Film Quality

L

lucasjld

Member
Local time
9:49 AM
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
44
Location
Rio de Janeiro
View My Gallery
What I'm about to say here all of you already know. Just sharing my noob experience.

I'm on the way to moving to RF. But before I make the call, I'm getting used to film and manual exposure, with and without the led lights. I own a Nikon FM, 35mm lens (freaking old, scratched) and a 50mm 1.4 (really old but mint).

I bought some Fujifilm 800 Color on Ebay (I live in Brazil, its cheaper to get from the US) and didn't like the results. The place I develop sucks, they only do film cause they still sell some disposable cameras. The quality was horrible, everything was over-smooth and I was like "****, I'll never get a RF"

Last month I ordered 10 Ilford 400 B&W. I shot 3 rolls and developed in a different place as they don't do B&W.
After getting them back, damn, huge difference. The pictures look really nice, sharp, amazing tones. I shot almost the same situations, same lenses. But the IQ was 10x better.

Anyway, I didnt know there was so much difference between them. I know that a Fujicolor 200 that costs $2 cant be compared to a Portra 400.

Any thoughts, opinions or any "crap" I said, do say!
 
You've pretty much nailed it. Different films yield different results. Heck, just about everything in the process affects the outcome, from film choice, to exposure settings, to where you have film processed, to scanners, to...the list goes on and on. It's not too surprising that 800 speed film processed by a crappy lab will look worse than 400 speed b&w by a reputable one. 800 speed film will, as a rule, have more grain and "noise" than a 400 speed film. There are obviously exceptions, but that's more or less how it works. If you want very little grain, shoot slow films, but you won't be able to do much low light shooting without 400 and up films.

Though many folks here have, I haven't bought any film from ebay for the simple reason that I don't know how it was stored. Film, ideally, should be refrigerated (or frozen, if stored for a long time). The roll of 800 you had might not have been stored properly--and on top of that 800 film will begin to fog (lose quality) much more quickly than a slow film (50, 100, etc).

These things are all part of the learning curve, so don't worry too much. It's part of the fun too. I still make rookie mistakes all the time. When you start to get much better results consistently, you'll be even happier because you know you earned it. Enjoy!
 
Why not develop the bw film at home? This way you have more control on the outcome. Also unless you run across a really good deal, it would be better to just do the occasional bulk order from freestyle photo over ebay. Ebay is nice but mostly you get expired film that isn't very different in price (after shipping) to bulk at freestyle.
 
Good luck with your film photography. At first it is good to experiment and try as many types of film as you can lay your hands on, but soon you will get a liking for a few favorites. Then is the time to pick one and see what it has to offer. Get to know it inside out and shoot it exclusively for a while. Before you know it you will have developed a style all of your own.
 
If you shoot chromogenic film, a good rule is to expose at half box speed - then you process normally. Perhaps only Kodak Ektar does not benefit from this principle. This should take care of most "quality" issues, apert from scratches, etc. The sooner you will start shooting silver film, and develop it yourself, the better however.
 
mfogiel said:
If you shoot chromogenic film, a good rule is to expose at half box speed - then you process normally. Perhaps only Kodak Ektar does not benefit from this principle. This should take care of most "quality" issues, apert from scratches, etc. The sooner you will start shooting silver film, and develop it yourself, the better however.
Click to expand...

Portra 400 at 200 can go a bit yellow, 320 low, 1600 high. Extremely versatile. IMO

And Fuji 200 is an excellent film and perhaps the best value in colour product today.
 
Ilford XP2 is a great film, as is Kodak BW400CN, both are black and white films, but process the same as colour negative, so you can use any lab you like.

Portra 400 is excellent, as it is very forgiving if you over expose, it's reasonably forgiving if you under expose, but no film is great in this regard.

If you have a lot of light or a tripod, Velvia 50 I think is about as good as colour film gets, it's fussy about exposure, like all slide film, but the results if you nail it can be really good. It's great for sunsets etc. anything with a lot of colour, but not a huge amount of contrast. Harsh light/shadows can be tricky for slide film.
 
If you want to get quality results with color film like the ones you see in this forum or the ones you like on flickr for example, first try to locate a fine lab.

Then try a few color films with C41 development also Velvia50 and Provia 100 with E6 development. Check the results, you will have a bunch of different qualities with different color renditions. Then go with the one/ones you decided. Color development can not be trusted to any hand.

For B&W, yes, this is where film always shines.. learn to do it yourself; it's easier than cooking tomato soup.
 
Thanks for all your replies. I'm trying to do it myself, just having some difficulty in finding fixer and stop bath. I might get the Kodak D-76 till I've learned. There are so many tutorials on the internet I wont even bother asking.

I might get a film scanner as well. Printing film is freaking expensive around here.
 
lucasjld said:
What I'm about to say here all of you already know. Just sharing my noob experience.

I'm on the way to moving to RF. But before I make the call, I'm getting used to film and manual exposure, with and without the led lights. I own a Nikon FM, 35mm lens (freaking old, scratched) and a 50mm 1.4 (really old but mint).

I bought some Fujifilm 800 Color on Ebay (I live in Brazil, its cheaper to get from the US) and didn't like the results. The place I develop sucks, they only do film cause they still sell some disposable cameras. The quality was horrible, everything was over-smooth and I was like "****, I'll never get a RF"

Last month I ordered 10 Ilford 400 B&W. I shot 3 rolls and developed in a different place as they don't do B&W.
After getting them back, damn, huge difference. The pictures look really nice, sharp, amazing tones. I shot almost the same situations, same lenses. But the IQ was 10x better.

Anyway, I didnt know there was so much difference between them. I know that a Fujicolor 200 that costs $2 cant be compared to a Portra 400.

Any thoughts, opinions or any "crap" I said, do say!
Click to expand...


Lucas, I'm guessing in Brazil you have a lot of sunny days, like us here in Texas. So for color work, my experience always points to ASA 200 films. It doesn't matter which brand, Kodak, Fuji, it just works well.

Also going by the same logic, I'd avoid 400 ASA films unless you like to put B+W ND filters on your lenses. Instead go for 100ASA B&W films like FP4+ or Plus-X if you still can get those.

This summer I can't wait to try Pan-F.

Oh, and do post some of your pictures in this thread, it's always more fun that way 🙂
 
Yeah, we do get a lot of sunny days! But winter just arrived and I might have a lot of cloudy days. I also want to get used to English weather as I'm going to the UK this winter (your winter).

The ND Filter is the one that makes the image "darker" so you can se less speed or wider apertures, right?
 
lucasjld said:
The ND Filter is the one that makes the image "darker" so you can se less speed or wider apertures, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's like sunglasses. And there are various strengths as well.

I am using some digital for convenience now, but it really doesn't compare to film. I really really like the qualities of my images shot with film. Especially for larger enlargements - but i do scan as well. But still prefer the look of scanned film vs digital. And really enjoy the rangefinder experience.
 
The most important thing to remember is that the scanner is the weak link in the film imaging chain. A good quality flatbed will make better files than most labs can with very good noritsu or fujifilm scanners, and a coolscan or plustek dedicated 35mm will be even better again.

The film itself is not inferior to digital (despite common belief) - it's just most places do horrible scans.
 
gavinlg said:
The most important thing to remember is that the scanner is the weak link in the film imaging chain. [...] it's just most places do horrible scans.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I see some horrible scans done by labs. I had a $150 epson v500 a couple years ago that produced wonderful results, so at those kind of prices it might be worth a try for people with the time to scan their own negatives.
 
Try Fomapan 100 (Arista EDU 100) in Rodinal. It's cheap and looks awesome.

I like the look of consumer film, but wouldn't shoot Fuji Superia 800 for anything but low light. I figure in low light all color film is kinda funky but daylight is another story.

edit: Ilford HP5 does rock. It's the other B&W film that I use.
 
Another reason for the bad image quality is how little film is put through color lab machines nowadays. C-41 process color chemistry, particularly color developer, is very temperature-sensitive, and the film must be developed for precisely the proper amount of time. Because lab machines process far fewer rolls now, some of them re-use chemistry until it is exhausted or too old, and they don't replenish it as quickly as they should. This can easily explain the quality problems you are having with them.
 
Fixer & stop:
Plain water at the same temperature as the developer is a perfect stop bath for film.
Any fixer you can buy will work. Powdered fixer would be cheaper and easier to ship to Brazil.
D-76 is nice. Xtol is better. HC 110 is convenient for small batches and infrequent use. It keeps a long time.
Plan on loading up with chemicals and film in the UK.
Fomapan is also Freestyle's Arista brand. Expose at 1/2 box speed.
Good luck.

Wayne
 
Hi,

I've noticed how dire scans can be but I've also noticed how cheap proper enlargers are and the same goes for slide projectors; they are giving them away on ebay.

And I think that films like Ilford's FP4 Plus and HP5 are easy to develop at home. (Just two chemicals needed.) Add an enlarger, some dishes and a pack of papers and you only need buy a developer for the papers as you've already got fixer.

Now I expect someone will tell me there's a paper and film developer...

And B&W slides can be awesome and done at home.

Regards, David
 
Hi,

lots of good advice here so far. Let me me just add some points.
Some factors for getting the best quality out of your film.

gavinlg said:
The film itself is not inferior to digital (despite common belief) - it's just most places do horrible scans.
Click to expand...

Very true, indeed.
And caused both by lack of knowledge of the people who do the scans, and the physical limitations scanning as a technique always has.

To the OP: You should be aware of the fact that scanning is a 'quality decreasing' technology. No scanner can capture all the detail which is in a film. Even the best drum scanners are not able to do that (we've tested that several times)!
With scanning you always loose resolution and details. All scanners do increase grain by scanner noise.
With amateur scanners with their max. resolution of 4000 ppi that is of course much more visible than with the best drum scanners.

Just one example:
At an object contrast of 1:6 we achieved with Fuji Provia 100F 130 – 140 lp/mm resolution (with an Nikkor AF-S 1,8/50 at f5,6).
You can see that very high resolution (under the same test conditions the Nikon D800 deliver 85-90 lp/mm) under a microscope, with optical printing (enlarger and wet darkroom) with APO enlarging lenses and in projection with a slide projector with a very good projection lens.
Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner with nominal resolution of 4000 ppi (effective it is 3600 ppi) this very high resolution of Provia 100F is reduced to only 65-70 lp/mm!
And the grain is increased by scanner noise compared to the original slide.

The quality loss by scanning is significant.
It is avoidable by using optical printing and / or using slides (color and BW) on a lighttable with a loupe and in slide projection.

Therefore my advice for you OP for the best joy in film photography and avoiding the problems you have described in your post:
Use (also) slide film and enjoy viewing it with a very good loupe on a lighttable and in projection with a slide projector (they can be found very cheap in good condition nowadays).

The quality with an excellent slide loupe is outstanding:
Excellent sharpness and resolution, no distortion, the full tonality the slide offers (in contrast to computer monitors), and an almost three-dimensional effect.

I am using the Schneider 4x (for 35mm) and 3x (for medium format 4,5x6, 6x6, 6x7 and even 6x9: the image field is 8cm x 8cm, so with 6x9 you only loose some millimeters left and right, which is irrelevant).
I am very satiesfied and can highly recommend them. You can also use them for negatives and prints (there is a transparent foot for prints and a dark one for slides included, the foot is changeable).
http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/f...hoer_lupen.htm

The Rodenstock loupes are also very good:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/m...al-magnifiers/

From my experience (in my environment) it is much easier and more convenient to use the lightbox and loupe instead of the computer:
- no need to scan (saves lots of time and money)
- much faster: To look at the slide I just have to take the slide and the lightbox. It's just a few seconds.
With computer monitor I first have to boot my computer, which takes much more time.
- much better quality with the loupe and lighttable: The computer monitor only delivers an extremely low resolution of 1-2 MP, with the original slide you have the full package.
And you have the full color brillance and tonality with the slide on the lighttable. No losses like with the monitor.

Slides on a lighttable with a very good loupe are excellent, but slide projection on a screen is even much more impressive: Outstanding brillance, sharpness, resolution, tonality. It is like you are back in the scene just at the moment you've made the shot!!

Projection is the area where film has by far the biggest advantages compared to digital: Beamers deliver only extremely low resolution values in the 1-4 MP range, and despite this bad performance they cost a fortune.
And all the money you've have spend on your 12, 18, 24 or 35 MP digicam is completely worthless because the beamer can not use it at all and reduces it down to its extremely low values.
The color reproduction and tonality is also worse compared to slide projection.

Therefore with slide film, using a good loupe and projector, you have an outstanding quality, surpassing all the new digital gear at big enlargements in projection, at very low costs.
Give it a try. Have fun!

Cheers, Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom