Worst film that you have ever used?

Fuji Provia 400--and Sensia--when compared to Velvia--the Provia and Sensia films are muddy.
The Provia 400X does have hope, though...
Paul in slideville
 
ferider said:
A different perspective: I have to scan a lot of old Kodak-chromes from the 60s for the local museum (several thousands so far) and I HATE it - the scanning and manual fixing that is.

I like Superia. Only color negative above 400 that works for me is NPZ.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Roland, re scanning check D. Stella's first post in this thread ...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62615

BTW you're the second person to say NPZ 800. Do you have a link or image?
 
TheHub said:
Is Kodak Gold the same as Kodak Super Gold? I found Super Gold 400 and F-ing love it. Bought 50 rolls and fired through it like a journalist. Especially in Winter, late in the afternoons Super Gold 400 picked up colors really well.
Click to expand...

I wish I knew.. it's like Tri X at 400. Something happens but you can't tell if it's just repackaging and marketing or a fundamental product change

Some images here would be nice for the rest of this thread's participants
 
jan normandale said:
Roland, re scanning check D. Stella's first post in this thread ...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62615

BTW you're the second person to say NPZ 800. Do you have a link or image?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jan !

I just started using NPZ, for portrait's mostly. Nothing presentable yet, but the film is easier on slight under-exposure than, say, Superia 800. "kevin m" showed some available light examples which convinved me, you might want to ping him.

Roland.
 
Kodak Ultra 100. Used multiple times and used multiple film processing facilities and it always comes out disgustingly contrasty.

Next in line is any kind of B&W chromogenic film. It gives the same sort of grainless, creamy, DEAD look that digital B&W gives.
 
julianphotoart said:
Kodak Ultra 100. Used multiple times and used multiple film processing facilities and it always comes out disgustingly contrasty.

Next in line is any kind of B&W chromogenic film. It gives the same sort of grainless, creamy, DEAD look that digital B&W gives.
Click to expand...

I agree about the similarity between digi BW and chromogenic BW; both XP2 and Kodak BW. I don't know if there are other C41 BW's
 
I seem to remember being very unhappy with some Konica color film years ago. I'm not totally in love with Superia either although I recently got 16 rolls of 2 year past date Fuji Press 400 for $1 a roll that worked out well for me. If I'm not mistaken, Fuji discontinued Press... too bad.
 
Old Kodak Recording film (remember when people tried to convince you that it was cool?).

The Chinese film that came with my first Diana camera.

I didn't like Efke 400 b&w in 35mm much, but I think you could get it to work for you.

Who cares about color????

favorites: APX25, Delta 100 & 400,TP, TX, TMX, TMY, BW400CN.
 
A roll of 70mm B&W, some kind of Aero Plus-X I bought on Ebay. When I poured out the developer, most of the blackened emulsion poured out with it. Killed my first batch of ADOX Borax MQ. The fixer took the rest of the emulsion off.

Wonder what was on that 15' roll?
 
Once you scan and enlarge it the grain aliasing looks kind of like Tri-X!

🙂

really... I am being serious, laid next to my traditional Tri-X prints my well done HP b&w inkjet prints will not jump out at you... certainly not at first glance anyway...

>>Next in line is any kind of B&W chromogenic film. It gives the same sort of grainless, creamy, DEAD look that digital B&W gives.
 
I note a lot of people are not too favourable towards Tmax. Here's a shot showing what it can do. Tom is a friend and I think he wouldn't mind illustrating Tmax in this forum.
 

Attachments

  • tom westbrook creative commons licence.jpg
    tom westbrook creative commons licence.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 0
3M Color (negatives) film from the early 70's. I worked for 3M and the employee prices were unbelievable. So was the film, ugly greenish cast and horrible grain. This is the stuff made by Ferrania.

Maybe its better now but I will not ever try it again. 😱
 
You guys beat me to it, but that Kodak MAX esp. the 800 is /was crap.Way to much grain! Fuji X-tra like you get at Wal-Mart is also a bunch of crap. I haven't had much luck with XP-2. I like the BW400CN from Kodak much better. For conventional B&W film I can't say because there are so many different developer/film combinations where a film shines in one type of developer but only so so in another. So I think you have to experiment to get the combination that works best for you. There may be some B&W films that it doesn't matter what dev. you use but I haven't shot any of it yet.
 
yeah, Kodak max 800 is nasty. the last photo of my in-laws together before she passed away was shot on it, on a crap P&S; under exposed, huge grain. my sister-in-law begged me to scan it and "make it better than the drug-store print". hopeless.

Gold isn't much better; my avatar was shot with it and an Elmar 50/3.5 on purpose for that "old vacation snapshot" look.
 
jan normandale said:
I shoot a lot of expired too and I'm with you on most of the one's you've listed but I'm surprised about the grain comment for NPS which I don't find totally different from NPH. Here's a shot with NPH at low (30%) res for the web, the full resolution is stunning.

2495561577_2b8b049304.jpg
Click to expand...

Jan, that's lovely. My only 5 rolls of NPS came as a "bonus" from a 'bay film purchase. No telling how "expired" they were 🙂

This is one example, this level of grain is not what I'd expect from a 160 ASA film. And that annoying purplish hue on the ground...

2733229782_709a3f59fe_o.jpg
 
Argenticien said:
My condolences on your passing. One more film user gone. But at least you (or your next of kin) could make millions selling whatever you've invented that's allowing you to send your findings in from the afterlife! 😀
Click to expand...

Boy, you're the funny one in class, aren't ya? 🙂
 
i sorta think the decision to use an 800 film is an interesting one... it is inherently grainy but not as versatile or pleasantly grainy as a 1600. i think it's basically a compromise film and therefore doesn't really please everyone, but will perform so-so in a wide range of conditions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom