3:50 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 are T-grain films, much like Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, but FP4 125 Plus and HP5 400 Plus have more random grain structure, much like Kodak Tri-X 400. Allegedly, the random grain structure allows for more tolerance for underexposure, but the visible grain is less refined. T-grain films are often sharper in appearance, but at the detriment of not being as flexible when underexposed.
I would have thought _no_ film can be tolerant of underexposure by definition, but hey ho, I basically have no idea what you're talking about I suppose.
I found it really annoying how the presenters didn't know these facts. Even if they glanced at the official webpage for the films, they would have found out. Really enjoyed the video and found it useful.
Very nice comparison. I shot Fuji Pro 400H for the first time this summer and really love my results in sun-soaked New Mexico. I thought it had (for me) the best look with the model except for Portra 160. The others, she seemed to have a very yellow cast in varying degrees except for the CineStill 800. I normally shoot Acros 100 or FP4 125 for B&W and both looked great. Good to know though that if I need to go above 400 or above that the C-41 films all seem to do better w/grain than the B&W.
6:49 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't here a mistake? I see the same image, sorry. Same pose, same lightning, same everything. If it's not, then this girl is weird because she managed to stay REALLY still.
What parameters did you give Richards on the scanning of the film? So much of the look depends on the tech who does the scanning that without that information it's hard to know how understand results. I know that they will work with every photographer who uses them to fine tune a look which is awesome but also a huge part of the "look of film". Thanks for all the great work you do!
Hi Joseph, you are right, the scanners they use DO make a difference. We didn't set it as one of our perpetrators. We actually went with a different lab in San Diego.
Agreed, and I'd add that the appearance of the black & white film has a lot to do with the development fluids & timing. For example, Acros 100 looks amazing when developed with care, but utterly subpar when treated like any ordinary b&w film.
One of the great things about still dabbling in film is trying out a whole bunch of film stocks. So many different looks. Really enjoyed the video. The stocks you picked are all tried and true, lovely, options. I like shooting those, for sure, but often try out less known or less expensive options too. Its amazing how many of the consumer options from Kodak mimic their professional stock cousins. I had not picked up my film cameras for years….in 2022, haning gone back to them, I will not make that mistake again. The cameras and those film tones/ shooting experience is just too fun not to experiment with from time to time.
Thanks very much guys. It's great to see side-by-side comparisons. If you every decide to do this again, take a look at the Rollei B&W films Like RPX, Retro 80, Retro 400, Infrared. These film are all sold by Freestyle Photo along with films from Adox, Arista, Foma and others.
Acros also has fantastic reciprocity characteristics--no correction up to 2 minutes, so great for pinhole and long exposures, generally--and pushes well, too. It's quite versatile.
What did I learn from the vid? That so many factors affect the look of your photographs and that ultimately the difference is so minimal, especially after post-processing, as to be negligible. Just pick whatever you feel like and roll with it.
ISO designations have changed over the years, I see. "Low ISO" was ISO 25-50, as in Kodak Kodachrome 25, Panatomic-X (ISO 32), Ilford Pan F (ISO 50), and Agfachrome CT-18 (ISO 50). "Medium ISO" was ISO 64-125, as in Ektachrome X/Kodachrome X (ISO 64), Kodacolor II (ISO 80-100), Fuji Neopan SS (ISO 100), Plus-X Pan (ISO 125), Ilford FP4 (ISO 125). "High ISO" was ISO 160-400 as in High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160), Ektachrome 200, Kodachrome 400, Kodak Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Kodacolor 400. Anything above ISO 400 was exotic, from Kodak 2475 (ISO 1000-6400), ESP-1 High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 400), etc. Likewise, there were specialized films such as H&W Control Film (Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, ISO 80), Ektachrome Silde Duplicating Film (ISO 16?), Ektachrome Infrared ("ISO 125"), etc. There was also GAF Anscochrome slide films as well, from ISO 50-500, Monochrome and Slide (35mm). As for 120 roll film, the selection was almost as interesting, from Agfa to ORWO. But that was yesterday, when slide projectors, gelatin filters, and mechanical cable releases were common photographic accessories.
Excellent! I'm so glad you took the time to shoot and compare these film stocks. To each his own...I really like the T-Max and Ilford products. If I had to pick it would be the Ilford B&W and Portra for color.
The Slanted Lens I bought a whole bunch! 😃 TriX, Delta 100, delta 400, 3200, hp5 and portra 400. Just finished the first roll of TriX and only used a lightmeter - app to get a baseline. Need to buy a real lightmeter. 👍🏻
Appreciate the help you provide to navigate the jungle of films. Even though different lighting conditions would also have been interesting and added a second dimension to your review. Good job.
I'll miss it. Just like I'll miss Velvia when it's all gone too. As far as the film simulations go, it's not all about the look with film, but more so the process compared to the digital process. To each his his own though. It's awesome that we live in an age where you have the choice between film and digital to create images how you want. It's just too bad Fuji seems to be systematically taking away all of their film options. And the fact that they wouldn't sell their pack film machines before destroying them is something that is hard to forgive. Time to stock up if fuji emulsions are the look you like, or support another brand that still supports film.
RIP Acros, it was a really great film. Wonderful reciprocity and liquid smooth highlights, the digital simulations get the tones right but doesn't compare to a well exposed medium format acros frame.
One of best film comparisons I have seen. Thanks, it's really interesting and useful to see same scene on all of these different films. Have you used some filters, or are all of these photos shot without filters? I love Cinestill 800T for night, but some people are not very satisfied with it's look on daylight shots, and some daylight shots really don't look good. They also reccomend using filter for it, when shot in daylight, so I was really surprised how nice it came here.
The Slanted Lens Fuji Provia and Velvia are like nothing else. Nothing like their digital film simulations. Kodak aren’t making anything like that. If Fuji quit film completely, people might start to abandon film if they don’t like the Kodak warmer tones. On the plus side, Fuji are making an analog instant square camera, so they are not abandoning it completely.
How did you shoot the 800 with the bright natural light and copious amounts of bokeh? ND filter? If so what type was it and how many stops. It looked very neutral and unaffected by filtering or refraction of high f stop.
This is one of the most interesting and useful videos I've seen in a long time. So useful when I consider which film to try next. Currently I shoot 35mm film and wonder if the same parameters and characteristics of the 120 film stocks you compared here would apply equally to 35mm? Would your comparison have been essentially the same if you were shooting these films in 35mm instead of 120?
I put an old Minolta AF7000 film camera back into use a few months ago and asked what was the best B&W and to a note most said Ilford XP2 400 film (C41). Mind, the Minolta isn't a medium format camera but I thought the grain was not bad. I liked the results that I achieved with the Ilford.
fantastic video guys! I shoot most of these films in 120, this is really helpful, and it's very nice to see someone else's opinions on these films, thank you so much!!
Awesome content. Do you know the chems (deletions, temps...) the lab used (for B&W)? So much of the look from film is in the development. Thanks for making the scans available. Also love Silver Lake as a location but I would of like to see a little more control lighting from a studio. Thanks Jay P. for putting this out there
My experiences with Kodak and Fuji colour films (from prior to 2006 when I switched to digital) was that Fuji had the better rendition of the greens and blues in a scene; whereas Kodak the yellows and reds (allegedly their respective corporate colours). So I used to have two bodies (one with Fuji and one with Kodak) as I do travel photography when I had a lot of blue sky or sea I would go for my Fuji; whereas a golden field of wheat would be on my Kodak. When I was shooting slides it was Fuji all the way. Finally and I never came to the bottom of this. I felt Kodak was always less sharp (like a pulp) when compared to Fuji; so more 'dreamy scenes' suited better. The Fuji velvia 50 was very dreamy too/saturated but I'm talking about their respective 100 ISO varieties. I was told a few times by the developing labs that Kodak would be developed with whatever chemicals; whereas Fuji demanded more precision; so I do not know if this is part of the explanation for sharpness differences but at some point I switched to slides so I got rid of the lab-variable and ultimately to digital to get rid of the film variable. By the way film is as you know sensitive to environmental conditions and shelve-time (so things like heat influence it as well as how long has it been since it left the factory doors) and as a travel photographer it was a pain to obtain fresh-film at the source and then carrying and keeping my stock in regulated temperatures plus when going through X-rays having to request that the film is hand inspected rather through the machines, I used to carry it in led pouches and the like. I'm saying this because each film travels very differently and if you buy a film lets say that's been around half the word to reach India and has been seating for a year in an Indian store vs. buying it from a supplier next to the factory the moment there is a fresh delivery-batch (and yes my supplier would inform me when there was a fresh batch coming in and they would keep it in a fridge) you will obtain very different results with the same film.
Hi, Dimitris, wow so much passion! I love it! Thanks for your insight. We didn't try to do any technical testing, just what looks good to the eye, since most people won't get down and dirty with it.
Great video. Love seeing these kind of comparative videos. Very helpful. Fuji Acros 100 has been a favourite of mine for many years, but Ilford Delta 100 has, more recently, become a more affordable option and provides a similar look, though Acros is fairly unbeatable for me and what I like.
JP, did you shoot all of the stock at the manufacturer rated ISO? I enjoyed this upload quite a bit. I wish there was a way to compare a comparably-sized digital sensor to the 2 1/4 film with the same lens you used for the shoot. The scanned film vs. direct digital image comparison would also be educational.
I had to come back and watch this again, something I rarely do. Thanks for doing this. I would love to see the same testing done for landscape/cityscape work.
Hey Craig, thanks for your suggestion. We will take that into consideration when shooting our film series! Please subscribe to get updated on our newest film videos!
Great “apples to apples” comparisons. Watching this makes me want to get my hands on some of that CineStill 800. Thanks for posting this useful information.
Interesting how I hear so many good things about Cinestill 800 but mostly pretty lukewarm things about Cinestill 50. That red halation was very noticeable!! Thanks for the video!
Thank you for this very useful video! Even if I didn't choose my medium format camera yet, your comparison helps me a lot with my 35mm films choice. Thanks guys 👍
Kodak Ektar 100 is great film for land scapes on a sunny day. Greens, reds and blues look lovely and saturated but that is also why it is a bad film for portraits. Portra 160 is a legend in portrait photos.
I Don't understand the meaning of this! The way a film react is mostly due to the kind of developper you use, the processing time, and the temperature of your baths. A Tri-x film for instance was looking completly different if you did process it in Rodinal, Bauer Diafine, D76, etc... Roughly (depending of processing temperature), the Rodinal gave you a high separation power (Sharpness effect) with higher grain ratio compare to the Diafine which was high in nuances of grey and very fine grain. You may be able, within certain physical limits, to adapt the film you like to suits your goals. By the way I'm shooting and processing films since 1965.
After trying many different films over the last several decades, my favorite has been Fujifilm ACROS 100. I like it for its contrast vs smooth gradation of tones along with its very fine grain. The blacks are deep and rich and the whites are brilliant. Having said that, I'm devastated by the news of Fujifilm no longer producing it. I've stocked up for now but will dread the day I shoot my last roll.
Thanks for the video! I love Delta 3200 and Portra 800 for low light situations. Can you make a video of some long exposures using these, it would be cool to see your tests :D
I use Ektar 100 for landscapes and architecture Portra 160 for portraits of any photo where to subjets are people and Fuji Across 100 for all B&W adjusting contrast with filters or in post. My advice is to find the best film stocks for you and stick with them. At least until they become unavailable.
thank you! very helpful video I really like the portra 160 for color and B&W I prefer ilford delta 100, I like Kodak ektar 100 for landscapes never had the opportunity to shoot with cinestill films yet but looking forward to do some portraits with cinestill 800.
Thanks for making the video! I picked up some really good info here. I'd like to add that two types of 120 film I've 'experimented' with are RolleiRetro 400 B&W, and Lomography Color ISO 800. The effect of the RolleiRetro is hard to describe, in that is has an almost 'gauze' look to it, similar I guess to the old Hollywood glamor shots, but oddly enough it doesn't lack sharpness or definition. The Lomography color basically floored me with its lack of grain or noise--you know, the kind of junk you'd expect anything with "lomo" in its name to have--and its levels of saturation. (For 35mm, although I like Tri-X ISO 400, I have no qualms with shooting Cheap old Kentmere. In fact, I have fount that it has excellent linear tonal gradation from the lower to mid-ends.) Although HP5 and Tri-X and Portra (all ISO 400) are all my standard gotos, I think you guys did a great job on selling me on TMax ISO 100 for certain stuff. Cheers!
I'm missing fomapan here!!! (it's good and very affordable, here in czech republic it's suuuper cheap, since it's produced here) ...but you did a good job otherwise, Thanks!
Foma is certainly worth a try! It is not my film of choice but it is a quality product and at some places you can get it for half the price of Kodak and Fuji films.
Hell of a comparison, thanks for that. I'm trying to download the scans but it seems there is a technical problem ... I can't enter my e-mail anywhere. A comparison to the digital RAW files would also be great if possible. I would be very grateful for that! Stay healthy and keep up the good work!
Nice but there are so many problems unaccounted for variables. How the lab developed them and how they were scanned really confuses the results. Typical labs have film profiles for each fit they scan.
Great video! I really like Ektar 100 and soon I will try some Fuji stuff before they will be gone :( Today I was developing a Fomapan 100 120 with stand development, can't wait to see the results.
Post your results to our facebook page! We'd love to see what you got! It's sad that Fujifilm won't make any stock :( We really liked how they held up!
If you overexpose Portra a little, you get a creamy glow that really works with portraiture. I would have loved to shoot Acros before they discontinued it
This was awesome!!!!!!!! I didn't even realize how much of a difference there was (I pretty much just thought other than changing the iso, there wasn't too much difference between film....pleasently found out I was wrong). What about doing this with 35mm stocks? Ones that don't come in medium format
Some post processing has been done to the Ilford XP2 shots, there’s no way they’re that contrasty out of the box. It’s a very low contrast but lovely film.
Should note, cinestill 800 is kodak vision3 500, which has been "pushed" to 800. If you shoot the cine at 500, or shoot at 400 and open one stop, you'll get a far better look.
there are many other cheap options such as fomapan, arista edu, and holga which i would be far more interested in seeing as there are few other videos on the subject
The scanner actually effect color way more than films. I use Hasselblad x5 for most of my work but I do have a 4000ed. Different film behavior super differently when use different scanner.
I used the Kodak TMAX400 120 film for many years, I shot it at 200 ASA/ISO and developed it in a thin solution for a long time with very few and very gently agitations, in that way the film had more grey tones and had still very good contrast, in modern words, larger dynamic range. I guess you can do the same with a Ilford Delta 400 film. Of paper I used Ilford Multigrade. Made great images from my 6x6 Hasselblad !
Agreed with previous comments about scanning. Color film is a mystery to me for that reason...I process and scan my own BW film at home, but I don't even bother with color because the scanning is a nightmare. It's tough to get a read on the true nature of color films and I don't like to have to edit the colors so much to make it the way I want.
For color, Fuji Pro400H is so pretty, but if you stick with Portra you get a pretty consistent color science across 160, 400 and 800. The 400 is especially strong technically as it incorporates technology from Kodak's Vision line of cinema films. Kodak Portra 400 is unquestionably the most advanced color negative film in existence and it's a winner every time.
Which developer did you use? Basically, all films look the same depending on a good pair, and afterwards agitation, temperature etc so your tests are nice, however every person should pick a film he likes. For me, the best right now is FP4+ and Rodinal - gives me lots of grey and is cheaper than Tmax ;)
There are relatively few shops in the US that still do E-6 development. If you're not developing at home, you're shipping it halfway across the country.
We just bought all the available stocks that were are Sammy's camera, a local shop here in LA. Not all film is represented here, but most of the major players are.
Does the fact that all your films were 120 format impact the final results? Would they look the same if you used 35mm negative versions of these same film stocks? Based mostly on your video comparing these film stocks, I have tried Tri-X 400, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford HP5, Portra 400, and Kodak Ektar in order to figure out what look I like best. I have also bought some TMax 100 that is loaded now but has not been shot. I haven't tried Porta 160 yet, nor have I gotten my developed negatives of HP5 back from the lab yet. It's all very exciting! Currently shooting with a Nikon FE2 and a Minolta XD11.
Great video guys!!! Thanks a lot for the comparison!!! What I have learned is that the amount of grain depends also a lot of the lap. Also, the scanned colors depend on the lab too. My lab knows How I want the print and how I want the scans, so my portra 800 has a bit different look than yours.I had 60x40cm prints from my Mamiya 645 for an exhibition. There was no grain visible.... I was traveling with the portra 800 and the Ilford delta 400 medium format film for street portraits around the world - these are my favorites. If it gets really dark I used the delta3200
Sure: www.street-portraits.eu/ All color portraits is the portra 800, all black and white daylight is the delta 400 (sometimes pushed), all large format is tmax100, enjoy :) Some of my favorite: www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/alias-university-way-ne-the-ave-seattle-2/ www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/jack-golden-gate-park-san-francisco-1/ www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/payton-3rd-av-nyc/ www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/der-machatschek-wird-er-gleich-lachen-oder-wird-er-grantigma-was-hoit-anfoch-ned/
I just discovered your channel. You old timer have more energy and fun inside you than any of the younf hipsters out there. Il love the way you do this!!
3:50 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 are T-grain films, much like Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, but FP4 125 Plus and HP5 400 Plus have more random grain structure, much like Kodak Tri-X 400. Allegedly, the random grain structure allows for more tolerance for underexposure, but the visible grain is less refined. T-grain films are often sharper in appearance, but at the detriment of not being as flexible when underexposed.
Wow, great information, Michael! Thanks for that!
Thanks for the information. So many people are interested in film and how to use it.
Also T-grain films are much more limited in terms of push-pull process
I would have thought _no_ film can be tolerant of underexposure by definition, but hey ho, I basically have no idea what you're talking about I suppose.
I found it really annoying how the presenters didn't know these facts. Even if they glanced at the official webpage for the films, they would have found out. Really enjoyed the video and found it useful.
please keep on going analog stuff
We will try! This stuff is sort of expensive to produce so we're trying to get it sponsored by a film company.
Very nice comparison. I shot Fuji Pro 400H for the first time this summer and really love my results in sun-soaked New Mexico. I thought it had (for me) the best look with the model except for Portra 160. The others, she seemed to have a very yellow cast in varying degrees except for the CineStill 800. I normally shoot Acros 100 or FP4 125 for B&W and both looked great. Good to know though that if I need to go above 400 or above that the C-41 films all seem to do better w/grain than the B&W.
6:49 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't here a mistake? I see the same image, sorry. Same pose, same lightning, same everything. If it's not, then this girl is weird because she managed to stay REALLY still.
I just screenshotted that frame and overlapped the two pictures and yes you're right it's the same exact picture.
What parameters did you give Richards on the scanning of the film? So much of the look depends on the tech who does the scanning that without that information it's hard to know how understand results. I know that they will work with every photographer who uses them to fine tune a look which is awesome but also a huge part of the "look of film". Thanks for all the great work you do!
that is what I was thinking
Hi Joseph, you are right, the scanners they use DO make a difference. We didn't set it as one of our perpetrators. We actually went with a different lab in San Diego.
Agreed, and I'd add that the appearance of the black & white film has a lot to do with the development fluids & timing. For example, Acros 100 looks amazing when developed with care, but utterly subpar when treated like any ordinary b&w film.
Would love to see a smiler comparison with pushing film
Good suggestion! These film videos seem to be doing fairly well on our channel, so hopefully we can get around to it!
We just made a video on pushing and pulling film, check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/90bo5bb77_g/v-deo.html
@@TheSlantedLens Wow. Did you guys really reply back after 8 months? LEGENDARY.
Great video! It's a lot of work to compare all these stocks, I'm glad to see more people enjoying film.
Thanks for recognizing the hard work we put into our channel, Joseph! Please share the video with your friends!
One of the great things about still dabbling in film is trying out a whole bunch of film stocks. So many different looks. Really enjoyed the video. The stocks you picked are all tried and true, lovely, options. I like shooting those, for sure, but often try out less known or less expensive options too. Its amazing how many of the consumer options from Kodak mimic their professional stock cousins. I had not picked up my film cameras for years….in 2022, haning gone back to them, I will not make that mistake again. The cameras and those film tones/ shooting experience is just too fun not to experiment with from time to time.
So good to hear your experience! Enjoy shooting with film!
Thanks very much guys. It's great to see side-by-side comparisons. If you every decide to do this again, take a look at the Rollei B&W films Like RPX, Retro 80, Retro 400, Infrared. These film are all sold by Freestyle Photo along with films from Adox, Arista, Foma and others.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing! We will definitely look into it! If you have any photos from these stocks, share them on our facebook page
Rollei retro 80s is probably my favorite film stock and the Rollei RPX 25 isn't far behind.
Wow... this was a fantastic presentation! Extremely helpful, informative, and fun to watch, too! Thanks
This is THE best film comparison video I've ever seen on UA-cam! great job guys! Thank you
Acros also has fantastic reciprocity characteristics--no correction up to 2 minutes, so great for pinhole and long exposures, generally--and pushes well, too. It's quite versatile.
One of the best black and white films ever made. Unfortunately it is discontinued so stock up if you can.
It's really unfortunate! :(
We both really liked the look of Acros as well.
What up H-Wag! I agree, Acros would do well in those scenarios.
Oh, no! I hadn't heard that news. Thanks for the heads-up. I guess the freezer will now be completely dedicated to film. . .
Gosh I love film so much!!!
Yeah, gotta love it!
What did I learn from the vid? That so many factors affect the look of your photographs and that ultimately the difference is so minimal, especially after post-processing, as to be negligible. Just pick whatever you feel like and roll with it.
ISO designations have changed over the years, I see. "Low ISO" was ISO 25-50, as in Kodak Kodachrome 25, Panatomic-X (ISO 32), Ilford Pan F (ISO 50), and Agfachrome CT-18 (ISO 50). "Medium ISO" was ISO 64-125, as in Ektachrome X/Kodachrome X (ISO 64), Kodacolor II (ISO 80-100), Fuji Neopan SS (ISO 100), Plus-X Pan (ISO 125), Ilford FP4 (ISO 125). "High ISO" was ISO 160-400 as in High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160), Ektachrome 200, Kodachrome 400, Kodak Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Kodacolor 400. Anything above ISO 400 was exotic, from Kodak 2475 (ISO 1000-6400), ESP-1 High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 400), etc. Likewise, there were specialized films such as H&W Control Film (Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, ISO 80), Ektachrome Silde Duplicating Film (ISO 16?), Ektachrome Infrared ("ISO 125"), etc. There was also GAF Anscochrome slide films as well, from ISO 50-500, Monochrome and Slide (35mm). As for 120 roll film, the selection was almost as interesting, from Agfa to ORWO. But that was yesterday, when slide projectors, gelatin filters, and mechanical cable releases were common photographic accessories.
Hi all - any idea who the awesome model is for this one? Super cool and great work JP and the Slanted Lens gang!
This is such a seriously awesome video. Love it when you guys talk film. Thanks for doing this!!
Thanks, Chris! We love talking about film too. This one was a bit expensive since we had to buy all that film and develop it.
Love your film stuff, probably the best stock comparison i've seen. Keep it up.
Thanks for the love
Excellent! I'm so glad you took the time to shoot and compare these film stocks. To each his own...I really like the T-Max and Ilford products. If I had to pick it would be the Ilford B&W and Portra for color.
thanks for checking it out, Robert!
Hot damn this was perfect timing. I just bought a RZ67! =D
:) two thumbs up! What film stock are you going with?
The Slanted Lens I bought a whole bunch! 😃 TriX, Delta 100, delta 400, 3200, hp5 and portra 400. Just finished the first roll of TriX and only used a lightmeter - app to get a baseline. Need to buy a real lightmeter. 👍🏻
I have one too, they are magnificent i use mostly Delta 100, Velvia 50 for landscapes and Portra for everything else.
I just ordered a M645
Great job! Thank you it gives a wide idea about which to choose
Appreciate the help you provide to navigate the jungle of films. Even though different lighting conditions would also have been interesting and added a second dimension to your review. Good job.
Great point! Thanks for watching!
What are you guys talking about? Scanner has adjusted the exposure automatically and that’s all you’re noticing here.
If you never used acros 100, it was the first and probably the last time, that film was discontinued. Fuji Kill Film
Since their mirrorless have an almost indistinguishable film simulation and it wasn't a very popular film to begin with, it won't be missed.
Just like so many other things.
ErebosGR Acros 100 has almost no reciprocity failure. But at least we have ilford, I love push hp5 at 1600 it's a great film.
I'll miss it. Just like I'll miss Velvia when it's all gone too. As far as the film simulations go, it's not all about the look with film, but more so the process compared to the digital process. To each his his own though. It's awesome that we live in an age where you have the choice between film and digital to create images how you want. It's just too bad Fuji seems to be systematically taking away all of their film options. And the fact that they wouldn't sell their pack film machines before destroying them is something that is hard to forgive. Time to stock up if fuji emulsions are the look you like, or support another brand that still supports film.
RIP Acros, it was a really great film. Wonderful reciprocity and liquid smooth highlights, the digital simulations get the tones right but doesn't compare to a well exposed medium format acros frame.
I’m a sucker for those Fujifilm greens and pinks man, Fuji Superia 400 everyday for me!
One of best film comparisons I have seen. Thanks, it's really interesting and useful to see same scene on all of these different films.
Have you used some filters, or are all of these photos shot without filters? I love Cinestill 800T for night, but some people are not very satisfied with it's look on daylight shots, and some daylight shots really don't look good. They also reccomend using filter for it, when shot in daylight, so I was really surprised how nice it came here.
Cinestill recommends shooting 800t at 500 ISO and with an 81C warming filter when in sunlight. Otherwise, daytime shots get a cool cast
Fuji Provia is also a very good film. I hope Fuji don't stop making film completely.
#filmisnotdead but #fujimightbe
The Slanted Lens Fuji Provia and Velvia are like nothing else. Nothing like their digital film simulations. Kodak aren’t making anything like that. If Fuji quit film completely, people might start to abandon film if they don’t like the Kodak warmer tones. On the plus side, Fuji are making an analog instant square camera, so they are not abandoning it completely.
Fantastic video for a guy that is just starting to shoot film in medium format! Very useful and informative.
hey thanks for checking it out! we're happy to hear it was useful! because it was expensive, man!
How did you shoot the 800 with the bright natural light and copious amounts of bokeh? ND filter? If so what type was it and how many stops. It looked very neutral and unaffected by filtering or refraction of high f stop.
This is one of the most interesting and useful videos I've seen in a long time. So useful when I consider which film to try next. Currently I shoot 35mm film and wonder if the same parameters and characteristics of the 120 film stocks you compared here would apply equally to 35mm? Would your comparison have been essentially the same if you were shooting these films in 35mm instead of 120?
hi, thanks for checking out our channel! we're glad you thought the info was helpful. yes, the characteristics should be comparable on 35mm.
I put an old Minolta AF7000 film camera back into use a few months ago and asked what was the best B&W and to a note most said Ilford XP2 400 film (C41). Mind, the Minolta isn't a medium format camera but I thought the grain was not bad.
I liked the results that I achieved with the Ilford.
best comparison video on the tubes
Wow, thanks! Glad you found it worthwhile!
fantastic video guys! I shoot most of these films in 120, this is really helpful, and it's very nice to see someone else's opinions on these films, thank you so much!!
hey chang, thanks for checking out our video. we're glad you liked it.
Awesome content. Do you know the chems (deletions, temps...) the lab used (for B&W)? So much of the look from film is in the development. Thanks for making the scans available. Also love Silver Lake as a location but I would of like to see a little more control lighting from a studio. Thanks Jay P. for putting this out there
Hi Tim, thanks for your feedback. We'll keep it in mind for next time.
My experiences with Kodak and Fuji colour films (from prior to 2006 when I switched to digital) was that Fuji had the better rendition of the greens and blues in a scene; whereas Kodak the yellows and reds (allegedly their respective corporate colours). So I used to have two bodies (one with Fuji and one with Kodak) as I do travel photography when I had a lot of blue sky or sea I would go for my Fuji; whereas a golden field of wheat would be on my Kodak. When I was shooting slides it was Fuji all the way. Finally and I never came to the bottom of this. I felt Kodak was always less sharp (like a pulp) when compared to Fuji; so more 'dreamy scenes' suited better. The Fuji velvia 50 was very dreamy too/saturated but I'm talking about their respective 100 ISO varieties. I was told a few times by the developing labs that Kodak would be developed with whatever chemicals; whereas Fuji demanded more precision; so I do not know if this is part of the explanation for sharpness differences but at some point I switched to slides so I got rid of the lab-variable and ultimately to digital to get rid of the film variable. By the way film is as you know sensitive to environmental conditions and shelve-time (so things like heat influence it as well as how long has it been since it left the factory doors) and as a travel photographer it was a pain to obtain fresh-film at the source and then carrying and keeping my stock in regulated temperatures plus when going through X-rays having to request that the film is hand inspected rather through the machines, I used to carry it in led pouches and the like. I'm saying this because each film travels very differently and if you buy a film lets say that's been around half the word to reach India and has been seating for a year in an Indian store vs. buying it from a supplier next to the factory the moment there is a fresh delivery-batch (and yes my supplier would inform me when there was a fresh batch coming in and they would keep it in a fridge) you will obtain very different results with the same film.
Hi, Dimitris, wow so much passion! I love it! Thanks for your insight.
We didn't try to do any technical testing, just what looks good to the eye, since most people won't get down and dirty with it.
overall pick - bw : iiford 100bw / color : kodak portra 160
great picks. portra 400 and 800 look good in different situations.
Great video. Love seeing these kind of comparative videos. Very helpful. Fuji Acros 100 has been a favourite of mine for many years, but Ilford Delta 100 has, more recently, become a more affordable option and provides a similar look, though Acros is fairly unbeatable for me and what I like.
Good to hear what you think. Thanks for sharing!
JP, did you shoot all of the stock at the manufacturer rated ISO? I enjoyed this upload quite a bit. I wish there was a way to compare a comparably-sized digital sensor to the 2 1/4 film with the same lens you used for the shoot. The scanned film vs. direct digital image comparison would also be educational.
I had to come back and watch this again, something I rarely do. Thanks for doing this. I would love to see the same testing done for landscape/cityscape work.
Hey Craig, thanks for your suggestion. We will take that into consideration when shooting our film series! Please subscribe to get updated on our newest film videos!
Great “apples to apples” comparisons. Watching this makes me want to get my hands on some of that CineStill 800. Thanks for posting this useful information.
Thanks for watching! We are releasing another video on film tomorrow, so stay subscribed to watch it!
Loved this comparison! Thanks for sharing. I would love to see more videos on analog photography!
Hi Richard, we like making videos about film too. It's going to be a regular series on our channel.
I have watched this video several times tohelp decide on a film stock which I should use. Thank You!
Correct me if im wrong. I level it from 1-3. 1 is the smallest, 3 biggest.
Fuji Across 100 black 2, grain 1, contrast 2.5
Ilford 100 black 2.5, grain 1, contrast 3
Ilford 125 black 2.3, grain 1, contrast 2.7
Kodak TMax 100 black 3, grain 1, contrast 2
Ilford Delta 400 black 2.5, grain 2, contrast 2.6
Ilford HP5 400 black 2.3, grain 2, contrast 2.4
Ilford XP2 Super 400 black 3, grain 2, contrast 3
Kodak TMY-2 400 black 2.6, grain 1.8, contrast 3
Kodak Tri-X 400 black 2.6, grain 1.5, contrast 2.4
Ilford Delta 3200 black 2.3, grain 3, contrast 2.4
Interesting how I hear so many good things about Cinestill 800 but mostly pretty lukewarm things about Cinestill 50. That red halation was very noticeable!! Thanks for the video!
hi bradley, thanks for your response. try them out for yourself. you might get different results.
I hope you do this more often. Please! It's very educational.
RIP Fuji Acros 100
It will be missed for sure!
And just like that, Acros has risen from the dead. Zombie film!
Well done gentlemen! I appreciate the comparisons. Thanks, Tony
Hey Tony, thanks! We're glad you found the information useful!
Thank you for this very useful video! Even if I didn't choose my medium format camera yet, your comparison helps me a lot with my 35mm films choice. Thanks guys 👍
hey! we're so happy you found the information helpful. Glad you were able to find use in it.
Well Ektar was not made for shooting people or skin, it always adds the red hue to it, but its superb for landscape, architecture etc
Kodak Ektar 100 is great film for land scapes on a sunny day. Greens, reds and blues look lovely and saturated but that is also why it is a bad film for portraits. Portra 160 is a legend in portrait photos.
all true statements!
No Provia or Velvia is kind of disappointing as somebody who shoots pretty much that only for colour!
Thanks for the video! Really helpful
thanks for checking it out! please subscribe
Wow!! Thank you for doing this!!! Very informative!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching :)
Great to see film discussed in the era of digital overload. Thank you.
hey, steven! thanks for checking it out! hope you found the information useful.
Nice video! The Kodak Gold 200 is missing. For me a must have when it comes to style and look in analog negative films.
Fantastic, thanks for this comparison, long live film !
Ektar 100 is great for landscapes, environmental. What about Velvia 50? What about Foma products? They're great.
I Don't understand the meaning of this! The way a film react is mostly due to the kind of developper you use, the processing time, and the temperature of your baths. A Tri-x film for instance was looking completly different if you did process it in Rodinal, Bauer Diafine, D76, etc... Roughly (depending of processing temperature), the Rodinal gave you a high separation power (Sharpness effect) with higher grain ratio compare to the Diafine which was high in nuances of grey and very fine grain. You may be able, within certain physical limits, to adapt the film you like to suits your goals. By the way I'm shooting and processing films since 1965.
Thank you for the clarification. I've seen quite the opposite results of some films in print and could not understand why.
Thank you for this video, I've been shooting my landscape photographs on Ektar for a while now. But I might just have to try shooting portra 160.
Give it a whirl. Enjoy your shoots!
After trying many different films over the last several decades, my favorite has been Fujifilm ACROS 100. I like it for its contrast vs smooth gradation of tones along with its very fine grain. The blacks are deep and rich and the whites are brilliant. Having said that, I'm devastated by the news of Fujifilm no longer producing it. I've stocked up for now but will dread the day I shoot my last roll.
that stuff is going to be worth something once they stop producing acros.
Thanks for the video! I love Delta 3200 and Portra 800 for low light situations. Can you make a video of some long exposures using these, it would be cool to see your tests :D
Great suggestion! I have added it to our list. Thanks!
I use Ektar 100 for landscapes and architecture Portra 160 for portraits of any photo where to subjets are people and Fuji Across 100 for all B&W adjusting contrast with filters or in post. My advice is to find the best film stocks for you and stick with them. At least until they become unavailable.
Nice video, when shooting landscape Ektar will pump up. More contrast and special for red color rendering
Thanks for sharing your experience!
thank you! very helpful video I really like the portra 160 for color and B&W I prefer ilford delta 100, I like Kodak ektar 100 for landscapes never had the opportunity to shoot with cinestill films yet but looking forward to do some portraits with cinestill 800.
Sounds like fun. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for making the video! I picked up some really good info here.
I'd like to add that two types of 120 film I've 'experimented' with are RolleiRetro 400 B&W, and Lomography Color ISO 800. The effect of the RolleiRetro is hard to describe, in that is has an almost 'gauze' look to it, similar I guess to the old Hollywood glamor shots, but oddly enough it doesn't lack sharpness or definition. The Lomography color basically floored me with its lack of grain or noise--you know, the kind of junk you'd expect anything with "lomo" in its name to have--and its levels of saturation.
(For 35mm, although I like Tri-X ISO 400, I have no qualms with shooting Cheap old Kentmere. In fact, I have fount that it has excellent linear tonal gradation from the lower to mid-ends.)
Although HP5 and Tri-X and Portra (all ISO 400) are all my standard gotos, I think you guys did a great job on selling me on TMax ISO 100 for certain stuff.
Cheers!
Thanks for watching and sharing your insight on the film :) We will keep that in mind next time we shoot!
Just took my first 120 roll of Ilford XP-2 Supper 400 on my Hasselblad 500CM, I like it a lot - the contrast.
Hi, Stuart! Thanks for checking out our channel. We would love to see the shots you got :) Put it on our Facebook group
I'm missing fomapan here!!! (it's good and very affordable, here in czech republic it's suuuper cheap, since it's produced here) ...but you did a good job otherwise, Thanks!
that's a film stock I've not tried yet. It wasn't available at our local film shop. We tried to get all the major players at least.
Foma is certainly worth a try! It is not my film of choice but it is a quality product and at some places you can get it for half the price of Kodak and Fuji films.
how cheap is it in czech?
would love to have seen you include Provia 100 (e-6) in this comparison...but still, great work (as usual)!..thanks
Reminded me why I love Tri-X. As for color, Portra is beautiful on skin but I like other color films when no people are in the shot.
Good to hear your preferences. Thanks for sharing!
Hell of a comparison, thanks for that. I'm trying to download the scans but it seems there is a technical problem ... I can't enter my e-mail anywhere.
A comparison to the digital RAW files would also be great if possible. I would be very grateful for that! Stay healthy and keep up the good work!
Glad you liked the comparison. Thanks for watching!
Nice but there are so many problems unaccounted for variables. How the lab developed them and how they were scanned really confuses the results. Typical labs have film profiles for each fit they scan.
Hi - thank you for a another informative video - in B/W photography, developer makes such a difference - what developer were you using? Thank you-
We sent the film to Richard Photo Lab.
Great video! I really like Ektar 100 and soon I will try some Fuji stuff before they will be gone :( Today I was developing a Fomapan 100 120 with stand development, can't wait to see the results.
Post your results to our facebook page! We'd love to see what you got! It's sad that Fujifilm won't make any stock :( We really liked how they held up!
The Slanted Lens yes I will do next week! Stay tuned 😄
Very helpful! Thanks a lot!
Glad it helped! Thanks for wathcing!
If you overexpose Portra a little, you get a creamy glow that really works with portraiture. I would have loved to shoot Acros before they discontinued it
Thank You!!! Great video!
You are welcome! Thanks for watching!
Super informative. Thank you 🙏🏽
Thanks for watching! Stay subscribed for more of our film videos
This was awesome!!!!!!!! I didn't even realize how much of a difference there was (I pretty much just thought other than changing the iso, there wasn't too much difference between film....pleasently found out I was wrong).
What about doing this with 35mm stocks? Ones that don't come in medium format
Hi Barrett, that's a great suggestion. Maybe in the future. We are still financially recovering from this one.
The Slanted Lens I bet it wasn't cheap to make. The viewers appreciate it though from what I can see 😊
Why didn't you guys shoot slide film too? Provia and Velvia should have been included!
We did a video on slide film here: ua-cam.com/video/xEpSRtcc4zM/v-deo.html
What a great comparison !
Very nice comparison
Some post processing has been done to the Ilford XP2 shots, there’s no way they’re that contrasty out of the box.
It’s a very low contrast but lovely film.
All of these have been scanned which means a person has made color decisions about them and they have most likely added contrast.
Thanks for this amazing video... THANKS!!!
YOU'RE WELCOME!
Should note, cinestill 800 is kodak vision3 500, which has been "pushed" to 800. If you shoot the cine at 500, or shoot at 400 and open one stop, you'll get a far better look.
Thanks for sharing you knowledge!
kodak portra 160 - cyan black , golden skin tone and dreamy overall look, love it
there's a reason why portra is the standard.
there are many other cheap options such as fomapan, arista edu, and holga which i would be far more interested in seeing as there are few other videos on the subject
Thanks for your suggestion we will keep that in mind when making our next film videos.
Wonderful Video! thanks
Glad you liked it! Hope you enjoy shooting film!
Great job, Gents!! As far as Black + White goes, you can have my Tri-X when you pry it from my cold, dead hands
hahaha...people are in love with that stock. and i can see why!
The scanner actually effect color way more than films. I use Hasselblad x5 for most of my work but I do have a 4000ed. Different film behavior super differently when use different scanner.
How much DPI do you use when scanning??
I used the Kodak TMAX400 120 film for many years, I shot it at 200 ASA/ISO and developed it in a thin solution for a long time with very few and very gently agitations, in that way the film had more grey tones and had still very good contrast, in modern words, larger dynamic range. I guess you can do the same with a Ilford Delta 400 film. Of paper I used Ilford Multigrade. Made great images from my 6x6 Hasselblad !
Sounds like you have a great process. Thanks for sharing!
@@TheSlantedLens Thank you.
Agreed with previous comments about scanning. Color film is a mystery to me for that reason...I process and scan my own BW film at home, but I don't even bother with color because the scanning is a nightmare. It's tough to get a read on the true nature of color films and I don't like to have to edit the colors so much to make it the way I want.
it is a tricky process that's for sure. would love to see some of your bw pictures on our facebook page!
For color, Fuji Pro400H is so pretty, but if you stick with Portra you get a pretty consistent color science across 160, 400 and 800. The 400 is especially strong technically as it incorporates technology from Kodak's Vision line of cinema films. Kodak Portra 400 is unquestionably the most advanced color negative film in existence and it's a winner every time.
Thanks for your comment. It's so interesting to see how the different film stocks react.
Which developer did you use? Basically, all films look the same depending on a good pair, and afterwards agitation, temperature etc so your tests are nice, however every person should pick a film he likes. For me, the best right now is FP4+ and Rodinal - gives me lots of grey and is cheaper than Tmax ;)
we used richard's photo lab. thanks for checking out our channel. do you have any photos of FP4+?
I love the Fuji pro 400, any girl would love the fairer look! Could you also review ektachrome?
We haven't done that but here is a lesson that talks about transparency film that might interest you: ua-cam.com/video/xEpSRtcc4zM/v-deo.html
Very nice. Informative. Thanks.
Thanks, Merlin! It took a lot of coordination and money lol
No colour positive film?
There are relatively few shops in the US that still do E-6 development. If you're not developing at home, you're shipping it halfway across the country.
We just bought all the available stocks that were are Sammy's camera, a local shop here in LA.
Not all film is represented here, but most of the major players are.
That is true! It seems like film is going through a second-life resurgence though! Fingers crossed that it makes it for another 100 years.
Does the fact that all your films were 120 format impact the final results? Would they look the same if you used 35mm negative versions of these same film stocks? Based mostly on your video comparing these film stocks, I have tried Tri-X 400, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford HP5, Portra 400, and Kodak Ektar in order to figure out what look I like best. I have also bought some TMax 100 that is loaded now but has not been shot. I haven't tried Porta 160 yet, nor have I gotten my developed negatives of HP5 back from the lab yet. It's all very exciting! Currently shooting with a Nikon FE2 and a Minolta XD11.
the 35mm versions of these stocks should be the same. you might have some slight variation based on your processing
Grain will be more prominent in 35mm, for a given print size. So the grainier films will show up more at 35mm.
Great video guys!!! Thanks a lot for the comparison!!! What I have learned is that the amount of grain depends also a lot of the lap. Also, the scanned colors depend on the lab too. My lab knows How I want the print and how I want the scans, so my portra 800 has a bit different look than yours.I had 60x40cm prints from my Mamiya 645 for an exhibition. There was no grain visible....
I was traveling with the portra 800 and the Ilford delta 400 medium format film for street portraits around the world - these are my favorites. If it gets really dark I used the delta3200
Hey! Thanks for your insight! Would love to see the pictures you shot on Portra 800.
Sure: www.street-portraits.eu/ All color portraits is the portra 800, all black and white daylight is the delta 400 (sometimes pushed), all large format is tmax100, enjoy :)
Some of my favorite:
www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/alias-university-way-ne-the-ave-seattle-2/
www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/jack-golden-gate-park-san-francisco-1/
www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/payton-3rd-av-nyc/
www.street-portraits.eu/albums/film-portraits/content/der-machatschek-wird-er-gleich-lachen-oder-wird-er-grantigma-was-hoit-anfoch-ned/
I just discovered your channel. You old timer have more energy and fun inside you than any of the younf hipsters out there. Il love the way you do this!!
Welcome aboard! So glad you like my energy!
LOVED THIS.