house brand colour film for $14 or $16 Canadian dollars.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #38
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is online now
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,908
Same as before . Delta 100, TMax 100& 400.

Color is all digital
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #39
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,865
Kodak Vericolor III (VPS). Bought 23 expired rolls in 220 format from a fellow member last year and have been scanning it recently. It's brilliant.

Also, I got into Tmax400 and plan to use a new developer on it, I'm shooting it in the little Leica II.
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2016   #40
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesun267 View Post
I'm curious to hear yours (and other 5222 shooters) opinions of the difference between Tri-X and Double-X. Disclosure: I have a sneaking suspicion they are the same emulsion.

One reason is that the ISO rating of still films is a little more generous than the "Exposure Index" of Motion Picture film (you'll note the motion picture label says "EI" and doesn't use the term "ISO" anywhere). So an "EI" 250 works out to be the same sensitivity as an "ISO" 400. Of course with Kodak's streamlining lately, it would make some sense that they are the same emulsion carrying different branding for different markets.

Not trying to badmouth Kodak or accuse them of duping customers (I love and use both products, whether or not they are the same) but I've yet to come across a conclusive comparison of the two films by a still photographer using the same developer, times and exposure with both. I shoot Double-X in 16mm and have never tried it in still form but I do shoot Tri-X in stills. I feel like it has been taken for granted they are different films because they have different names and people don't realize the "box speed" is derived from two different standards.

I shoot Tri-X 35mm and Eastman XX Interchangeably at normal EIs.
Often I have processed the rolls together, in the same tanks at the same time. Works for me.

Caveat: I have not experimented with XX yet at higher EIs. I've seen photos from the film as high as EI 6400 with acceptable results

Woolen Mammoth had some killer shots of pushed 5222 in the big XX thread here. He is in the movie industry so he knew what to do
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:42.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.