|
Mine have so far been Fujicolor Press 400, Fujichrome 100 cross processed to C-41, and Fuji Pro 400H when shooting my Super Ikonta. I don't think i would want to take my Zeiss cameras into an abandonment, but my Argus would do just fine.
|
|
I'm a big fan of Ektar 100 or Portra 400 for UE, generally using my Leica M4-P with either a Zeiss 35/2 or CV 15/4.5.
Haven't tried the Fuji C-41 films though, but have heard pretty nice things about 400H.
http://www.flickr....os/disinteresting/ |
|
I've shot Ektar 100 almost exclusively for the past year but recently got into the Kodak Portra 400. The Ektar is great but I find myself shooting in lower light conditions outdoors and it's not cutting it anymore. Now I usually carry a few rolls of both.
The Fuji films tend to have a cooler (cyan) base compared to the Kodak. It all depends on what your preference is and what you plan on shooting.
[last edit 5/29/2011 10:01 PM by RenegadeOfFunk - edited 1 times]
|
|
Good, old, forgotten thread 
I shoot slow films...the slower-the better.
If we are talking about color ones, it depends...for shooting people on location or in studio, I shoot Portra 160. For urbex and nature stuff - Ektar.
I don't understand color Fuji films. They are too strange for me. Everytime different colors, maybe my local lab fooling me with old chemistry, bad temperatures, etc...
|
|
For Abandoned buildings I have two.
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Ektar 100
Celer at Audax
Para la Victoria Siempre Alemanes! |
|
Posted by /dev/nox
I don't understand color Fuji films. They are too strange for me. Everytime different colors, maybe my local lab fooling me with old chemistry, bad temperatures, etc...
|
Send it out to thedarkroom.com they're good!
Celer at Audax
Para la Victoria Siempre Alemanes! |
|
For me, "New" Kodak Portra 160 for color and Ilford FP4 125 for B&W.
IMHO, the differences between color negative films for scanning is somewhat subtle- the look you get in the final product is largely (but not entirely) dependent on the scanning & post workflow. This is coming from having scanned about a half-dozen different C-41 emulsions, others may have different input on that. There's a much bigger difference between emulsions with B&W and slide films. Finding a B&W film and dev process that you like can take awhile.
Fuji GW690 - Portra 160
[last edit 3/4/2015 10:00 AM by Quarantine - edited 1 times]
|
|
Posted by Quarantine
Finding a B&W film and dev process that you like can take awhile.
|
Yes!
So far this is what I've found.
400TX in HC-110 Dil. B
100TMX @ 100 in TMax Dev 1:4
100TMX @ 32 in Xtol 1:1
320TXP @ 250 in PMK Pyro
HP5+ @ 400 in PMK Pyro
Acros 100 in Xtol 1:1
Acros 100 @ 50 in PMK PYro
Celer at Audax
Para la Victoria Siempre Alemanes! |
|
For color I usually use Fuji pro 400, and for B&W, I use Illford 400. I have not found a better B&W film than Illford.
Futurus partum par fabrica |
|
Was nuts about Fuji FP-3000B for awhile but lately I've been digging Impossible's Gen-2 black/white. I have alot of scans yet to do...
[jonrevProjects] | Flickr flicks
Founder: Belvidere Cinema Gallery - Waukegan, IL |
|
Impossible has really come into its own! The film they're producing is fantastic, I still remember those first faltering steps...
As for me, found a new developer, Pyrocat-HD!
Tri-X @ 200
HP5+ @ 200
And a new Film...Adox CHS 100II (good in Xtol 1:1)
Celer at Audax
Para la Victoria Siempre Alemanes! |
|
I really like the contrast and grain on Ilford PAN 400. I have two rolls waiting to be scanned
"Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god." — Sir Francis Bacon |
|
Portra 400! Or, Ektar 100 these days...
|
Ethics
