majid
Fazal Majid
Kodak Gold 400. I learned the hard way that Kodak == non-quality.
photogdave
Shops local
Konica Chrome 100. Really green and muddy - yuck!
mackigator
Well-known
Expired Ferrania 400, that I then pushed. Bad idea.
amateriat
We're all light!
(Puts on Wayback™ thinking cap)
Third-worst film I ever used: Kodak High-Speed Ektachrome (process E4): Granted, I tried the stuff a while after the E6 films were released, because, up to that point, the only slide films I ever used were Kodachrome and Agfachrome CT18. I was curious as to what I was missing. Answer: not a thing. Everything Kodachrome wasn't...and less.
Second-worst film I ever used: Kodacolor 400, first-generation. This film managed to outdo Tri-X in exactly one category. Unfortunately, that category was grain, as in tons of it, and ugly to boot. Throw in milquetoast color rendition and "scratchy" contrast, and you'll know why I stayed away from films faster than ISO 200 for years, even well after higher-speed emulsions actually became pretty good.
ABSOLUTE worst film I ever used: GAF (Ansco) 500 slide film. This stuff barely hit its box-rated speed (I think Modern Photography, in one of their colorful film "shoot-outs", measured a real-world speed somewhere south of EI 400), but the evil part was the color rendition: any color you like, so long as it was predominately ruddy-rusty brown. It did compete strongly with Kodacolor 400 in terms of grain, though.
- Barrett
Third-worst film I ever used: Kodak High-Speed Ektachrome (process E4): Granted, I tried the stuff a while after the E6 films were released, because, up to that point, the only slide films I ever used were Kodachrome and Agfachrome CT18. I was curious as to what I was missing. Answer: not a thing. Everything Kodachrome wasn't...and less.
Second-worst film I ever used: Kodacolor 400, first-generation. This film managed to outdo Tri-X in exactly one category. Unfortunately, that category was grain, as in tons of it, and ugly to boot. Throw in milquetoast color rendition and "scratchy" contrast, and you'll know why I stayed away from films faster than ISO 200 for years, even well after higher-speed emulsions actually became pretty good.
ABSOLUTE worst film I ever used: GAF (Ansco) 500 slide film. This stuff barely hit its box-rated speed (I think Modern Photography, in one of their colorful film "shoot-outs", measured a real-world speed somewhere south of EI 400), but the evil part was the color rendition: any color you like, so long as it was predominately ruddy-rusty brown. It did compete strongly with Kodacolor 400 in terms of grain, though.
- Barrett
Last edited:
bean_counter
Well-known
whatever the last film was that loaded incorrectly in my Barnack. yeah, that's it, it's the film's fault.
raid
Dad Photographer
Agfa 200 chrome and Scotch 1000 and 640 chrome. Muddy look and grain.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Only two, actually one if you don't count speed, film that totally disappointed me.
The now-defunct Walgreens/Agfa 400 and 800!
800 was grainy and greeny!
400 had totally sucky color rendition under mixed and available light. It wasn't bad in daylight, but Fuji and Kodak have MUCH better tolerance for other than ideal light!
I actually like (liked) the W/A 200.
(dusting off very fuzzy memory cells ...) In the early 1970s I tried both regular HS Ektachrome (ASA 160?) and tungsten HS Ektachrome (asa 125?). I actually liked them both. In particular, the tungsten one allowed me to take indoors in room light without flash.
I agree they were no Kodachrome, however.
The now-defunct Walgreens/Agfa 400 and 800!
800 was grainy and greeny!
400 had totally sucky color rendition under mixed and available light. It wasn't bad in daylight, but Fuji and Kodak have MUCH better tolerance for other than ideal light!
I actually like (liked) the W/A 200.
(dusting off very fuzzy memory cells ...) In the early 1970s I tried both regular HS Ektachrome (ASA 160?) and tungsten HS Ektachrome (asa 125?). I actually liked them both. In particular, the tungsten one allowed me to take indoors in room light without flash.
I agree they were no Kodachrome, however.
Harry S.
Well-known
Superia 400...Almost made me want to leave colour to digital.
Ilford FP4...its not exactly bad but I could never get it to look decent.
Ilford FP4...its not exactly bad but I could never get it to look decent.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Try it at 1600 and dev'd in DDX....
A strange film from Fuji "Super G" is like grabbing an anaconda by the tail. Sometimes it knocks me out then the rest of the roll totally sux. Go figure.
I've about 15 rolls left and it's going into a 'crappy camera' for fun shooting and dev'd as BW
Last edited:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I'll probably have to duck here but for me Tmax ... probably not the film's fault but I just couldn't get it right!
That's what I was going to say but I didn't want to get beat-up for it...
Looks like you have a few backers on your choice of worst film...
I have some Tmax in 120 rolls...might give it a whril...
john_s
Well-known
In the 1960s, Adox KB14 (ISO 20!), which when developed as recommended had unprintable megacontrast. In those days, I didn't realise that more exposure and less development would have solved the problem. It took me a looooong time to work that out!
sircarl
Well-known
Fuji Velvia. Started the trend towards super-saturated, hyped-up colors that we still haven't recovered from. Even digital photographers want their shots to look like Velvia images.
DC1030
DC1030
T max 100 - never got the look i wanted. now prefer plus x.
TriX 320 - never got adequate contrast, this film is soooo much different to new TriX 400, which i really like.
colour films: everything that was named Kodak Gold in the 80s. Had to process it in a minilab as an operator, had to filter every negative in a different way.
TriX 320 - never got adequate contrast, this film is soooo much different to new TriX 400, which i really like.
colour films: everything that was named Kodak Gold in the 80s. Had to process it in a minilab as an operator, had to filter every negative in a different way.
ChrisN
Striving
Lucky SHD 400 (120 format). Very stiff emulsion and takes a horrible curl, makes it impossible to get it flat for scanning.
bottley1
only to feel
ORWO colour slide film bought on holiday in India. Came in a plastic casette that was not light tight. Colours you could not duplicate spending all day with photoshop. ISO 100 but grainy like 640. Blue shadows, green skies, pink faces, absolutely dreadful. Think it was made in Hungury or somewhere.
oscroft
Veteran
OrwoChrom for me too - it had a grainy weird-colour charm when I used some back in the late 70s, but they've all turned brown now.
And 3M slide film of similar vintage was pretty poor.
And 3M slide film of similar vintage was pretty poor.
Mark Wood
Well-known
Agfa's first attempt at making a C41 compatible colour negative film immediately after or towards the end of their CNS series. It was 100 asa although I can't remember exactly what they called it. From what I do remember however, I seem to recall at the time of its release (or did it escape?) that Amateur Photographer's conclusion on testing it was that it really wasn't C41 compatible. Not Agfa's finest moment!
TheHub
Well-known
I'll probably have to duck here but for me Tmax ... probably not the film's fault but I just couldn't get it right!
No, I've met some people who couldn't stand TMAX. Guess it's an acquired taste.
Superia 100 is my least favorite film. The colors are so washed-out I never use it. Don't like Ultra Color 400 much, either.
oftheherd
Veteran
What interesting reading. I wonder if it isn't very much a question of personal taste and experimentation. I liked the Adox from the 70s. Especially the slower, not so much the faster, and in 120. I never got used to Tmax. I just couldn't get what everyone else said they got. I used that old 500 'crome. You just had to accept it for what it was. But I often preferred Kodaks Ektachrome pushed to 640 when I absolutely needed more speed.
Besides T-Max, the only other film I couldn't get some use out of was Agfa. I know some people did and do love it. I tried it in the 80s based on magazine reviews. I tried both b/w and color. Even developing it myself, I just couldn't get anything usable. Grainy and ugly colors. I'll quietly fade away now and seek shelter for my opinions on
Agfa.
Besides T-Max, the only other film I couldn't get some use out of was Agfa. I know some people did and do love it. I tried it in the 80s based on magazine reviews. I tried both b/w and color. Even developing it myself, I just couldn't get anything usable. Grainy and ugly colors. I'll quietly fade away now and seek shelter for my opinions on
Agfa.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I liked using Lucky 100 (or maybe 200?) colour negative film a few years ago. Here's a picture I took in 2004 with it:
When I scanned the negative again recently, however, the colour was terrible. It has faded a huge amount in just a few years. That's why I hate Lucky film.
When I scanned the negative again recently, however, the colour was terrible. It has faded a huge amount in just a few years. That's why I hate Lucky film.