What are Your Favorite Films 2016?

Acros 100...great film to print...
Neopan 400...I still have 60+ rolls of 120...love the smooth look of it's grain...
Velvia 50...you want color...it delivers...
 
I've been pleasantly surprised by XP2 Super this year, particularly just how versatile it is.

I've been able to take pictures at anything from 50 - 800 iso on the same roll of film with good results.

Cheers,

John
 
35mm : Nearly exclusively Foma 200 in LQN for medium speed and Delta 400 @ 800 in Micrphen for low light.

120mm : HP5 and FP4 mostly with a smattering of (Acros 100 until it runs out).
 
Ilford Pan 100, very nice tonality and low grain at box speed, and can be pushed to 400 with little impact on grain

Ilford HP5, I only use it at 1600, it is ridiculously clean at that speed

Velvia 100, great colors, I will continue shooting it as long as they don't discontinue it

Portra 400, the scans from the negatives can be worked extensively, more so than any other color negative film I've used so far
 
Robert Lai said:
B&W: Ilford XP-2, for the C-41 processing, and ability to use IR dust cleaning on my scanner.
Click to expand...

Me, too. Until our house is finished and I'll have my darkroom back, I'm scanning my negatives and have them printed.

I very much liked Kodak's BW400CN, but that's gone unfortunately.
 
I admit that I've been using less film over the past few years and doing more digital. (Please throw soft stones!) :)

However, I'm fascinated by Cinestill, both the lower-speed daylight version and the higher-speed tungsten version. I plan to do some more Las Vegas night shots on the latter while out there over the holidays.
 
John Lawrence said:
I've been pleasantly surprised by XP2 Super this year, particularly just how versatile it is.

I've been able to take pictures at anything from 50 - 800 iso on the same roll of film with good results.

Cheers,

John
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Are you processing as C-41 or stand developing? (in Rodinal?)
 
For 35mm, I tried Eastman 5222-XX for the first time earlier this year and love the stuff. That and Tri-X are my favorite 35mm films. For 4X5, Tri-X and Ilford FP4.

As to why I like them, great tonality.

Jim B.
 
For 35mm: Kodak Eastman 5222 (Double XX) - 95%, and still some Tri-X - 5%
For 120: Tri-X - 100%

I'm enjoying the consistency of sticking with one emulsion and exploring what I can get from it.

Best,
-Tim
 
For color negative I have been using Fuji Pro400H as I like the way it scans (4th color sensitive layer?) and the neutral grays over a wide exposure range / different lighting. For B&W it's Acros 100 although I still have a bunch of Neopan 400 in the freezer.

In both cases, the film is developed by Fuji here in Tokyo...

Casey
 
Kentmere 100 and HP5+

Kentmere 100 and HP5+

To me film must looks like film on darkroom prints, be available and affordable. It must be easy and no brainier to process. Film must be forgiving on exposure and developing. I prefer film which more less flat within 30 minutes.
This is why any Kodak film is out and any color film is out for me.
And this is why:
I like prints from HP5+ @200, 1200 and 1600.
I like prints from K100 @100.
 
I didn't shoot much film this year, involved in projects with Impossible and Fuji FP100C.

The film I shoot have been equally divided among Delta 100 and 400 of which I like the tones and find easy to scan, maybe they are a little too bit "clean" and the Ilfors XP2s when I have no time to develop and I like the possibility to use IR dust cleaning system, specially in 120 film where the large surface can collect a lot of dust particles.

But I' m experimenting also Cinestill...

So not a real favorite I'm afraid...it depends on the mood and the task

robert
 
If favorite is what I shoot the most, then it is Kentmere 100 by quite a margin. It is a very nice film with Ilford quality control. I think it is my favorite 100 I've ever shot, but that may simply be that I've shot enough of it to get used to it. I've been getting to like the 400 version also. And of course the very reasonable price in 100 foot rolls makes it easy to shoot a lot of it without worrying about the cost. Kodak makes great film, but has about priced me out on 100 foot rolls.

It is kind of amazing what a great selection of films we still have to choose from.
 
Timmyjoe said:
For 35mm: Kodak Eastman 5222 (Double XX) - 95%, and still some Tri-X - 5%
For 120: Tri-X - 100%

I'm enjoying the consistency of sticking with one emulsion and exploring what I can get from it.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear yours (and other 5222 shooters) opinions of the difference between Tri-X and Double-X. Disclosure: I have a sneaking suspicion they are the same emulsion.

One reason is that the ISO rating of still films is a little more generous than the "Exposure Index" of Motion Picture film (you'll note the motion picture label says "EI" and doesn't use the term "ISO" anywhere). So an "EI" 250 works out to be the same sensitivity as an "ISO" 400. Of course with Kodak's streamlining lately, it would make some sense that they are the same emulsion carrying different branding for different markets.

Not trying to badmouth Kodak or accuse them of duping customers (I love and use both products, whether or not they are the same) but I've yet to come across a conclusive comparison of the two films by a still photographer using the same developer, times and exposure with both. I shoot Double-X in 16mm and have never tried it in still form but I do shoot Tri-X in stills. I feel like it has been taken for granted they are different films because they have different names and people don't realize the "box speed" is derived from two different standards.
 
I went and priced a three roll pack of Fujicolor 200 24 exposure in 35mm at my local corner drugstore and the price is now a whopping $24.85 CAD take away with tax.


No more 3 roll pack house brand colour film for $14 or $16 Canadian dollars.
 
Kodak Vericolor III (VPS). Bought 23 expired rolls in 220 format from a fellow member last year and have been scanning it recently. It's brilliant.

Also, I got into Tmax400 and plan to use a new developer on it, I'm shooting it in the little Leica II.
 
bluesun267 said:
I'm curious to hear yours (and other 5222 shooters) opinions of the difference between Tri-X and Double-X. Disclosure: I have a sneaking suspicion they are the same emulsion.

One reason is that the ISO rating of still films is a little more generous than the "Exposure Index" of Motion Picture film (you'll note the motion picture label says "EI" and doesn't use the term "ISO" anywhere). So an "EI" 250 works out to be the same sensitivity as an "ISO" 400. Of course with Kodak's streamlining lately, it would make some sense that they are the same emulsion carrying different branding for different markets.

Not trying to badmouth Kodak or accuse them of duping customers (I love and use both products, whether or not they are the same) but I've yet to come across a conclusive comparison of the two films by a still photographer using the same developer, times and exposure with both. I shoot Double-X in 16mm and have never tried it in still form but I do shoot Tri-X in stills. I feel like it has been taken for granted they are different films because they have different names and people don't realize the "box speed" is derived from two different standards.
Click to expand...


I shoot Tri-X 35mm and Eastman XX Interchangeably at normal EIs.
Often I have processed the rolls together, in the same tanks at the same time. Works for me.

Caveat: I have not experimented with XX yet at higher EIs. I've seen photos from the film as high as EI 6400 with acceptable results

Woolen Mammoth had some killer shots of pushed 5222 in the big XX thread here. He is in the movie industry so he knew what to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom