File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Good day fellow /p/fags. I bought my very first 35mm SLR today, but I have very little idea about what film is best. I am going to use it mainly for landscape etc so some delicious Velvia will be in order I presume, but for other shots i.e. portrait and B&W, what should I use?
>> Anonymous
If it is your first then get some cheap film to get started. No point throwing your money away. Kodak Gold was a favourite for the consumer and wasn't that bad. You can still get it reasonably priced.

Run a few rolls of the cheaper stuff through first.
>> Anonymous
Velvia, and in general, slide film's a pretty different beast to most other forms of capture. It's got a pretty narrow exposure latitude.

I suggest start with B&W first. Anything by Kodak or Ilford in 100 or 400 ISO will be a good place to start. Maybe go 100 if you're shooting landscapes.

But really, just get anything you can get your hands on for cheap to begin with. Stick with one type and kind of film for a while too and learn what it does. Velvia's an expensive thing to learn with.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
7dayshop.co.uk
Buy film in bulk, it works out incredibly cheaper
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Go thru few rolls of BW film. Kodak 400 pro foto BW , Illford 400 HP5. Thoes are C-41 films so they go to lab. Kodak 400 CN is nice but try that after those two.
400 pro foto is nice, I make most of my C-41 BW on it, wonderful material for PJ job, very forgiving. Made some portraits with HP5 and it was bit better than kodak.

If you want to play in darkroom Fuji Neopan 400 , Illford PAN 400, made few rols of them and results were good.

Portraits, slide Velvia works wonders (pic related), neg Fuji 160 S is god if you want go go cheap with C-41. Developing slide rapes your pocket.

For landscapes, velvia koda- and ektachrome from slieds.
I`m waiting for good weather to shot with Illford 50 PANF which is said to be good for BW portraits and landscapes.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelQSS-32_33Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:08 22:16:23Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width806Image Height536
>> Anonymous
>>276582
>Illford 400 HP5
>C-41

Stopped reading there
>> Anonymous
>>276583
XP2 super, I hate illford naming schemes. I allways mix them up.
>> Anonymous
>>276582
>>Developing slide rapes your pocket.

what small town do you live in? In big cities (at least in the US). E6 is less expensive to develop than negs + contact sheet. Slides are also much easier to scan.
>> Anonymous
>>276585
Around ~2$ to develop neg in my lab, ~12$ for slide.
I blame stupid EU prices/ eco taxes and shit.
>> Anonymous
>>276586
where the fuck is that?
Do you mean developing Kodachrome for $12?
And who's doing C41 for $2 - a drug store?
>> Anonymous
>>276588
E-6 for 12$ and C41 for $2. Yeah they have Nortisu lab (check exif). Typical prices around here. How they look in US ?
K-14 is like done only by Dwayne's Photo in Kansas, so sucks for euros.
>> Anonymous
>>276590
If you take C41 to a pro lab in New York (or other big city)
develop only is about $7-$8. Or shit mini-lab like you are taking about for about the same as you pay. You cannot compare the results from a drug store/chain/etc to that of a place that really knows what it's doing. E6 here is about $5
You still didn't say where you are but it can't be more expensive than London, and you can get E6 in London done for 6-8 euros
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
What I pay:
http://www.memphisproimaging.com/mp_includes/pages.asp?id=17

C-41 Process only : Scanned to CD
35mm 12 exposure 3.00 9.00
35mm 24 exposure 3.00 11.00
35mm 36 exposure 3.20 12.20
120 3.00 11.00

E-6 Process : Scanned to CD
35mm 12 Exposure 6.00 10.99
35mm 24 Exposure 8.00 15.99
35mm 36 Exposure 9.50 17.99
120 7.00 15.00
>> Shu
Anyone care to suggest a decent place in central London for developing film?

In before Boots/Snappy snaps
>> Anonymous
>>276819

Boots.
>> Anonymous
>>276819

Snappy Snaps.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Shoot Astia 100 speed for portraits- as for b/w, I like Ilford 200 or 400, but im sure others can recommend a better film than that. Also: donnt forget about provia 100- its oftentimes less expensive than the velvia and i can get the same colors/effects out of it.
>> Anonymous
>>276819
>>Anyone care to suggest a decent place in central London for developing film?

try a darkroom
>> Anonymous
>>276847

at first i was all, say whaaaaaaa! but then i realized that everytime i buy provia, i buy 400. and provia 400 is hands down the most expensive roll of 35mm.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>276851

forgot my trip.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>276854

yeah, provia 400 i mostly just use for sports. Provia 100 is pretty good though. Then again- im buying by box/container, not by the individual roll.
>> Anonymous
Thank you all for your input. I discovered that I had some Kodak Gold tucked away so I'll go through that first. After a trip to the local camera store today to buy some battery's I did get two rolls of Ilford 400. But I am damm confused now. Can someone please explan:

1) What is the advantage/disadvantage of "true B&W" film and the other B&W type that you can extract colour out of, apart from the obvious. I did not know such a choice was available before today. And

2) What is the difference between slide film and print film. Inb4 Wikipedia etc.
>> Anonymous
>>277135

Google

Wikipedia
>> Anonymous
>>277135
print film-negative, wider exposure latitude. expose for highlights
slide-positive, narrow latitude, expose for shadows.

black and white has the widest exposure latitude so if your aiming for black and white, shoot black and whit. you'll get better results
>> Anonymous
For B&W i use Kodak T-Max 400 ISO. Now mostly because i develop my own. However if you are going to use a photomart for your development you want to find some b&w C41. The photmart will usually be unable to process t-max.
>> Anonymous
>>277155

You've got it exactly backwards. For print film expose for shadows (meter for shadows, stop down two). For slide film, expose for highlights. Highlights on slide film will go completely clear if overexposed, so you don't want to do that. On print film, lack of shadow detail is the problem.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>277135
>What is the advantage/disadvantage of "true B&W" film and [Chromogenic (C41) B&W]?
True B&W:
1. Much wider choice of films. There are only two C41 B&W films currently in production as far as I know. Ilford XP2 and Kodak BW400CN. There were others in the past, but they've been discontinued in favor of these two. Want something grainy? Too bad. Want something not ISO400? Too bad.
2. Lasts forever. C41 b&w film fades like C41 color film. Traditional B&W lasts for-fucking-ever. Well, relatively for-fucking-ever. Properly stored negatives from the dawn of the wet-plate photographic process are still around, but color negatives from just a few decades ago are faded to near unusability. How they're stored and handled, obviously, impacts this a lot, but properly stored B&W will keep orders of magnitude longer than properly stored C41.
3. Wider choices of developing. Want a developer that makes things grainier? Want a developer that makes things sharper? Want a developer that works better for push-processing? These are all available for B&W film. C41 film, though, is C41. There's just one way to develop it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>277171
(Ctd)
Chromogenic B&W
1. Available anywhere. I've seen Kodak BW400CN in drug stores and Best Buy, but you'll almost never see traditional B&W in drug stores in this day and age.
2. Developable anywhere. All of those mini-labs in grocery stores and drug stores and whatnot develop C41. If you want to get traditional B&W developed, you have to either do it yourself or find an honest-to-God lab that's not just a Noritsu in the back of a Walgreens. On the other hand, developing C41 B&W at home is much more difficult than traditional B&W, so that might be another traditional B&W advantage.
3. Works with automatic scanner dust removal systems. The way these work is that they blast infrared at the film and digitally remove anything that shows up. Infrared goes right through chromogenic negatives like it's not there, but gets blocked by dust and scratches. Unfortunately, IR gets blocked by the silver halide grains in traditional B&W, so this trick doesn't work for them.
>> Anonymous
>>277163
yup, got it arse over tit.
better off to err towards underexposre with slides, over exposure with film.
Interesting about IR dust removal and b&w btw.
btw consumer film scanners don't have infra red do they? I only ask cause the ICE on my epson totally fucks up on black and white. Acts like a really course water painting filter
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>277210
>btw consumer film scanners don't have infra red do they? I only ask cause the ICE on my epson totally fucks up on black and white. Acts like a really course water painting filter
They do, and that's why. It's basically looking at it and interpreting your entire picture as dust on the frame.
>> Anonymous
how about FujiFilm 100 ACROS Neopan B&W 135 first film i used for black and white and i stuck too it, its good all around