What film for my Eos 5

I want to use my Eos 5 again and it has been so long not to sure what film to put in it

I want film that I can get developed (Negs only so I can scan in and print any images I feel are worth printing)

As I am using a scanner is there any other types of 35mm film I can use, etc.

Would like some ideas on the process now?
Films type recommendations, will generally buy in bulk 5 or 10 at a time.
I will just be generally shooting day time, more in the brighter weather, some street photog etc. maybe some birding, even some football just for fun.

Thanks

Any and all films can be scanned. There are a few considerations, though. First, 35mm film will not give great results when scanned unless you're using a dedicated film or slide scanner. Here are some general principles about scanning film:

1) Slide film is by far the most difficult to scan, because it has a huge density range. In other words, you can have a whole lot of detail in very thin (light) areas of the slide and in very dense (dark) areas of the slide. This presents a challenge for scanning, but generally 35mm film scanners do well.

2) Color negative film (print film) is the easiest to scan because it has the lowest density range (which is why it has the highest dynamic range). The difficulty with negative film is converting the inverted image with its orange mask to a normal image, but most scanners have software that can do it for you.

3) Black and white film is generally easy to scan unless you have some very dense regions (i.e. overexposed).

As for film choices, the easiest for you to get processed will be C-41 films, which are color negative films plus a couple black and white films (Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 Super). But that doesn't mean they're the best. Black and white films and color negative films have HUGE dynamic range. Slide films have tremendous color rendition.

Here's what I like to use:

Slide films (E-6 processing)
For portraits -- Fujichrome Astia (this may be my overall favorite film)
For scenery -- Fujichrome Velvia (gorgeous color, high contrast, high saturation), Fujichrome Provia (same as Velvia but slightly less contrast and saturation), and Kodak E100VS (similar to Velvia, but better purples and greens)

Color negative (C-41) films
These are some of your options:
Kodak -- Portra 160 NC and Portra 400 NC (natural color), great for portraits
Kodak -- Portra 160 VC, Portra 400 VC, Portra 160 UC (more saturated, better for scenery), there may also be an ISO 800 Portra but I don't know
Fuji -- Reala (a good all around film)
Fuji -- 160 Pro-S and 400 Pro-H, relatively unsaturated, good for both portraits and all-around use
Fuji -- 160 Pro-C and 800 Pro-Z, more saturated, good for portraits and great for scenery

True Black and White films
Traditional emulsions:
Ilford FP4+ (ISO 125) and HP5+ (ISO 400), Kodak Plus-X 100 and Tri-X 320 -- as good as any film gets

Modern emulsions (less dynamic range, less "magic" to them, but smaller grain)
Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 3200 (great in medium format), Fuji Acros, and Kodak Tmax 100, Tmax 400, and Tmax 3200

Also the two C-41 black and white films I mentioned above are excellent and you can get them developed at your local drug store.

I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.

Many Thanks DrPablo for taking the effort to type all that, and I certainly will be looking at some of those films.

I will prob get a Epsom V700 or a V750 scanner soon

I agree with Dr Pablo on the Astia and Fuji NPH / Pro-H, NPZ / Pro-Z.
For B&W I have a preference for Fuji Neopan 1600.
Or maybe Tmax 3200.

I *really* didn't like the Kodak C41 films. (Or any Kodak color film except EPP and EPJ-320T )

As for scanners: I have a Nikon Coolscan V and it's great.

crazyskillz07 wrote in post #6108901
I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.

You know I felt the same way about a month ago. I was browsing a local used camera shop and they had a developing tank so I picked it up on a whim... a week later I had my first home developed roll! I really enjoy the process. I bought an Epson V500 too.

I honestly think it's not that hard and you do not need a darkroom. I know colour film is more complex to develop though.

Here are the two resources that got me going

Here is part 1 of a 4 part series on how to develop your own film.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=6P9bNcBE_Hc

And here is an Ilford tutorial. I printed it out.

http://www.ilfordphoto​.com/Webfiles/20062916​3442455.pdf


Here is a sample from my first roll of Kodak T-max 100 scanned with my epson V500

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

MaDProFF wrote in post #6109276
I will prob get a Epsom V700 or a V750 scanner soon

Those are desktop flatbeds, which will be good for large format and decent for medium format, but not that great for 35mm. The Nikon Coolscan is a very good dedicated 35mm scanner, and you can get them for a reasonable price.

crazyskillz07 wrote in post #6108901
I really want to shoot a roll of film and develop it myself. I doubt I will ever get a chance to do this without building a darkroom though.

You don't need a darkroom. You need a little developing tank, which are cheap, you need a developer, and you need a fixer. That's it. For film you use water as your stop bath (for printing you need a chemical stop bath, which is basically just dilute vinegar).

Of course the REAL fun with darkroom work is not in developing film -- it's in printing it!

Color film, whether C41 or E6, is a different ballgame because you need very precise temperature and time control, the chemicals are more noxious, and there are additional steps (like a bleach step).

Go to apug.org if you're interested in more info.

René Damkot wrote in post #6109410
I *really* didn't like the Kodak C41 films. (Or any Kodak color film.

I actually prefer the Kodak C41 films over the Fuji ones with the exception of Pro-Z (NPZ), which I've used a lot lately. I LOVE Portra 160NC and 400 NC for portraits (first photo is 4x5 Portra 160NC), and I love Portra 160 VC for scenery (second photo is 4x5 Portra 160VC).

I've shot a few rolls of E100VS recently -- it's a beautiful slide film, probably with better purples than Velvia and with a bit softer contrast, but I think I prefer Velvia.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Paul! fantastic images! love that second one. So you said that the Epson Flat bed scanners aren't that great for 35mm? It seems to do a good job for me. Maybe my standards are too low? lol

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

The film scanners will hold the film flatter, they'll have a better density range, and a better resolution. Flatbed scanners also have more focus issues than film scanners. But that's a nice scan you've shown. I'm a real slide film lover, but this is where you're more likely to see the difference, because it can be such a challenge to scan. If you want a very large print from any 35mm negative or slide, you'll get better results from a dedicated scanner (or better yet a professional high end scan).

I will look into the scanner side a bit more, as it is pretty important, The reason I was thinking of a flat bed mostly is other options, and I know the Epsom are highly regarded as film scanners as well.

I will certainly look into developing the BW myself, as if you can master that process, and with the cheap bulk buy of films, print cost is just a print off the one or two you like, (even possible make a book like you might with Digtial) it might save me buying a FF digital for a while, the real reason is I want to use FF body with my lenses, and the fun of film

Thanks again all, it is turning into a very useful thread

Nick_b wrote in post #6110118
What kind of improvements can be expected from the Nikon scanner?

4000dpi scan of a motion blurred image, with a 100% crop. Sharpened with the TLR script.

MaDProFF, developing BW film is pretty easy, and there is no reason to even consider a flatbed unless you plan to start shooting MF or LF some day. Printing does require a darkroom, including an enlarger, trays, and safelight. I did all this with a 4x5 enlarger (MUCH bigger than a 35mm enlarger) in a small apartment bathroom a couple years ago when I lived in Boston.

Rene, as I'm sure you know the stated resolution of scanners is a complex topic, and it is almost certain that even the Nikon Coolscan doesn't even remotely approach a true 4000 dpi. I've read a lot of formal scanner tests, and it's only drum scanners and very high end devices like Creo Eversmart Supreme, Imacon, etc that approach that resolution without interpolation.

DrPablo wrote in post #6113250
and it is almost certain that even the Nikon Coolscan doesn't even remotely approach a true 4000 dpi.

It's what the reviews and the specs say.

(Both for the 5000, couldn't find the V)

Then again, at 4000dpi, IMO you're creating very much pixels of one grain particle

You're right that you get down to grains well below 4000 ppi, though that is very film-dependent. You'll hit grain a lot sooner on Delta 3200 than you will on Tmax 100.

The specs for all consumer CCD scanners (including the Nikon film scanners) are misleading. The stated resolution is not the actual optical resolution of the scanner. Even though the scanner produces a 4000 ppi image, much of this detail on CCD scanners is interpolated, and in fact the lower end CCD scanners (i.e. excluding "virtual drum" scanners like the Imacon and Creo) probably don't exceed 2000 ppi in actual resolution.

Still, it's about what you need. I have a Howtek 4500 drum scanner that I just got (haven't even used it yet) and I can tell you now that I will never scan my 8x10 sheet film above 600 ppi. For 35mm I would only go to 4000 ppi (which is a true resolution on drum scanners, up to 12000 ppi on the Howtek 7500) for immense enlargements.

DrPablo wrote in post #6113250
MaDProFF, developing BW film is pretty easy, and there is no reason to even consider a flatbed unless you plan to start shooting MF or LF some day. Printing does require a darkroom, including an enlarger, trays, and safelight. I did all this with a 4x5 enlarger (MUCH bigger than a 35mm enlarger) in a small apartment bathroom a couple years ago when I lived in Boston.

Problem is I do have a load of old photos, I would like to scan and re print some again.
I would like to dabble in just some image making using the flatbed.

But I respect what you say, and I will look a lot harder, into seeing how much better it is to use a dedicated film scanner over a flat bed, if it is noticeable better I will get a dedicated and worry about a flat bed another day, ( I do have a flat bed anyhow in my HP all in one color laser it is not that bad)

This is a shot that was taken in 1955, that was sent to me, it was torn and had selotape marks on it, I scanned it (Photo), and repaired it in CS3, on my HP all in one, it was a 10 by 8 original I think, I printed it at A4 no probs, was pretty pleased really, and the reason why I would like to play with BW film again.

Just amazes me the quality though right back in 1955 of photos

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.