pick of film

[bigdog]

I try to use the slowest film speed to get the image I want considering subject and conditions.

Adox/Ekfe 25 rated @ ISO 25 when shooting with tripod (high contrast film...beautiful film....scans really well with no adjustments after scan most of the time)

AGFA APX 100 @ 64 when light allows. (classic look...great tonality...bought a bunch to stock freezer)

Tri-X @ 250 for all around film (seems to always give me great results regardless of conditions and beautiful grain)

TMAX 3200 @ 1600 not good for indoor stage or arena lighting in my experience but beautiful results under low light and some nice grain for landscape shots with a great look I can only get on this film....scans well

Reala 100 @ 80 (low contrast but beautiful accurate colors... film great for shooting on a bright day under high contrast lighting...scans well and contrast can easily be bumped up in photoshop)

Fuji 400 X-tra @ 400 (high contrast...harder to scan and color correct in my experience but can yeild some wonderful results and inexpensive)

Kodak 400 UC @ 400 is my preference for color 400 speed film but I dont shoot all the time because it is expensive! Scans well.

Kodak 400 HIE @ 400 is a really cool infra-red film when shot with #25 red filter.... it turns foliage white and skies and water black with white clouds....very grainy and won't enlarge much but beautiful grain...very very expensive!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I agree with all you've stated, Bigdog, and hadn't considered rating Tri-X at 250 or Reala at 80. I've never used Efke or Kodak HIE, though.

Fuji X-tra is very hard to scan when shot indoors; I don't know what's up with that, but it is true, it can yield great results. I am looking into using Kodak 200 and 400 HD, just because it is supposedly "easier to scan" just like 400 UC is, but is almost just as expensive. Do you think it has to do with its mask (Fuji X-tra's)?