agentlossing
Well-known
I'm mulling this over as well, and 90% sure I'll pick Kentmere 400.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
There are certainly good reasons for shooting an ISO 400 color negative film, some of which are mentioned above. However, I would recommend Portra 160 over Portra 400 as a general purpose color negative film. There is only a 1 1/3 stop difference between the two, so I think the versatility of Portra 400 is overstated.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
🤣 what's that they say about old dogs & new tricks......
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Yes, and if I don't quite reach the end of the roll, I rewind and process the film anyway. And I am a deliberate rather than profligate photographer. I carry a second body not to shoot two kinds of film, but in case my main body malfunctions. I like to have a backup so my outing or trip is not a disaster.
Last edited:
AlexMogens
Established
Interesting. I can see that makes sense, but I’ve never done it that way. My practice is to always have a camera on my person. For years I just always had a FE2 on a strap over my shoulder or in a bag. More recently it’s a Leica in a waist pack (with years of digital cameras in between). So I’ve just seen it as an ongoing thing.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
This has been an interesting thread to read through. I mostly shoot only digital these days which, frankly, neatly sidesteps the issue.
OTOH, I mostly only use Ilford XP2 Super 400 in my Rolleicord III & my Super Ikonta 645. It's extreme latitude (the tech sheet says it can do EI 50 - 800 and I agree with it) combined with being C41 so that it doesn't matter what I have to shoot any part of the roll at, just process it normally, gives me what I need. The lab does the work, I get my scans and pull them into Another Raw Therapee. That's fine for me as I'll never have the money for a scanner much less a darkroom of my own again.
This is probably not what most people posting in this thread would want to do, I'm sure
But I like what I get out of the process:
OTOH, I mostly only use Ilford XP2 Super 400 in my Rolleicord III & my Super Ikonta 645. It's extreme latitude (the tech sheet says it can do EI 50 - 800 and I agree with it) combined with being C41 so that it doesn't matter what I have to shoot any part of the roll at, just process it normally, gives me what I need. The lab does the work, I get my scans and pull them into Another Raw Therapee. That's fine for me as I'll never have the money for a scanner much less a darkroom of my own again.
This is probably not what most people posting in this thread would want to do, I'm sure
But I like what I get out of the process:
Doug A
Well-known
I am too impatient to wait until I finish a 36 or even 24 exposure roll so I bulk load 12 exposure rolls and, even then, if I haven't finished the roll in a week or so I take it out of the camera and develop it anyway. I have a roll of HP5 Plus in the IIIf right now with just four frames exposed. I am waiting for a bright overcast light to photograph some foliage on a bush on our patio before the landscapers come and trim them. Otherwise, the film comes out of the camera on Saturday even if it's only with the four exposures.
dbell
Member
The initial question was about generic advice, being given to someone who'd never shot film before. Without knowing what conditions they're going to shoot under, ISO 400 isn't a terrible recommendation. It'll survive overexposure outdoors, and give a little more flexibility in they decide to shoot inside. Once they have a clue how film behaves, they can make choices about what they like. I used Plus-X for pretty much everything for a long time.
AlexMogens
Established
Bulk rolling 12 exposure rolls... I like that.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The original post did mention Portra 400. Although color doesn’t have the latitude of B&W, it handles overexposure well. Once I started exposing 400 film as if it were 250, my negative density and colors improved.
Long ago there was a website showing various color negative films which were given a series of exposures of a test scene, ranging from severe underexposure to severe overexposure (like +8 stops). Overexposure of +3 still gave perfectly usable results. Underexposure of -2 and lower were bad. However, these were negative films. In my experience with transparencies, exposure needs to be spot on for best results; more than a half stop either way loses something.
Long ago there was a website showing various color negative films which were given a series of exposures of a test scene, ranging from severe underexposure to severe overexposure (like +8 stops). Overexposure of +3 still gave perfectly usable results. Underexposure of -2 and lower were bad. However, these were negative films. In my experience with transparencies, exposure needs to be spot on for best results; more than a half stop either way loses something.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Opinions, please. Which is more important?
a) your choice of film speed, or
b) truly knowing how to expose whatever film you have?
No question in my mind.
a) your choice of film speed, or
b) truly knowing how to expose whatever film you have?
No question in my mind.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
b/c...... "truly knowing how to expose whatever film" you choose.
markjwyatt
Well-known
You will end up wasting a lot more of your 100' on leader, but there is always a balance between cost and convenience.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The latter, of course. But that comes with experience.
However, the original poster is new to film and was uncertain how to deal with 400 ISO, given the chart. I believe the followup responses were given as a guide to get to (b).
CMur12
Veteran
They're both important.
First, you have to choose the film you're going to use. (I don't know how one can skip this step.)
Then you need to know how to expose that film correctly.
- Murray
pvdhaar
Peter
It's very tempting to immediately go with b), but experience has taught me otherwise, especially when it comes to colour film where multiple stops overexposure will affect colour fidelity.
Some leaf shutters max out at 1/250th (e.g. the Konica Hexar AF). Being forced to shoot everything at F22 in bright light (not exactly a lens's sweet spot) becomes tiresome really fast (been there, done that). So, no matter how well I know how to expose a particular 400 ISO film, anything 100 ISO that I've never shot before with will allow better results. Even the Bronica, which officially can go 1/500, but in reality does 1/350th, having 400 ISO only would force me to shoot F16 or up in bright light.
So, it's not so clear cut between a) and b)..
Doug A
Well-known
You're right. I get about 40 12-exposure rolls from the 100'. About 2/3 of the 100' is exposed frames and 1/3 is leaders.
But I didn't start shooting any more frames in a week when I switched back to 35mm from medium format. At an average of one roll a week Kentmere Pan 400 is costing me about $1.90 a week, or $98 a year. That compares with about $5.99 a week, or $312 a year if I was shooting the same film in 120 format. Add the fact that the developing chemicals cost half as much for 35mm as for 120 and the difference is not negligible, at least for me.
Doug A
Well-known
Aren't they two sides of the same coin? There is a lot more than film speed involved in learning how to expose a particular film. Nothing I have learned about HP5 Plus is remotely applicable to Fomapan 400 and vice versa.
AlexMogens
Established
Always wanted one of those Hexar AFs, now I can stop!
agentlossing
Well-known
Same with the Petri Color 35. I loved the camera in theory, but exposing outdoors in the sun was a different story.