35mm Films - What do you like it?

For B&W I really like Plus-X and Tri-X, and for color print I just found a new favorite, Kodak 100UC (Ultra Color). I have been doing a lot of experimenting w/ B&W, but I'm still looking for more. I'll have to follow this thread.

I have a few from the Kodak in my gallery here if you want to see how those look. I just edited to make them match my prints from the lab. No PS trickery.

Dave
 
For the kind of editorial / photo essay work that I do I love the gritty raw look of 35mm B&W. Digital is just too clean and sanatized for this kind of work. For my commercial shooting digital is the way.

Through the 80's and into the early 90's I liked the original Tri-x (hate the new, no guts) , pan F and agfa100. In the 60's I loved Tri-X and KB14 Adox. I used Rodinol modified with sodium sulfite with TX @ 1:100 and Rodinol 1:25 / 1:50 with KB14. Today it's Delta 100 & 400 with a few rolls of 1600 thrown in. I run it in Ilford HC 1:32. Neopan is excellent but not as available as Ilford. Excellent results and easily scanned.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
I've pretty much standardized on Tri-X, Plus-X, Reala 100 and Superia 400. I've been on a real Plus-X and Reala kick of late. They just seem to suit the way I've been seeing of late.

William
 
T-Max, Supra, and Portra are mainly what I use (since they took my Kodachrome away). I also shoot a little Velvia, but we have had longstanding family ties to Kodak so shooting with the F-word has been somewhat blasphemous. Lately, with what Kodak has done with my favorite films I'm beginning to no longer care about loyalty.
 
I only shoot with B/W films. I like the films with classical grain: HP5 and TriX. I use now more the Hp5. In the past I use more TriX. Last months I use the Neopan 400 and the 1600, great films, but here in Spain difficult to find... I never use Delta films. The Tmax films only use a few in the past, but the grain dont like it ...
 
Actually now I'm only shooting some sort of cheap Agfa 100 that I got as a bulk roll and then lost the package. I have some Tri-X somewhere, but only use it if I'm forced to. Then there are the two rolls of Macophot IR820c infrared that I have not attempted to use yet. I'm pretty excited about trying the Macophot. It's an IR film with no anti-halation coating, so it should be pretty wild.
 
x-ray said:
For the kind of editorial / photo essay work that I do I love the gritty raw look of 35mm B&W. Digital is just too clean and sanatized for this kind of work. For my commercial shooting digital is the way.

Through the 80's and into the early 90's I liked the original Tri-x (hate the new, no guts) , pan F and agfa100. In the 60's I loved Tri-X and KB14 Adox. I used Rodinol modified with sodium sulfite with TX @ 1:100 and Rodinol 1:25 / 1:50 with KB14. Today it's Delta 100 & 400 with a few rolls of 1600 thrown in. I run it in Ilford HC 1:32. Neopan is excellent but not as available as Ilford. Excellent results and easily scanned.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045


Although Tri-X is still my standby, I have to agree with you that it has changed--and not necessarily for the better. It's softer--maybe they cut back on the silver content.
 
Trius said:
As displeased as I am with my town's largest employer, I continue to love Kodachrome.

I noticed that one in there too. I'm now in possession of 2 rolls of K64, with the French on the box just like this one. I haven't shot any Kodachrome in years, in fact I never remember shooting any K64 ever, but I do want to try it again before it goes bibi 4ever.

I'm gonna try it with the GIII and re-shoot some shots I like and know worked. I guess I'll send it to Dwayne's, since it's a lot closer than the labs in Europe. 🙂
 
Various color films, both slide and neg. When I think a particular shot would look better in B & W, I convert it in Photoshop. IMHO, this beats carrying around 2 cameras with both types of film or limiting oneself to monochrome only.
 
Back
Top Bottom