First roll of 35mm film - what to buy?

[Steven001]

Hello,

I've just purchased my first film camera - a Praktica MTL 50 and I can't wait to try it out! I was wondering if anyone would be able to recommend some film to purchase? I'm looking to shoot a roll walking around a city and a roll doing some basic portrait snaps (indoor and outdoor). I'd also like to try a roll of B&W film.

After that I'll be looking for suggestions on where to get the film developed. Do most people tend to get a digital copy of the negatives or straight prints from the developer? One of the reasons I'm trying out film is to see the results printed on paper.

Thanks in advance!

 

[RaglanSurf]

Here's a good place to start https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ion-where-to-find-tutorials-resources.571044/

Also, as it's untested I would put a roll of Poundland Special through it first, just to test for shutter speed reliability, light leaks etc, before you go wasting money on decent film. Agfa stuff, surprisingly £1 from your local pound shop.

 

[Andysnap]

WHS . Give the poundland special a whirl to check all is ok with the camera and then try something a bit more expensive. As to black and white another, cheapish, option is Fomapan 100 or 200 (the 400 is not so good) , I've found it to be an excellent film.

Andy

 

[abdoujaparov]

Do most people tend to get a digital copy of the negatives or straight prints from the developer?

Most people get digital scans done. You can always print the best ones later.

 

[skysh4rk]

Do most people tend to get a digital copy of the negatives or straight prints from the developer?

To be clear, virtually no labs nowadays optically print your negatives unless you're paying for a special, premium service. Most labs simply scan your negatives and then print from those digital scans. It's entirely up to you whether you want to print your photographs right away or later on after purchasing a CD of the scans.

I use a public darkroom in Glasgow city centre to hand print my black and white negatives myself, but had been using UK Film Lab to develop and scan all my colour photographs and then DSCL to print those scans.

 

[Steven001]

Thanks guys I appreciate your help. I think I'll get a cheap roll from poundland like you said, just to make sure there are no light leaks and it's functioning correctly.

Skyshark - That's good to know, I suppose it make sense to "develop" the photos in Lightroom first prior to getting them printed. The public darkroom sounds very interesting indeed. Glasgow is local to me so that's something I might look into once I start getting to grips with shooting film.

Andy - Thanks for that I'll habe a look at those suggestions. Kodak Tri X 400 and llford HP5 seem to get really good reviews.

 

[Yardbent]

hi

I've been using PhotoExpress mail order
colour film dev and scan to CD is about £5 posted back in 2-3 days...
i dont print much at all, so this service/quality is great for me

they will do B&W too but ONLY if the film can use the C-41 dev process - such as Ilford XP2 - 400

 

[Yardbent]

if i can jump on your thread - as you may like the info too....

can the Landscape togs advise a film bias towards landscapes (if it exists)... ?

thanks

 

[skysh4rk]

Skyshark - That's good to know, I suppose it make sense to "develop" the photos in Lightroom first prior to getting them printed. The public darkroom sounds very interesting indeed. Glasgow is local to me so that's something I might look into once I start getting to grips with shooting film.

Yep, no worries.

You should definitely look into the darkroom (Street Level Photoworks) if you find yourself getting into film photography. The facilities are great and everyone is really friendly. If you decide to join, they also have discounted rates on courses (e.g., beginner darkroom, scanning and correcting film, wet plate collodion, etc.), which could be useful.

There's a lot of satisfaction in producing a good black and white print by hand in the darkroom.

 

[ChrisR]

can the Landscape togs advise a film bias towards landscapes (if it exists)... ?

Don't think it's as easy as that... there's a range of films for different approaches. Black and white landscapes for example; an afterthought for digital, but a prior choice for film. Portra, primarily intended for portraits, can be lovely for landscapes. Ektar is a bit more saturated but perhaps a bit less forgiving on exposure errors. I really like Reala but it's only available at silly prices.

Then there's slide/transparency film, even tougher to expose right with a smaller dynamic range so you'll need your grad filters, but get it right and its wonderful. Provia for moderately saturated, Velvia for the over the top look (not really but going that way).

 

[Yardbent]

@ChrisR

thanks - left the slide scene years ago after the heady days of (Kodachrome 64 IIRC)

just want film for the Nikon F3 at the Lakes - I'll take some XP2 for Keswick 'street' and some rolls of Portra,

thanks

 

[stevelmx5]

As above, Ektar is an excellent landscape film but I'm a bit partial to slide film too, especially Provia. I'm probably going to take a mix of Ektar, Provia and Acros 100 for B&W.

 

[stevelmx5]

This is Ektar 'as scanned'



I also find that it converts really well to B&W (digitally) with a good range of shadows/highlights

 

[excalibur2]

Well if any newbie lurkers are reading this IMO landscapes are best with a sharp lens.
...and I agree with Chris about Reala as I have shots that make a boring scene come alive with a sharp lens and the colours esp greens ....I'm surprised at times that even Agfa Vista and old Kodak colorplus can give very good results but grain shows more. So as Fuji made\make Reala and Asta Vista, I'd start with Superia and go from there.

 

[skysh4rk]

Well if any newbie lurkers are reading this IMO landscapes are best with a sharp lens.

Sharpness is overrated IMO.

 

[excalibur2]

Sharpness is overrated IMO.

For landscapes? All you need to do is see landcapes with MF and LF cameras..but I suppose if you want your shot to look like a painting then use a crappy lens smeared with vaseline

 

[skysh4rk]

For landscapes? All you need to do is see landcapes with MF and LF cameras..but I suppose if you want your shot to look like a painting then use a crappy lens smeared with vaseline

Just because one landscape photo is sharper than another doesn't necessarily mean that it's any better. Sharpness is only one characteristic of a photograph amongst many.

For me, the sharpness of my lens rarely factors into my decision making during landscapes or other types of photography, as most are more than sharp enough for my needs. If sharpness does enter the equation, it's more about my technique and the use of mirror lock up than my equipment.

 

[alexkidd]

Portra and hp5, fairly reliable standard issue stuff

 

[Carl Hall]

Here's a good place to start https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ion-where-to-find-tutorials-resources.571044/

Also, as it's untested I would put a roll of Poundland Special through it first, just to test for shutter speed reliability, light leaks etc, before you go wasting money on decent film. Agfa stuff, surprisingly £1 from your local pound shop.

I think the Poundland spesh is actually pretty good, and is great value for money. It's a much more capable film than the price would have you believe.

if i can jump on your thread - as you may like the info too....

can the Landscape togs advise a film bias towards landscapes (if it exists)... ?

thanks

Don't think it's as easy as that... there's a range of films for different approaches. Black and white landscapes for example; an afterthought for digital, but a prior choice for film. Portra, primarily intended for portraits, can be lovely for landscapes. Ektar is a bit more saturated but perhaps a bit less forgiving on exposure errors. I really like Reala but it's only available at silly prices.

Then there's slide/transparency film, even tougher to expose right with a smaller dynamic range so you'll need your grad filters, but get it right and its wonderful. Provia for moderately saturated, Velvia for the over the top look (not really but going that way).

I used to love Ektar for landscapes, but lately I look at the photos and I think they're a bit too saturated for my taste. Kind of like I've pushed the sliders a tad too far in Lightroom or something. I've been using Portra for landscapes for the last couple rolls and I've really liked the less saturated and paler colours. Would like to use some slide film but I can't really see much benefit to it when I scan everything. Plus I'll probably just screw it up and blow the highlights!

For black and white landscapes I'm a big fan of FP4+ and PanF. Used to use HP5 but I've now decided it's a bit grainy for my liking

 

[excalibur2]

Just because one landscape photo is sharper than another doesn't necessarily mean that it's any better. Sharpness is only one characteristic of a photograph amongst many.

For me, the sharpness of my lens rarely factors into my decision making during landscapes or other types of photography, as most are more than sharp enough for my needs. If sharpness does enter the equation, it's more about my technique and the use of mirror lock up than my equipment.

H'mm of course there is artistic licence, but are you telling me that you see a beautiful scene and am quite happy to see it with vaseline smeared on your spectacles OR take a shot and see it on a blurry monitor or tv screen or blurry print...it ain't human nature.
Then there is cropping of your landscape a poor lens makes it worse esp if not sharp at the corners or with distortion, and then why bother to get better (sharper and more detail) results with MF and LF and just stay with a Kodak Brownie or pinhole. But I suppose whatever turns you on in photography.

 

[ChrisR]

I used to think I wasn't bothered about sharpness, but that was before I got a lens that was seriously soft in the corners. Now I realise that my Pentax lenses are all sharp enough, and that's all I really need. I suspect a lot of the sharpness discussion is really about pixel peeking with high mega pixel digi cams, rather than about what the image really looks like either on screen or printed.

I still have to decide whether that Tamron 17mm is "sharp enough" though!

 

[excalibur2]

I used to think I wasn't bothered about sharpness, but that was before I got a lens that was seriously soft in the corners. Now I realise that my Pentax lenses are all sharp enough, and that's all I really need. I suspect a lot of the sharpness discussion is really about pixel peeking with high mega pixel digi cams, rather than about what the image really looks like either on screen or printed.

I still have to decide whether that Tamron 17mm is "sharp enough" though!

Well if you buy a good sharp lens you could always use a diffuser filter at times....which reminds me of an Osawa 28mm that was terrible, anyway Asha said he wouldn't mind trying it out so gave it to him....erm well he did but I don't think he has used it again
But lucky for us, the common lenses e.g. 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses there aren't too many bad ones

 

[Carl Hall]

I think that sharpness can be overrated. I think it's important to have a lens that can give you decently sharp results, but anything after that is just wasted. What I mean by that is I would use any one of my RB67 lenses over a cheapy Holga, but I wouldn't fret about which RB67 lens is the sharpest, because they're all sharp enough.

I think that my scanner and (in)ability to use it, my developing technique, and in-camera technique and settings are going to have massively more of an impact on my image sharpness than any inconceivably tiny differences between two high quality lenses.

 

[excalibur2]

I think that sharpness can be overrated. I think it's important to have a lens that can give you decently sharp results, but anything after that is just wasted. What I mean by that is I would use any one of my RB67 lenses over a cheapy Holga, but I wouldn't fret about which RB67 lens is the sharpest, because they're all sharp enough.

I think that my scanner and (in)ability to use it, my developing technique, and in-camera technique and settings are going to have massively more of an impact on my image sharpness than any inconceivably tiny differences between two high quality lenses.

Well true about RB lenses (my 180mm) as my wife (as she got older) thought they were too sharp and had to use a diffuser...anyway it's not all about sharpness (fake with cheap lenses using contrast tricks) but also resolving power, contrast\micro contrast and all that which sorts out the men from the boys in lenses....anyway thought many of you used a lab for scanning as say a Fuji frontier is going to beat a home scanner for resolving power.

 

[Yardbent]

------. I've been using Portra for landscapes . --

For black and white landscapes I'm a big fan of FP4+ and PanF.

Carl
thanks - I'll order a trial pack of Portra ( 160 and 400 )

only using Iford XP2S as i'm using PhotoExpress ATM....( C-41 only)

 

[excalibur2]

Agfa Vista can give VG results at times...but notice the grain..The CZj 28mm seems to work with it nicely but it's not the sharpest lens.



Reala and a very good lens Vivitar 135mm..well I think this combo has made an otherwise boring shot come to life and more interesting......much sharper when viewed in Photoshop

 

[Steven001]

The thread subjects seems to have change onto lens sharpness now.

Exaclibur - Although those are both lovely images (especially the second) they're not what I'm looking for. I want the images to look like they were shot on a film camera, something like Porta 400 seems to be perfect for what I'm looking for and maybe Kodak Tri-x 4oo for the B&W film.

This is going to be more expensive than I first thought... [emoji54]

 

[excalibur2]

The thread subjects seems to have change onto lens sharpness now.

Exaclibur - Although those are both lovely images (especially the second) they're not what I'm looking for. I want the images to look like they were shot on a film camera, something like Porta 400 seems to be perfect for what I'm looking for and maybe Kodak Tri-x 4oo for the B&W film.

This is going to be more expensive than I first thought... [emoji54]

Do you mean they have to look crappier compared to a digi
Each to their own on how each one want their shots to look e.g. exactly what they see by eye or muted colours or grainy and so on and a film can influence the result.
Coming from digi you are probably used to seeing your shots sharp, but with old lenses you can get lemons or inferior lenses and IMO say a crap 28mm for scenery is unless you're into lomo.
Anyway have fun as film use can be cheap e.g. getting the best out of Agfa Vista and for me I've never paid more than £1 for 35mm film and use the cheapest means of dev and scan...and it suits me for my 35mm photography.

 

[ChrisR]

Steven, there's a thread resulting from the "Agfa Vista Challenge" that we did a couple of years ago (many but not all images still viewable). The theme was autumnal, and there's definitely some robust colours there, but it mgiht give you a better idea of the capabilities of Vista 200. Don't forget, there's also Agfa Vista 400 (£3.79 or £34.90 for a pack of 10 from AG Photographic), which is apparently a better quality film (rebadged Fuji Superia 400X, rather than rebadged Fuji C200). I use it a lot.

 

[excalibur2]

Steven, there's a thread resulting from the "Agfa Vista Challenge" that we did a couple of years ago (many but not all images still viewable). The theme was autumnal, and there's definitely some robust colours there, but it mgiht give you a better idea of the capabilities of Vista 200. Don't forget, there's also Agfa Vista 400 (£3.79 or £34.90 for a pack of 10 from AG Photographic), which is apparently a better quality film (rebadged Fuji Superia 400X, rather than rebadged Fuji C200). I use it a lot.

It's a challenge to get the best out of any film esp on the subject you are interested in......and I always recommend Superia as it's a good all general purpose film for starters.
But does anyone of us know what is on a colour neg as does a scanner faithfully produce all the colours, tones, detail and some I've probably missed... and not forgetting seeing the results on the screen from a calibrated £700 one to a cheap laptop.......it seems to me only slide film projected or viewing box can show what is on that film...of course no bottle glass lens on the projector

 

[Andysnap]

It's a challenge to get the best out of any film esp on the subject you are interested in......and I always recommend Superia as it's a good all general purpose film for starters.
But does anyone of us know what is on a colour neg as does a scanner faithfully produce all the colours, tones, detail and some I've probably missed... and not forgetting seeing the results on the screen from a calibrated £700 one to a cheap laptop.......it seems to me only slide film projected or viewing box can show what is on that film...of course no bottle glass lens on the projector

Well done Brian, yet again you have managed to take a relatively simple question and turn it into something complicated that might make a beginner think this whole film thing isn't worth it.

 

[Nod]

First roll to make sure the camera's basic functions work to at least some extent, Poundland Agfa. Once you've established that the shutter works etc. and exposure is in the right ballpark, chuck a roll of slide through it while using the camera's meter to make sure that's accurate - slide film has far less latitude than print so will show any metering problems. Once you've established that all's well, the first decision is colour or mono, then, if colour, slide or negative, then speed. Having said that, choice would appear to be reducing - on our High Street at least!

 

[excalibur2]

Well done Brian, yet again you have managed to take a relatively simple question and turn it into something complicated that might make a beginner think this whole film thing isn't worth it.

Nah He has the camera and says he wants to try film and nothing is going to stop him doing this for the first roll (been there done it), and no one but himself will know whether he likes the experience or not...if he sees something in film use that he can't get with digi e.g. less blown out highlights and gets the bug he will be posting shots on his achievement and be going on from there....make sense to me

 

[Steven001]

Do you mean they have to look crappier compared to a digi
Each to their own on how each one want their shots to look e.g. exactly what they see by eye or muted colours or grainy and so on and a film can influence the result.
Coming from digi you are probably used to seeing your shots sharp, but with old lenses you can get lemons or inferior lenses and IMO say a crap 28mm for scenery is unless you're into lomo.
Anyway have fun as film use can be cheap e.g. getting the best out of Agfa Vista and for me I've never paid more than £1 for 35mm film and use the cheapest means of dev and scan...and it suits me for my 35mm photography.

Yes that's exactly what I mean! lol. I really don't know what the camera/lenses will offer in terms of sharpness or image quality, it's exciting

Steven, there's a thread resulting from the "Agfa Vista Challenge" that we did a couple of years ago (many but not all images still viewable). The theme was autumnal, and there's definitely some robust colours there, but it mgiht give you a better idea of the capabilities of Vista 200. Don't forget, there's also Agfa Vista 400 (£3.79 or £34.90 for a pack of 10 from AG Photographic), which is apparently a better quality film (rebadged Fuji Superia 400X, rather than rebadged Fuji C200). I use it a lot.

Thanks for the link, there are some really good examples in there, much better than I was expecting.

It's a challenge to get the best out of any film esp on the subject you are interested in......and I always recommend Superia as it's a good all general purpose film for starters.
But does anyone of us know what is on a colour neg as does a scanner faithfully produce all the colours, tones, detail and some I've probably missed... and not forgetting seeing the results on the screen from a calibrated £700 one to a cheap laptop.......it seems to me only slide film projected or viewing box can show what is on that film...of course no bottle glass lens on the projector

Unfortunately I just have the crappy laptop screen! I emailed the seller today who said he last used the camera in 1994 (it will be posted tomorrow) and he didn't seem to know too much about it. Due to that I'll nip to poundland and buy a roll of film to test the light meter and make sure they aren't any light leaks etc.

I'm mainly looking forward to shooting some black and white film, most likely HP5 to start with if all goes well with the camera. Just need to shoot for the test roll and decide which lab to sent it to.

 

[excalibur2]

Yes that's exactly what I mean! lol. I really don't know what the camera/lenses will offer in terms of sharpness or image quality, it's exciting



Thanks for the link, there are some really good examples in there, much better than I was expecting.



Unfortunately I just have the crappy laptop screen! I emailed the seller today who said he last used the camera in 1994 (it will be posted tomorrow) and he didn't seem to know too much about it. Due to that I'll nip to poundland and buy a roll of film to test the light meter and make sure they aren't any light leaks etc.

I'm mainly looking forward to shooting some black and white film, most likely HP5 to start with if all goes well with the camera. Just need to shoot for the test roll and decide which lab to sent it to.

For a test film you might be lucky to have an Asda superstore near you that still do film (all branches seem to be closing the photo dept down)..anyway just get dev and scan (no prints) and if they are not busy will do it in about 35mins while you shop for £3-£4......I've found a good Asda and before that Tesco and 90% of my shots posted here are\were done by them....so if anyone thinks my shots are a bit crappy then I have a good excuse

 

[FujiLove]

Agfa Vista can give VG results at times...but notice the grain..The CZj 28mm seems to work with it nicely but it's not the sharpest lens.



Reala and a very good lens Vivitar 135mm..well I think this combo has made an otherwise boring shot come to life and more interesting......much sharper when viewed in Photoshop

Just noticed this and I think the grain on the Vista is more likely to be a development or scanning problem. Here are two examples of AGFA Vista, home developed and scanned. The first is the 200 version taken with a Konica Hexar AF, the second is 400 speed taken with an old Kodak Colorsnap 35 (not exactly a super-sharp lens!). The grain looks comparable to Ilford or Kodak 135 films.

 

[excalibur2]

...but Agfa Vista 200 and 400 are two different films in that the 200 is Fuji c200 and the 400 is Fuji Superia 400....so you would have to use only 200 and compare the difference with home scanning and labs etc and same with 400, and after finding out who does the best scan then compare the 200 with the 400.......
For me, I dislike grain as it's not what you see with the human eye.

 

[skysh4rk]

For me, I dislike grain as it's not what you see with the human eye.

But no photo is what your eyes see unless you somehow view the world as two-dimensional images.

 

[excalibur2]

But no photo is what your eyes see unless you somehow view the world as two-dimensional images.

Well yes but I was talking about grain..and I might be wrong in that with my old eyes can see a faint grain in blue sky which make a shot of scenery with sky more true than squeaky clean digi.

 

[john.margetts]

You don't actually get grain with colour film. The image is composed of dye clouds. The grain effect is almost certainly a scanning artifact - I suspect that automatic sharpening is set too high in those case with "grain".