Table of Contents
We’ll start with color film, which comes in two flavors, positive and negative.
Positive film versus negative film
positive film Record the image as you saw it when you pressed the shutter. It produces rich, saturated colors and tends to have strong contrast. In my experience, it’s much less forgiving. You need to get the exposure right and there’s not much you can do about it after the fact if you don’t. I tend to avoid high contrast scenes with positive film (or use graduated neutral density filters to reduce contrast). Positive film is usually mounted as slides when developed by a professional.
negative film record the opposite of what you saw. In black and white, everything is reversed, blacks are white and whites are black, so when you shine light through them to print, the black areas retain the light, making them lighter in print, and Light areas let in more light. , making them dark in print. The same goes for color negative film, but it tends to look more like a yellow-orange mess as a negative. Color negative films typically have a softer appearance than color positive, with lower contrast and greater dynamic range.
Which one should you use? I suggest experimenting to see which one you like best. Below are some film recommendations depending on the type of images you want to make.
Best landscape film
Better overall
Fujifilm’s Fujichrome Velvia 50 is ridiculously expensive at $30 a roll, but I haven’t yet found any other positive color film that looks as good as Velvia. Its color saturation is legendary (it tends towards red/magenta) and its neutral gray balance means you almost never get strange colors in shadows and highlights. The price means I don’t photograph it very often, but when I go out into nature, this is what I carry.
Runner-up
Kodak E100 is a new film for me, but I have already shot a few rolls and I can say that it is very different from Velvia. There is none of Velvia’s warmth; The colors are quite neutral with a soft green tone in the highlights. If you are looking to photograph landscapes that look different from the last 50 years of Velvia influenced images, this is the film I would recommend.
Budget selection
This is another new one for me; I have shot only two rolls of this film in color negative, but so far my overwhelming impression is that this is a film that replicates what you get with a digital camera. The grain is very fine and the colors are very similar to what my Sony digital sensor records: a natural-looking color that tends towards the cooler side. I confess I didn’t like it the first time I saw the results, but I’m liking it and the price is hard to beat.
Best film for portraits
Portrait films should adapt well to skin tones. My favorite, Fujifilm 160 Pro, has been discontinued, leaving the ever-popular Kodak alternative. At $14 a roll, this is probably the best value in film, period. Porta 160 is a great portrait film, as it leaves the skin pretty much as it is most of the time. If you need something faster for low light shooting, there’s also a 400 speed version and even a 800 speed version. I think it’s too grainy for color portraits, but if that’s the look you want, it’s available.
Best black and white movies
There is a seemingly endless variety of black and white films, including re-edited versions of some of the most popular films from previous decades. This is a very biased list since “better” in this case is purely subjective. Again, experiment to find out which one you like.
Better overall
Tri-X was launched in the 1940s and has been in continuous production ever since. It’s gone through a few changes over the years, the latest being a re-engineering in 2011 that reduced the grain (which is when it got the TX designation). A favorite of photographers as diverse as Sebastiao Salgado, Vivian Mayer and Gary Winogrand, Tri-X is loved for its versatility, with just the right amount of grain and contrast that gives images a certain look and texture that nothing else can. equal to. There are rich black shadows, great contrast, and just enough grain without being too much. Tri-X is also very easy to process if you do it yourself. If I could only make one movie, it would be this one.
Runner-up
Another versatile film, Ilford’s HP5, has a wide exposure latitude, meaning it will perform well in mixed and difficult lighting conditions. It has less overall contrast than Tri-X, giving it a softer look. It also pushes very well, without getting too grainy like Tri-X tends to do when you push it. If you want a good all-around film with a smooth, even tonality, this is a good choice.
Best for low light
Let’s get something out of the way first. Kodak calls this a “multispeed” film; you don’t need to shoot it at 3200. I like to shoot it at 800 and process it at 1600. It took me a few years to realize that what I was doing there was making my T-Max look more like Tri-X, but the point is that the T-Max 3200 is more versatile than speed implies. That being said, I tend to use this when shooting in the afternoon or at night.
Film development
There used to be a film developing lab on every corner. Or at least in those little parking lot kiosks, but those days are gone. That being said, there are many professional labs with mail order businesses and quick turnaround times. Most of them will also be happy to scan your negatives, although this adds to the cost.
There are hundreds of good labs and the best thing you can do is go to the nearest photography store and talk to them. Building a relationship with your local photo shop will help you get better results because they will know what you like and what you don’t and can help you push and communicate with the lab as needed. That said, many camera shops have outsourced their development to large online services (the nearest store sends film to Nation’s lab), so be sure to ask where they’re developing.
