Since the discussion in the former film thread some how derailed J here we give it another go.
One advantage over digital is that with film we have the choice to swap between a long range of “sensors” according to use motive taste etc. But for an amateur to get the overview over this is difficult.
One theme is grain: I think grain in film is not comparable with pixels in digital photo. It is more comparable with noise. In both film and digital noise and grain tends to increase with higher ISO. But film grain can be pleasant to look at and can give this almost material feel while digital noise is something you want to avoid. Its just not nice. Some modern films have grain designed for the scanner. Anybody knows more about this?
Other issues to discuss and were I really question things is tonality. The digital RAW film to my knowledge doubles information density for each doubling of light. This means that the shadows contain far less information than the high lights.
If this is correct I ask myself why RAW formats are made this way and not like an rgb file were the data density is evenly distributed. And how does film compare to this? Does it just as the RAW file have fewer nuances in the blacks than in the whites?
Below is the list of films I can get in 120 format at my photo lab. For some of these I added the comments compiled form the former film thread.
May be you would join me and fill in for each film the specific features like grain latitude, colour or grey tones, scanning contrast etc…
All bad jokes are banned to go to the joke section J
Color negative:
Kodak Portra160NC and 400NC - Very nice neutral colours, made for weddings etc. Scans well. Less contrast is good for scanning. Better to increase contrast in photoshop than decreasing it.
Good latitude, little grain
Kodak Portra 160VC and 400VC - more flashy colors
Kodak Portra 800
Fujicolor Reala 100
Slides:
Kodak EPP 100 Plus
Kodak Ektachrome E100 G - challenging exposure latitude, processing getting difficult
Kodak Ektachrome E100 VS
Kodak Ektachrome 160 T*
Fujichrome Velvia 50
Fujichrome Provia 100 F
BW:
Kodak BPlus-X 125
Kodak Tri-x 400 - Classic grain, nice flexible film. Great latitude. Good film to start with.
Kodak Tri-X 320 TXP
Kodah BPlus-x 125
Kodak 100 T-max - very little grain, great latitude, superb all-rounder Contrast? Tonality?
Kodak T-Max 400
Ilford HP5 -nice grain and deep blacks Latitude? Contrast? Tonality?
Ilford XP2 -super shoots from 100 to 1600 ISO with no pushing in development. (nominal 400 ISO, nicest at 250 ISO) quite contrasty. Tonality?
Ilford FP4 400 ISO
Ilford Neopan
Ilford Delta 3200 - grainy can be exposed to 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO. Grain? Latitude?
Ilford Delta 400 - little grain
Ilford Delta 100
One advantage over digital is that with film we have the choice to swap between a long range of “sensors” according to use motive taste etc. But for an amateur to get the overview over this is difficult.
One theme is grain: I think grain in film is not comparable with pixels in digital photo. It is more comparable with noise. In both film and digital noise and grain tends to increase with higher ISO. But film grain can be pleasant to look at and can give this almost material feel while digital noise is something you want to avoid. Its just not nice. Some modern films have grain designed for the scanner. Anybody knows more about this?
Other issues to discuss and were I really question things is tonality. The digital RAW film to my knowledge doubles information density for each doubling of light. This means that the shadows contain far less information than the high lights.
If this is correct I ask myself why RAW formats are made this way and not like an rgb file were the data density is evenly distributed. And how does film compare to this? Does it just as the RAW file have fewer nuances in the blacks than in the whites?
Below is the list of films I can get in 120 format at my photo lab. For some of these I added the comments compiled form the former film thread.
May be you would join me and fill in for each film the specific features like grain latitude, colour or grey tones, scanning contrast etc…
All bad jokes are banned to go to the joke section J
Color negative:
Kodak Portra160NC and 400NC - Very nice neutral colours, made for weddings etc. Scans well. Less contrast is good for scanning. Better to increase contrast in photoshop than decreasing it.
Good latitude, little grain
Kodak Portra 160VC and 400VC - more flashy colors
Kodak Portra 800
Fujicolor Reala 100
Slides:
Kodak EPP 100 Plus
Kodak Ektachrome E100 G - challenging exposure latitude, processing getting difficult
Kodak Ektachrome E100 VS
Kodak Ektachrome 160 T*
Fujichrome Velvia 50
Fujichrome Provia 100 F
BW:
Kodak BPlus-X 125
Kodak Tri-x 400 - Classic grain, nice flexible film. Great latitude. Good film to start with.
Kodak Tri-X 320 TXP
Kodah BPlus-x 125
Kodak 100 T-max - very little grain, great latitude, superb all-rounder Contrast? Tonality?
Kodak T-Max 400
Ilford HP5 -nice grain and deep blacks Latitude? Contrast? Tonality?
Ilford XP2 -super shoots from 100 to 1600 ISO with no pushing in development. (nominal 400 ISO, nicest at 250 ISO) quite contrasty. Tonality?
Ilford FP4 400 ISO
Ilford Neopan
Ilford Delta 3200 - grainy can be exposed to 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO. Grain? Latitude?
Ilford Delta 400 - little grain
Ilford Delta 100