Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting thread!
I wouldn't say it's my least favourite film but I do think HP5 is very over rated ... the only time I liked the look of it was when I pushed it to 1600. Shot at 400 I found it bland and uninteresting and it's notable that it's had very little mention throughout this thread as being good or bad!
I wouldn't say it's my least favourite film but I do think HP5 is very over rated ... the only time I liked the look of it was when I pushed it to 1600. Shot at 400 I found it bland and uninteresting and it's notable that it's had very little mention throughout this thread as being good or bad!
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The worst film I have ever used, hands down, was this truely awful color film (that they thankfully don't make anymore) sold under the name "Seattle Film Labs."
After my first roll, the only thing I ever used it for was teaching students how to load film reels -- it was cheap.
Oh, and BTW, I really like T-Max 100 and 400 a lot. I use it for controlled grain effects. It's tricky to develop, but after you've played with it a while, you can use that (warning, this photo contains nudity): http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=75138 If that photo were slick and grainless, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
After my first roll, the only thing I ever used it for was teaching students how to load film reels -- it was cheap.
Oh, and BTW, I really like T-Max 100 and 400 a lot. I use it for controlled grain effects. It's tricky to develop, but after you've played with it a while, you can use that (warning, this photo contains nudity): http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=75138 If that photo were slick and grainless, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Lol! I had not tried it before and I just bought a brick of it!
dmr
Registered Abuser
IIRC, this was actually re-spooled remnant ends of cinema stock, bought for very little from the studios and film producers. Kind of like the Dale Labs stuff. I never tried it. I was warned.
S
suzums
Guest
Kodak TMAX 100
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Eastman 5254 from Seattle Filmworks, in the 70s. Not Kodak's fault.
Andrew Howes
Established
never liked fuji nph or nps, colours looked a bit off to me, not good at subtle colours and skin tones looked overcooked. I never stuck with it long enough to get the best out of it I suppose.
I too hated chromagenic B&W, but have not tried it scanned since I have become better at digital processing. Tmax 400 I did not like at first but trix was unavailable for a while so I got my processing right and it was very nice, like a finer grained trix almost. I cant even remember what I did now.
I too hated chromagenic B&W, but have not tried it scanned since I have become better at digital processing. Tmax 400 I did not like at first but trix was unavailable for a while so I got my processing right and it was very nice, like a finer grained trix almost. I cant even remember what I did now.
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
Fortepan 400, in the 120 size. It just won't flatten out. Ever. Guess that's why it was so cheap.
Wayno
Well-known
Will, your list sounds like the contents of my fridge - a motley collection of expired emulsions. Probably 90% of what I use is expired, some of it quite old, and I'm rarely dissappointed. I'm amazed at the consistent good quality of most modern films across the board.
Me too - it's my go to film for 135. Great stuff for a consumer film I reckon.
summaron
Established
I think 3M and Dynachrome were the same emulsion. Not a smidgen of redeeming wayward charm to it.
Early Agfachrome was very nice and muted when Agfa had their own chemistry, not Kodak's--it had muted browns and greens of many many shades.
Kodachrome II was perfection, long scale and beautiful tones like Pan-X's. The first years of its successor Kodachrome 25 were terrible, horrible green cast to the whites. The first Kodachrome 64 more forgivingly errored towards magenta.
Velvia's palette did coarsen photography a bit, I'll agree, but Fujichrome 50 & 100 (same film) of the early 1990s was another creamy and perfect slide film.
Other worse films (but not mine) might also be Agfachrome 1000, which was coarse and grainy and undersaturated but very unique. Fashion photographers liked it a lot. Kodacolor 1000 of 1989 had coarse very hard grain that gave night images some real bite.
Early Agfachrome was very nice and muted when Agfa had their own chemistry, not Kodak's--it had muted browns and greens of many many shades.
Kodachrome II was perfection, long scale and beautiful tones like Pan-X's. The first years of its successor Kodachrome 25 were terrible, horrible green cast to the whites. The first Kodachrome 64 more forgivingly errored towards magenta.
Velvia's palette did coarsen photography a bit, I'll agree, but Fujichrome 50 & 100 (same film) of the early 1990s was another creamy and perfect slide film.
Other worse films (but not mine) might also be Agfachrome 1000, which was coarse and grainy and undersaturated but very unique. Fashion photographers liked it a lot. Kodacolor 1000 of 1989 had coarse very hard grain that gave night images some real bite.
Last edited:
wdenies
wdenies
Back in the 60ties:
Ilford's llfochrome slide film
Wim
Ilford's llfochrome slide film
Wim
Jamie123
Veteran
Fuji Velvia...terrible, terrible film!
alan davus
Well-known
Gee, I've just shot a heap of Velvia 50 and consider the results jawdroppingly brillant. I guess it's different strokes for different blokes.
Harry S.
Well-known
Maybe location plays into it too. So many Australian film users I have spoken to love Velvia.
Its way too saturated for my taste.
Its way too saturated for my taste.
Jamie123
Veteran
I do understand that some people really like Velvia but the low dynamic range and the saturation make it unusable for me.
I guess I should state that Portra 400NC is my all-time favourite film which might explain why I dislike Velvia
spkennedy3000
www.simonkennedy.net
Kodak gold 200.
summaron
Established
Regarding Velvia, I'm also a Portra NC (and Fuji equivalent from time to time) person. I like low saturated films generally, but also the long and curious range of color hues--like those no other film ever--of the Kodachromes but under subdued light.
The magenta cast of Kodachrome 200 could be a great annoyance. Under the deadly light though of florescent lights, K200 was in its element.
(I shoot color in the evening and at night of close distance still lives, black and white during the day, and no landscapes. So this would play into my list of worsts and non-worsts.)
The magenta cast of Kodachrome 200 could be a great annoyance. Under the deadly light though of florescent lights, K200 was in its element.
(I shoot color in the evening and at night of close distance still lives, black and white during the day, and no landscapes. So this would play into my list of worsts and non-worsts.)
Murray Kelly
Well-known
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned TechPan or Agfa Copex Rapid. I'm having an awful time taming the latter. By the time I get it right I will have used up my 100' x 2 (35mm and 16mm) and I can concentrate on the inordinate pile of ImageLink HQ I have in the freezer.
Murray
Murray
ully
ully
5247, it was a cheap kodak movie film rolled for 35mm.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The worst film? Probably Anscochrome, circa 1950's. But, like keith, I never was really happy with TMax, at least TMX. Most pictures looked too flat. Increasing development blocked the highlights. once in a while I got a good picture, mainly with high contrast subjects. TMY 400 was better (for me). I've bought the new 400TMY, but have not shot it yet.