First roll of 35mm film - what to buy?

john.margetts said:
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".
Click to expand...

h'mm so I get more artifacts scanning Fuji 1600 ISO compared to Fuji Superia 100 ISO (which you can't buy now) o_O
 
@Steven001
meanwhile...:)

Steven001 said:
......... 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..................
Click to expand...

hi
I'm about to order 1 roll of 7 various types from @AgPhotographic just to see what each one does....reasonable prices and delivery
for B&W -- i chose Ilford XP2 Super 400, and Fuji Neopan 400CN -- both C-41 process as PhotoExpress does my dev & scan to CD (circa £5roll posted)

PExp suggested FUJI Superia 400 for landscapes
and advised NOT to buy single rolls from eBay ...they 'can' be from expired multi-packs
then I print through PS Elements to A4 photo paper - budget keeps me to A4..:(

Kodak Portra gets good reviews - but I dont do portraits - so I've ordered EKTAR 100

HTH.......john
 
Last edited:
Portra is excellent for landscapes as well... I have a feeling that over-exposing helps up the saturation just a bit. I rate my Portra 160 at 100 and my Portra 400 at 250 or 320 depending on mood (mine, not the weather), and seem to get good, non-pastel colours. The rolls of Ektar I shot in Cornwall are annoying me already as a tad saturated... but then, my technique is so bad, every roll is a lottery!
 
Well Kodak gold was made for joe public with bright colours and would guess Kodak thought Ektar would be a good replacement.
 
excalibur2 said:
h'mm so I get more artifacts scanning Fuji 1600 ISO compared to Fuji Superia 100 ISO (which you can't buy now) o_O
Click to expand...
Why not? The films have differing structures, different number of layers, different amounts of dye in each layer, different dye used. It would be strange if they behaved the same.
 
john.margetts said:
Why not? The films have differing structures, different number of layers, different amounts of dye in each layer, different dye used. It would be strange if they behaved the same.
Click to expand...

Well there is something wrong here as if you use an enlarger and do wet prints from 35mm colour negs, you would be saying they would be grain\artifact free no matter what the ISO.....I've forgotten the answer after 15 years, anyway I only did prints from MF colour negs with IIRC 160 ISO film, but the prints are squeaky clean.
 
In the past Kodak made two types of colour film, one to use fresh and the other made allowance for maturing in stores.... interesting to know if Ektar has to be used fresh. Whether you can see any difference in results from Ektar fresh or on the shelf for 2 years is aubject for debate for the cognoscenti ;)

:eek: my grandson has just seen a pokemon on my computer desk :D
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
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".
Click to expand...

Colour films do have grain, which you can easily see if you blow a scan up to 100%. The film starts out with silver halide crystals which interact with the three dye layers during the exposure and development processes. The silver is removed from the film during the bleach and fixing stages, but the 'image' of the crystals are left behind as the grain patterns in the dyes. Beautiful eh? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top