Whats the best available 35mm film and why ?

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
Yes
O.k I've been playing with my inherited film cameras for a while now (all 35mm) but have always used what ever film I have found cheap on ebay , This has normally been Kodak Colour plus 200 but if I were to now try higher end film what in your opinion would make the best general all round film and why ? (colour and black and white) Is there a big difference from cheapo to higher end film ? Do certain films suit certain cameras ?
 
I wouldn't say certain films suit specific cameras.

You choose the film for a specific purpose/outcome/effect...
 
I don’t think there’s really an answer to this, other than people stating their own preferences and opinions. I’d suggest looking at Flickr groups for films you’re thinking about trying to see if you like the overall look (bearing in mind that different development and post-processing can make a big difference to the final look), and then giving the films a try for yourself.

In terms of black and white, I’ve not found a film I dislike yet, but Tri-X, HP5+, Adox Silvermax, & Fuji Acros are some that I’ve taken a particular liking to. Fomapan is nice too (and cheap), but I’ve found the film quality can sometimes be a bit lesser, with the occasional small sooty specs on the negatives.
 
... what in your opinion would make the best general all round film and why ? (colour and black and white)
What would suit me, may not suit you ... but as you asked (and bearing in mind I hardly ever shoot fillum these days ...) as a general all round colour negative film Kodak Gold 200 - but for serious work I'd use Kodak Ektar 100 - the latter has a very fine grain and can be quite saturated which is generally very good for landscapes, it is also good for portraits too imo. In slide film I liked provia and velvia, probably used more provia but didn't really shoot that much slide (very little margin for error too!!).

Caveat :: not sure if these films are still available as it is a while since I bought any ...


Is there a big difference from cheapo to higher end film ?
Don't know for sure now, there used to be, the cheaper film had a tendency for colour shifts/drifts and often lacked contrast and colour depth imo (again from memory) ... some cheap film had colour casts too ... modern production may have eliminated some of this though.

Do certain films suit certain cameras ?
Not that I am aware of, more choose the film for the shooting situation ... e.g for colour neg and landscapes I'd choose Ektar

It has been a long time since I shot film, the last was the challenge on here (using a single use 35mm camera) ...
 
I'm not calling you silly, but it's a silly question, really. And films for certain cameras - forget it!

You just try everything and learn its character. Or you could, if life wasn't so short. But the opinions of others are no substitute for direct experience. So just bang about, as wildly as you like, and soak up your own feedback from the results.

Photography's meant to be playful, But it surely helps to get the exposure right, and judge what goes into the frame. Play with focus, perspective, and angle of view. Sometimes its a dialogue between what's in the photographer's control and what's accidental. Embrace that.

An all-round film? You've already got it.
 
Try everything! Keep notes. Make sure you can tell afterwards what film you used for what folder of image files... :D:D:D

One thing worth saying, bizarrely the cheaper (consumer) films often keep better than the more expensive (pro) films; keep the latter in your fridge or freezer. And someone mentioned Ektar, lovely stuff but IIRC a bit more sensitive to getting the right exposure, and can easily get colour shifts.

But yes, Tri-X, definitely. It's a classic.
 
Portra is a lovely film, and most of my pics involve people - the colours and tones are just perfect!
 
A film camera is a film camera; it wont make much odds really what film you chuck in it. End of the day, 'The Camera' is little more than a light tight box to hold the film, while it's exposed. The make ad model and construction of that box has very little influence on anything.....
To offer extremes, if you pick up a plastic 'toy' 35mm camera, the film transport mechanism is probably rather crude. It likely has no pressure plate to hold the film against the 'trap' when you press the shutter, just plastic ribs on the door, to hold it roughly in the right place, and a good chance that they are curved to compensate for a rather dire wobbly plastic lens. But it'll take photo's! Only slightly further up the grades, most 35mm cameras will have a more accurately made film trap and a proper sprig loaded back-plate to hold film against the trap accurately, lenses are likely much more accurately made, and likely interchangeable; the camera body a lot more rigid to hold everything in place more accurately, but beyond that, as far as the camera goes, the only real differences are likely to be in the transport mechanism, and whether winding the film on or back in the can is likely to scratch it, or if the body has light leaks that will let light in to fog the film etc.

Practically, the actual camera shouldn't make very much odds what so ever... the film will, and the lens will, the camera not so much.
In years past, there were many who would buy incredibly cheap, usually East-German or Russian made cameras like the Practika or Zenit, and then fit very expensive Pentax or Ziess lenses to them, and explain that the camera was just light tight box for film, so they put their money to the lens, and skimped on the camera to buy better film.

AS to the film.... a lot of what I shot twenty-thirty years ago was on ultra-cheap 'petrol-station' or bulk-loaded stock, an awful lot very low rent Croatian Konica copy emulsion, and Konica film was often not that wonderful to start with! Looking back at the archive, if anything, I probably rue not buying better film the most.... B-U-T.. looking at it? On a student budget, I probably wouldn't have ANY photo's if I had been too precocious about the film, and more, using 'cheap' film like that, I did a lot of home processing, to help keep costs in check, and more, was encouraged to have a go at stuff like push/pull processing, shooting & developing it an ASA rating other than 'box'.... particularly push processing relatively 'slow' film to high ASA ratings, looking for the high-grain, high-contrast effects associated with 1960's reportage and particularly 'rock' shots, when shooting gigs at the SU bar! Again, on review quarter century later they are far from wonderful, and the high-grain + contrast effect isn't even that pronounced... but hey, I got piccies!
Others in the era would, far more often than I, 'pull' process, rating common ASA film much lower, say shooting 100ASA stock at perhaps 25 or 50ASA to get a much finer grain and wider tonal rage from it, and possibly even using an expensive fine-gran developer in the 'mix' to get the most from it.. and some more affluent folk, would continue to do that sort of thing, even with more expensive 'better' film stock, chasing 'ultimate' image quality.... And THEN you have the myriad permutations of paper, chemicals and processing you an do under the enlarger to make an actual print!!!!!! And even more obsessing over the 'best' brews and materials!

Which is all to sort of point out that in the overall equation, the film choice alone is but a tiny part, the camera you put it in almost inconsequential, and, if you are merely shooting over-the-counter film, and paying for over-the-counter Develop & Print, yo are abdicating your possible influence over final mage quality to literally no more than your choice of film and camera, and expecting the difference to be made, (as is so often the common contemporary culture,!) Merely down to your consumer choices, and rather missing the bigger picture....
And if you are merely going to scan to digital?!?!?!?!?!?

In answer to the question, basically its the wrong one!

The kit matters very little. How you use it, and what you are hoping to achieve, is key, and THEN having the kit, and knowing how to use it to achieve your ends, almost entirely 'all'.

Look at photo's created by the 'old-masters' from the 1930's or before. Many of them did't even have the option of picking a film over-the counter, they had to make up emulsion in the dark-room and smear it on glass plates! The choice of commercial emulsions, when it was available, was pretty limited, and, to get the results they wanted, they looked at the WHOLE process, from subject to print; and to get the results they hoped, would start NOT with the camera, or the film, but with the subject, setting the scene properly, lighting it how they wanted with artificial lights,, or waiting for the 'best' natural light they could get to get what they hoped. Then into the dark-room to develop and print, and yet more choices and dexterity and know-how applied to create the finished result they hoped for from what they had got.. in which the film choice ad messing with the actual camera were only a very tiny fraction of the whole deal...

And back to those results! Look at some of the incredible studio shots from 1930's Hollywood! Or the stunning landscapes that have come out of Russia taken pre-WWI and their communist revolution... all taken with incredibly crude cameras, and very very crude 'film' a lot of either actually home made! All achieved with know-how not the cheque-book! I theory... with that sort of know-how, and the patience to apply to, you aught be able to achieve similarly stunning results, without even buying a camera! Let alone film!

As to what contemporary 35mm film to buy, if you want 'better' results than you get from e-bay offerings or the more available consumer stock.... answer is Richard-Prior, 'Vote None of the Above'! 35mm was inordinately compromised from the start to use relatively 'cheap' and 'available' movie stock, and an awful lot of the technology chucked at 35mm film cameras used pretty much 'only' to limit the short-comings of the small-format... f 'better' s really that important after know-how to get the most from it, the answer is probably simpy NOT 35mm... go 120 roll-film Medium format or cut sheet Large-Format......

BUT, you are still going to be in a situation where its a question of applying know-how, not buying from menu it get the best out of anything, and using know-how to match what you buy to what you hope to achieve....

Which is where the 'experience' comes in, and you have to shoot a lot of film or a lot of different brands and types, and take control of developing it, with the myriad permutations on that, before you get to scanning or printing, and the possible permutations that may have!

So the start point IS "What do you hope to achieve?" and the entirety, well beyond merely the over-the-coutner choice of film and camera.

And big hint.... a lot of that is compromise. I DON'T shoot 120 roll film very often if at all, let alone Cut-Sheet Large-Format. 35mm is 'good-enough',especially as most often I am going to waste most of what that may offer scanning to digital, and the influence on end result less than best scanning will have. Review of those old cheap-film shots from my college days, more of what I dd take on MF, and applying experience, for ME, the preference is I will pretty much shoot ANY old 'crud'... and I still have half a retail pack of out of date Kodak in the fridge, that has a curious green cast in most cases straight out of camera! But I can correct that in post! How 'good' do I really need or want the results? And Where would I most get that?

It probably isn't most easily and certainly cheaply found in the film, and if there is ANYTHING to be found in the film, it almost certainly wont be found in any great quantity in ANY colour-Print film, that has a heavy smoke-magenta mask in the transparency base, to counter blue-hue in printing, screwing up the possible contrast... so slide film or B&W then... and how much am I prepared to pay for that, and processing; how far am I prepared to go with more considered processing, and printing or scanning, and just how much time and money am I prepared to invest in to get that extra 'quality'... when in all likelihood.... BIGGEST let down to ANY photo I am likely to take, will be outside the camera, and picking poor light or a bad subject!!!

Ultimately, you cannot BUY better quality photo's, you have to MAKE them.... and lessons of the pioneers and old masters is that you can achieve far more 'quality' with the most rudimentary, even home made equipment and materials, know-how & experience, than you ever will with the cheque book. So how good do you want the results to be, and in the compromise, of time, money, effort ad experience, where are you going to get the most 'out' for what you put 'in'?
 
O.k I've been playing with my inherited film cameras for a while now (all 35mm) but have always used what ever film I have found cheap on ebay , This has normally been Kodak Colour plus 200 but if I were to now try higher end film what in your opinion would make the best general all round film and why ? (colour and black and white) Is there a big difference from cheapo to higher end film ? Do certain films suit certain cameras ?

For colour, generally cheaper 'consumer' films will have more grain, higher contrast and saturated colours. More expensive 'Pro' films will have reduced fine grain, and contrast and colour balanced towards a specific use eg Portra for portraits (duh) and Ektar for Landscapes.
Speed of the film plays a part too - there's no point choosing Ektar at 100ISO if you're not shooting in sunlight and need good dof or a fast shutter speed for example.

There's no real better film, just choose one you like the look of and works technically for your specific usage. If you like Kodak Gold, don't feel as though you need a 'better' film as it's cheap. By all means experiment with different films though.
I like Fuji Superia 400 - it's kind of a half way house between Pro and Consumer films, and relatively cheap. Grain that's visable, but not overly so. 400ISO means I can usually shoot it at 200-800ISO depending on conditions.

I like Tri-X for B&W -contrast, grain and can push up to 1600ISO. I'll leave Black and White to someone more experienced in that area though.
 
I like Fuji Superia 400

Well I would include Superia 200 as well for a general purpose film...but unfortunately filmies (for colour negs ) are stuck with scanning (and of course dev), and while cheaper reliable labs can get the dev consistent I find the scanning side it's not so good and needs adjusting in say Photoshop.
Do expensive labs get the results spot on? No idea o_O
 
Everyone has their own requirements from film and as such you can't really say what's best but my own preferences for film are:-

Colour negative 400-Kodak Portra 100-Kodak Ektar,
B&W negative 400-Kodak Tri-X or Bergger Panaro, 100-Fuji Acros
Colour reversal Fuji Velvia 50 if I can get it or if not 100.
 
I believe certain films do suit certain cameras more than others (or at least the tastes of the photographer using them!). My theory is that lenses from years ago tended to give lower contrast results than modern ones, so can produce 'flatter' looking photos in some conditions. Couple that with a lower contrast film and you'll probably notice a difference? I've found the Yashica 635 TLRs I have produce (to my taste and eyesight) nicer looking results with Kodak Ektar 100 and Fuji Acros 100 and Ilford XP2 400 than they seemed to do with Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak TMax. As I said, personal taste will come into this preference though, and this can be subjective.

A few trawls through Flickr searching for the make of camera and looking at the photos others have taken, and the film they used, led me to the choice of film I use in my 635s these days. Anyone doubting the above can do the same and see what they think. However, when doing the 'Flickr search trick', bear in mind not all 'film scans' are of the same quality (some may be hi-res scans from a pro film lab, some may be from a budget home scanner at low resolution), so you'll need to look for general 'trends' over numerous 'Flickr accounts' rather than going off one or two photos from one photographer alone.

On the subject of scans, will you be getting yours done by a film lab or will you be scanning them at home? Some films seem to scan better than others depending on the scanner and scanning software, so this may be a consideration too? Not much point in buying the most expensive film you can find if your scanner doesn't do it justice. Probably less of an issue these days as some modern films have been designed with digital scanning in mind, but it's probably something to consider?

What's the best available 35mm film? Usually the one you have in your camera at the time! :) It's down to personal preference. As others have already said, try doing a search on Flickr for the camera you have and look at the results and the film types used, but bear in mind my comment above about 'scans'.

Available film types I've tried and would use again are Kodak Ektar 100 for sunny/bright weather; Kodak Portra 800 for use in lower light conditions - not cheap but I like the colours and relatively smooth grain for such a fast film; Ilford XP2 400 - cheaper to process than conventional black and white film as it uses the C41 colour developing process and I find it gives nice results when shot at 200 ISO in sunny conditions, which makes it a bit more versatile as this effectively gives me 400 and 200 ISO on the same roll to suit the lighting conditions!

35mm film I have in the fridge waiting to try includes Kodak TMax 400 and Fuji Superia Xtra 400. The Superia was chosen after using the Flickr search method as I wanted a cheapish, fast-ish, film for 'everyday' winter use due to the demise of Poundland Agfa 200, so I'll see how I get on with it. Hope the comments above are useful, and best of luck choosing and finding some films you like, and keep us posted on progress. (y)
 
Last edited:
I was a minilab manager in the 90's and by far the nicest results (at least to my eye) were the prints from Konica film. A slight magenta hue (even with the dicroic filters set correctly) often meant skin tones were quite natural, as opposed to the Fuji films which had a definite yellow hue to them.

Ultimately it's down to personal preference but for tiny grain and saturated colours you'd have to go a long way to beat Fuji Velvia 50 or Kodachrome 25 & 64 reversal films.
 
I was a minilab manager in the 90's and by far the nicest results (at least to my eye) were the prints from Konica film. A slight magenta hue (even with the dicroic filters set correctly) often meant skin tones were quite natural, as opposed to the Fuji films which had a definite yellow hue to them.

Ultimately it's down to personal preference but for tiny grain and saturated colours you'd have to go a long way to beat Fuji Velvia 50 or Kodachrome 25 & 64 reversal films.

Konica films and Kodachrome sadly no more.

I do worry for colour film, both C41 and E6. The amount of film available is on the decline, in contrast to B&W which seems like there's a new kickstarter every month for another B&W film.
 
Konica films and Kodachrome sadly no more.

I do worry for colour film, both C41 and E6. The amount of film available is on the decline, in contrast to B&W which seems like there's a new kickstarter every month for another B&W film.
Cheer up, all being well we'll have Ektachrome available to us again next year. :)
 
Konica films and Kodachrome sadly no more.

I do worry for colour film, both C41 and E6. The amount of film available is on the decline, in contrast to B&W which seems like there's a new kickstarter every month for another B&W film.


..and Konica used to make a 3200asa\iso colour neg film when digis were struggling to get squeaky clean results over 800 iso...there was a rumour once that Kodak thought about introducing a new film that could go up to at least 50,000 ISO, dunno if any truth to this or if it was rejected by the boardroom or the chemists.
 
..and Konica used to make a 3200asa\iso colour neg film when digis were struggling to get squeaky clean results over 800 iso...there was a rumour once that Kodak thought about introducing a new film that could go up to at least 50,000 ISO, dunno if any truth to this or if it was rejected by the boardroom or the chemists.


"Something grainy for the weekend sir?"
 
Cheer up, all being well we'll have Ektachrome available to us again next year. :)

[glass half empty]If Kodak survive, with the recent stock slide there's talk of a second bankruptcy. It is worrying when only two manufacturers do colour film, one is cutting lines, the other is on shaky financial ground[/glass half empty]

..and Konica used to make a 3200asa\iso colour neg film when digis were struggling to get squeaky clean results over 800 iso...there was a rumour once that Kodak thought about introducing a new film that could go up to at least 50,000 ISO, dunno if any truth to this or if it was rejected by the boardroom or the chemists.

Anyhoooo. Would love a new higher speed colour film. Trying to buy up some Natura 1600 before that goes kaput, otherwise it's underexposing Portra 800 or digital for low light colour
 
Thanks for all your input everyone it's really appreciated. I have a couple of rolls of Kodak Colour plus left but as soon as I have shot them I will give a few others a try.
 
"Something grainy for the weekend sir?"

When I returned to 35mm (about 8 years ago to see what I had missed with all these cameras going for peanuts) I had some Konica 3200, used it, and can't find the negs to give an opinion (blasted bad memory) :banghead:
 
Thanks for all your input everyone it's really appreciated. I have a couple of rolls of Kodak Colour plus left but as soon as I have shot them I will give a few others a try.

If you are stuck I have some Poundland Agfa Vista 200 in date.... 7 rolls for what I paid for plus £2.90 2nd class delivery would be £10.
 
Best 35mm film? PanF.

That's in my opinion, the only one I'd feel happy giving reasons for. But my reasons are extremely unlike to match your thinking...

35mm is a small format. Very small. Hence it needs to be enlarged, and the finer grained the film (and the higher the resolution) the better. Hence a slow film is mandated. Black and white because the output from a digital camera beats 35mm in colour hands down *. PanF because Harman are likely to be one of the last players standing, and I'm reasonably certain of a supply during my lifetime. OK, it's PanF Plus now, but I started using it in the 1960s so it's reasonably familiar to me.

The big caveat here has to be that apart from personal preferences of film, there are also personal preferences of subject matter. I'll admit that when photographing sports in the winter (as opposed to winter sports) I used HP3 (sic). PanF wouldn't really work for high shutter speeds in poor light.

* And I don't do colour for anything serious anyway :D
 
35mm is a small format. Very small. Hence it needs to be enlarged, and the finer grained the film (and the higher the resolution) the better.

*shrugs* I've printed up to A4 and not had issues, even with 'consumer' film. Mind you, I like grain (and colour).
Find it weird that some people want film without grain, and others use filters to put grain into digital :LOL:.

For @BADGER.BRAD shot a roll of Kodak Colorplus 200 in a Konica Pop (having never shot it before), and was quite pleased with the results. Nice Grain ;) and saturated colour - held up quite nicely to being shot in low light and/or with flash too.
Will investigate the 400 (Kodak Tmax) and 800 (lomography 800) versions of it.
 
Last edited:
Find it weird that some people want film without grain, :LOL:.

I'm one o_O never liked grain from the beginning of my photography and the more I enlarged (or cropped) in the darkroom, the more it annoyed me...three cheers to nature that we evolved without seeing grain in normal vision. (y)
 
Whether or not I like grain depends on the subject, for most things I like as little grain as I can get, hence me liking Ektar 100, Fuji Across 100, etc.

I know I've posted this before, but as an example of how colour print film has improved in recent years, have a look at these 35mm images taken on Ektar 100 for a lack of intrusive grain (click on the image to view it at full size). (taken in May 2017 with a Canon EOS-3 & 24-105 IS L lens).

Americana by J White, on Flickr

Guard of honour by J White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Wow your those photos are excellent I think I'll put some Ektar 100 on my list of to try films. I think we may be related Mr Badger ! I was given a Canon EOS 500 but the lens was kaput which now I see your photos makes me even more sad about it.
 
Here's some of my Kodak Colorplus from the humble Konica Pop for comparison. Colours seem equally as saturated as Ektar, with the difference being grain - especially noticeable if you compare VW camper shot with Mr Badger's car shot. Most impressed with Colorplus on the Gingerbread man shot - f8 1/125 with no flash, and it's not an underexposed mess

000039040017 (1).jpg




000039040025 (1).jpg




000039040005 (1).jpg
 
Lovely shots with the Kodak Colour plus I must admit to being quite happy with most of the shots I have taken with mine but some of them can be quite grainy (is that a word ?) more noticeable with certain subjects. As I have only every used the colour plus (other than one roll of Ilford XP2 and a couple of rolls of Fuji something or other) I thought it would be nice to try something else. Your Pop has done you proud ! I am thinking of getting something like that or possibly a Olympus trip or RC or one of the Olympus super zoom cameras, something I can carry around whilst on my Bicycle or out hiking/walking.
 
The Trip 35 and 35 RC are both great little cameras and I'd recommend both highly. I also have a Superzoom (the 105 G). It's not as sharp as the aforementioned cameras, but it still works well and having a fully auto point-and-shoot can be a bonus at times. I tend to just leave it at the default 38mm focal length most of the time. The big advantage of the Superzoom range is that they can be had for peanuts - mine cost me £2.
 
I also have a Trip 35, and they're probably one of the best buys for a point and shoot at the moment. You should be able to pick one up for £30-40. They don't seem to have had the hispster tax inflation that things like the Mju and XA have done

Having said that, there is also a lot of lesser know stuff floating around on ebay. Look for anything japanese with a 35-40mm fixed length f2.8 (or better) lens for <£50
 
Back
Top