Camera dudes and dude-ettes, which 400 speed film is best?

[Deja Q]

Just curious. I've read many reviews for both. The good ones make sense. The bad ones, particularly for the Kodak film, are so all-over-the-place that the film is either incredibly bad or that the photographers were a bunch of nitwits...

[jmowreader]

1. There are two ISOs that don't make sense any more

That's 100 and 400.

100 speed because 200 speed is really good and a stop faster, and 400 speed because 800 speed is good and a stop faster.

And as far as "better," which is better--Coke or Pepsi? Unless film is exceptionally atrocious, like Orwocolor or some of the Chinese brands, it's a Coke-Pepsi question.

I would get a short roll of both, shoot them both in the same area, get the film processed and decide for yourself which is "better."

[Deja Q]

2. They still make 50...

50 seems silly unless you've got a real need. (but under those circumstances, 70mm format would be better.)

Isn't 800 grainier than 400?

[jmowreader]

9. A little, but it's not bad

I use ISO 50 transparency film in my RB-67--specifically, Fuji Velvia. Unbelievable stuff. You can enlarge it to quite unbelievable percentages without seeing grain--a 2000-percent enlargement is not out of the question.

Medium-format and large-format film is almost invariably really slow--Kodak has a couple ISO 400 offerings and Agfa has a couple, but otherwise it's all 200-speed and slower. The most popular medium-format color print film in history remains Kodak VPSIII, and that's ISO 160. If you can figure out where they came up with that, please tell me because I haven't been able to and I've shot lots of it. You shoot slow film in a big camera because you're looking for no grain.

[Demonaut]

3. Give me Ilford Pro any day, BW is the only way to go

unless your subject has freckles

[maggrwaggr]

4. I'm pretty fond of the B&W T-max 400 (kodak)

I was just in the darkroom tonight making prints from this film. I think it's really nice stuff.

As far as color, well I never go higher than 200 ISO. It's just not worth it.

[Deja Q]

6. Grain, I presume? Do you use a zoom lens (500mm+)?

They recommend very bright conditions (clear sunny midday) or slower film (800-1600...)

I prefer not having to use 400, but my 600 and 1000mm lenses get way too dark due to the smaller aperture and I want to capture a still image.

[maggrwaggr]

8. well yeah, that's the tradeoff

those lenses are inherently slower, so you need more light, faster film, or the ability to shoot at a slower shutter speed.

I rarely go over 100mm myself. Anything longer, to me, is necessary only if shooting sports, or wildlife, or types of photojournalism where you need to pick somebody out of a crowd of something.

[BiggJawn]

5. Fuji has better colour saturation, IMO.

And I've shot a lot of diferent kinds of film in 30-odd years.

[theoceansnerves]

7. fuji

you can get some really wild colors with the fuji. i recently tried that hd max, colors are a bit muted but it's got pretty damn fine grain. i'd stick with the fuji especially if it's being processed on a fuji machine.