which decent 35mm film these days...?

Yardbent

Yardbent

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,761
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
been 'out' of the film scene for several years

what is the best choice these days for a general landscape colour film; and a B&W film ...?

I still have some OOD Kodak Gold, Ilford XP2 Super, and Fuji Neopan 400 CN Pro
are there still places who develop/scan these to CD..?

thanks
 
Sorry I can't answer your first question but in regards to developers I've been sending my stuff to Photo Hippo in Burnley. They can develop and scan to CD or do a develop and upload service. I've found them to be quick with turnarounds and can recommend them.
 
John,

I mostly develop my own film, but when I use a lab I use The Darkroom UK -
https://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/category/68-colour-negative-film-processing

Two other propular choices are Peak Imaging:
https://www.peak-imaging.com/category/44-35mm-film-processing

and AG Photolab:
https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/

In terms of "best choice" for a film then the range of responses might end up covering all the choices that are currently available.

Kodak Portra 400 and Portra 160 are very versatile films with a reputation for being able to cope with large variations in exposure - some underexposure and lots of overexposure. They have relatively soft colours.

Kodak Ektar 100 has a more vibrant colour pallette but is more fussy than Portra about getting the right exposure.

Portra and Ektar are rather expensive, although remember that if you are paying for development and scanning, buying a film which is half the price of Portra will not cut your overall bill in half.

Kodak Gold is a little cheaper, and Kodak ColorPlus cheaper again. I'd suggest using one of these options until you're sure that your equipment and technique are fine, before deciding whether you want to use one of the more expensive films.

With regard to your out of date film, then depending upon old it is, and the conditions it's been stored in, there might be some deterioration in the image quality.
XP2 and Fuji Neopan 400 CN Pro are both "chromogenic" films which means they can be processed using the C41 process, the same as the Kodak Gold.

If you're going to be getting your black and white film processed commercially, the XP2 would be a good choice, as the processing will probably be cheaper than a "pure" black and while film (such as FP4+ or HP5+) and it is a high quality product.

Just my two-pennorth to start
 
Kevin Allan said:
Thanks for the links

Kodak Portra 400 and Portra 160 are very versatile films with a reputation for being able to cope with large variations in exposure - some underexposure and lots of overexposure. They have relatively soft colours.
Kodak Ektar 100 has a more vibrant colour pallette but is more fussy than Portra about getting the right exposure.......OK

Kodak Gold is a little cheaper, . I'd suggest using one -- until you're sure that your equipment and technique are fine, ..YES a good point..will do

there might be some deterioration in the image quality.
Ilford XP2 is 4 years in a fridge
NORTHEAST PHOTOGRAPHIC USA says 'not to develop OOD XP2" -- i have emailed for info

XP2 and Fuji Neopan 400 CN Pro are both "chromogenic" films which means they can be processed using the C41 process, the same as the Kodak Gold.

black and white film processed commercially, the XP2 would be a good choice, --and it is a high quality product......
Click to expand...

Kevin ....Thanks for all the details. I only use a lab to develop/scan.
It appears Kodak GOLD and XP2 will be my choices to get started again
I'll wait for NORTHEAST PHOTOGRAPHIC USA to reply
 
Last edited:
ooops - thanks Admin....(y)
 
Filmdev are very popular but at the moment are running a little slower than usual, however I've used them for the past 3 years with no issues.
 
Loving Kodak Gold as a general purpose colour film @35mm. For low light, I reach for Lomo 800 which is more reasonably priced (and negligibly different) than the eye watering (last time I checked) Portra 800. For my medium format landscape stuff I tend to shoot Portra 160 or Provia 100. But there I'm slowing down, usually on a tripod, and metering the scene properly.

Black & White in good light I am going to start using Ilford Ortho Plus for landscapes (replacing my previously well loved Pan F Plus), & Ilford Delta 100 for portraits/studio. A more general purpose film for me would be Ilford HP5 Plus. It's a pretty much do anything film. I've really enjoyed shooting through a bulk roll of Kodak Tri-X over the last few months, but it's hella expensive and no better than HP5 to my eyes. I develop my own B&W. If I were getting it done at a lab, then XP2 would definitely be in the running. It's a really nice film.
 
Andysnap said:
but at the moment are running a little slower than usual,
Click to expand...

Aren't they shut at the moment? I've been sending colour stuff to AG because Filmdev have a covid splash on their site.
 
Yardbent said:
been 'out' of the film scene for several years

what is the best choice these days for a general landscape colour film; and a B&W film ...?

I still have some OOD Kodak Gold, Ilford XP2 Super, and Fuji Neopan 400 CN Pro
are there still places who develop/scan these to CD..?

thanks
Click to expand...

I think your go-to colour film for landscapes would be Ektar 100. It’s the closest to slide film without having to pay the extra and gives you bags of exposure latitude. I reckon black and white XP2 is a good bet if you’re planning on getting it sent off as it’s C41. And it’s an amazing film. Unless you want the grain.

I’m using Kodak Gold at the moment as it’s cheaper but I’m snapping away at kids etc. so I don’t need the quality but quite like the cost due to fairly low keeper rate (pesky kids, moving around and blinking...)
 
I got my best results from B+W film with Ilford HP5. I used a lower dilution and longer development time (About 20' in Ilford ID-11 @ 20ºC, less agitation) to get better results. I tried all sorts; Agfa, Kodak T-Max, Tri-X etc, but the Ilford suited me best. Tried the Delta films, didn't like them as much, although Delta 3200 was fun. Graintastic! Kodak Technical Pan was a lot of fun too, but I never really got to grips with the myriad developing options for that. It's a shame some of those great old films are gone now.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
Loving Kodak Gold as a general purpose colour film ......
......... If I were getting it done at a lab, then XP2 would definitely be in the running. It's a really nice film.
Click to expand...

thanks - that confirms my ideas..........(y)

I'll dump the OOD films (freebies) as I dont want to ruin my first foray back into film...!
 
Last edited:
A handy tip: you can shoot XP2 at both 200 ISO and 400 ISO on the same roll of film and develop as normal. I usually do just that, as I find shooting at 200 in sunny lighting conditions stops the shadows blocking up and I think makes things look better, and going back to the standard rating of 400 ISO is handy when the sun goes in and makes it a very flexible film to use. Hope this is useful.
 
Last edited:
Yardbent said:
I'll dump the OOD films (freebies) as I don't want to ruin my first foray back into film...!
Click to expand...

No, keep them as testing rolls! Even if they are a bit knackered, they'll at least be useful in testing an old film body.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Aren't they shut at the moment? I've been sending colour stuff to AG because Filmdev have a covid splash on their site.
Click to expand...

You are correct Ian however I was looking ahead to better times;)
 
AZ6 said:
No, keep them as testing rolls! Even if they are a bit knackered, they'll at least be useful in testing an old film body.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean - but my Canon A1 and Nikon F3 are mint and I wont be buying any more film cameras....:)

however I am selling 3 others so your point is valid especially checking for light leaks ..thanks
 
For C41 developing I do my own at home using the Bellini C41 kit, it's remarkably easy.

There are plenty of colour films to choose from. Gold is a good general use film, Portra is beautiful for skin tones and pastel landscapes, Ektar for that slightly stronger red bias, great for autumn colours.

There are some nice Fuji films too but I will admit I don't know them as well.

For B&W, again it depends on the look you want and conditions you will shoot in. Acros is beautiful and reciprocity is outstanding, I also love Kodak Tri-X and T-Max. For an older fashioned look you can't go too far wrong with Foma
 
Unless they are way more than 10 years out of date, if kept in the fridge all of those films will be fine (even if not, probably OK). The Fuji 400CN is a nice film, also chromogenic; I'd have no hesitation shooting it.

No-one has mentioned Fuji Superia 400, which is my everyday colour film, gives me reasonable results. I'm less enamoured with Kodacolor 200, but I couldn't really tell you why. If I was going somewhere special I would take Portra 400 and Ektar 100... and probably use the Portra, as I prefer shooting handheld, and it's nice to get faster shutter speeds!

For "proper" black and white, I'd shoot Kodak Tri-X (400) or Ilford FP4+ (125). I'm not a fan of HP5 in 135. However, as Kevin said, if you go that route, dev and scan become more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top