Hi, people's choice of film doesn't mean much unless you know what subjects they're shooting and why they choose their film for it.
My preferred subjects are reportage / travel / street photography. Over the last couple of years I've been shooting mainly black & white while here in the UK, and mainly using Agfa Scala. This is a very versatile black & white slide film. I don't home-process it, but it's only processed at one lab in the UK and their quality/production controls seem pretty good. Since it's a slide film it means I can see a 1st generation image and don't have to rely on my imagination/subjective judgement to read a negative or a contact sheet. I do occasionally use Tri-X, but again I don't process my own and I've never really been happy with the way other people print contact sheets and proof prints (to say nothing of the cost). Outside this country I tend to shoot Kodachrome 64 and 200, for some of the same reasons that I shoot Scala. I also like the fact that Kodachrome has less tendency to fade than E6 slide films, and that it has a reasonably neutral colour balance, with good skin tones on all skin colours that I've shot. K200 can be pushed to ISO 500. On a recent trip to India I shot slightly more K200 than K64, which was a bit surprising. My choice for colour prints is Supra 100 and 400. Again, I like the relatively neutral colours. It's more versatile than Kodachrome because of the greater exposure latitude and because it has lower contrast. On a simple film-only comparison I actually prefer it to Kodachrome, but its overall cost is much higher than Kodachrome for me. This is because the price of Kodachrome in the UK includes processing. With other films the processing is extra. This puts the price/roll up quite significantly and at 60-70 rolls at a time this makes a difference. Slide films also have an advantage over print films in the digital workflow. Again, because you can see the first generation image as a positive you always know exactly what you've got as a sound basis for comparison with scans and prints. What's more, you don't have to make proof sheets or contact sheets, which can be a major time-saving with a lot of film to process. As to film speed, you'll see that I shoot 64, 100, 200 and 400. I treat 64 and 100 as being more or less the same. The lower speeds are pretty good for sunnier climates, but at the start and end of the day, or in shade, it can be a problem even with fast lenses (f/1.4). 400 is generally pretty good in the UK most of the year because it's so dark here, but it can seriously limit the range of shutter speed/aperture combinations available to you on some older cameras. For instance, the Leica Ms have a top speed of 1/1,000 and many of their lenses have a minimum aperture of f/16. This means that on a sunny-16 day you've only got 2 settings to play with. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 12:27:47 PM, you wrote: > Hi Folks, > I'm new to the list, and a relative neophyte to photography - just upgraded > from my ten year-old K1000 to a ZX-5n, and am looking to expand my > photographic knowledge. > I've traditionally used GC 135-36 ISO 400 color print film (Kodak MAX) for > its "versatility" (as the box proclaims it "works for all conditions";) or > the TMAX 100 B&W, and am curious about what film/ISO choices (both color and > B&W) people use 'as a habit' - allowing for exceptions/special circumstances > (which I am also interested in reading about!...). > Namaste, > Dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
