3:50 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 are T-grain films, much like Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, but FP4 125 Plus and HP5 400 Plus have more random grain structure, much like Kodak Tri-X 400. Allegedly, the random grain structure allows for more tolerance for underexposure, but the visible grain is less refined. T-grain films are often sharper in appearance, but at the detriment of not being as flexible when underexposed.
I would have thought _no_ film can be tolerant of underexposure by definition, but hey ho, I basically have no idea what you're talking about I suppose.
I found it really annoying how the presenters didn't know these facts. Even if they glanced at the official webpage for the films, they would have found out. Really enjoyed the video and found it useful.
6:49 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't here a mistake? I see the same image, sorry. Same pose, same lightning, same everything. If it's not, then this girl is weird because she managed to stay REALLY still.
Very nice comparison. I shot Fuji Pro 400H for the first time this summer and really love my results in sun-soaked New Mexico. I thought it had (for me) the best look with the model except for Portra 160. The others, she seemed to have a very yellow cast in varying degrees except for the CineStill 800. I normally shoot Acros 100 or FP4 125 for B&W and both looked great. Good to know though that if I need to go above 400 or above that the C-41 films all seem to do better w/grain than the B&W.
Appreciate the help you provide to navigate the jungle of films. Even though different lighting conditions would also have been interesting and added a second dimension to your review. Good job.
I'll miss it. Just like I'll miss Velvia when it's all gone too. As far as the film simulations go, it's not all about the look with film, but more so the process compared to the digital process. To each his his own though. It's awesome that we live in an age where you have the choice between film and digital to create images how you want. It's just too bad Fuji seems to be systematically taking away all of their film options. And the fact that they wouldn't sell their pack film machines before destroying them is something that is hard to forgive. Time to stock up if fuji emulsions are the look you like, or support another brand that still supports film.
RIP Acros, it was a really great film. Wonderful reciprocity and liquid smooth highlights, the digital simulations get the tones right but doesn't compare to a well exposed medium format acros frame.
One of the great things about still dabbling in film is trying out a whole bunch of film stocks. So many different looks. Really enjoyed the video. The stocks you picked are all tried and true, lovely, options. I like shooting those, for sure, but often try out less known or less expensive options too. Its amazing how many of the consumer options from Kodak mimic their professional stock cousins. I had not picked up my film cameras for years….in 2022, haning gone back to them, I will not make that mistake again. The cameras and those film tones/ shooting experience is just too fun not to experiment with from time to time.
Excellent! I'm so glad you took the time to shoot and compare these film stocks. To each his own...I really like the T-Max and Ilford products. If I had to pick it would be the Ilford B&W and Portra for color.
Acros also has fantastic reciprocity characteristics--no correction up to 2 minutes, so great for pinhole and long exposures, generally--and pushes well, too. It's quite versatile.
What parameters did you give Richards on the scanning of the film? So much of the look depends on the tech who does the scanning that without that information it's hard to know how understand results. I know that they will work with every photographer who uses them to fine tune a look which is awesome but also a huge part of the "look of film". Thanks for all the great work you do!
Hi Joseph, you are right, the scanners they use DO make a difference. We didn't set it as one of our perpetrators. We actually went with a different lab in San Diego.
Agreed, and I'd add that the appearance of the black & white film has a lot to do with the development fluids & timing. For example, Acros 100 looks amazing when developed with care, but utterly subpar when treated like any ordinary b&w film.
Thanks very much guys. It's great to see side-by-side comparisons. If you every decide to do this again, take a look at the Rollei B&W films Like RPX, Retro 80, Retro 400, Infrared. These film are all sold by Freestyle Photo along with films from Adox, Arista, Foma and others.
fantastic video guys! I shoot most of these films in 120, this is really helpful, and it's very nice to see someone else's opinions on these films, thank you so much!!
I had to come back and watch this again, something I rarely do. Thanks for doing this. I would love to see the same testing done for landscape/cityscape work.
Hey Craig, thanks for your suggestion. We will take that into consideration when shooting our film series! Please subscribe to get updated on our newest film videos!
The Slanted Lens Fuji Provia and Velvia are like nothing else. Nothing like their digital film simulations. Kodak aren’t making anything like that. If Fuji quit film completely, people might start to abandon film if they don’t like the Kodak warmer tones. On the plus side, Fuji are making an analog instant square camera, so they are not abandoning it completely.
Great video. Love seeing these kind of comparative videos. Very helpful. Fuji Acros 100 has been a favourite of mine for many years, but Ilford Delta 100 has, more recently, become a more affordable option and provides a similar look, though Acros is fairly unbeatable for me and what I like.
What did I learn from the vid? That so many factors affect the look of your photographs and that ultimately the difference is so minimal, especially after post-processing, as to be negligible. Just pick whatever you feel like and roll with it.
I put an old Minolta AF7000 film camera back into use a few months ago and asked what was the best B&W and to a note most said Ilford XP2 400 film (C41). Mind, the Minolta isn't a medium format camera but I thought the grain was not bad. I liked the results that I achieved with the Ilford.
The Slanted Lens I bought a whole bunch! 😃 TriX, Delta 100, delta 400, 3200, hp5 and portra 400. Just finished the first roll of TriX and only used a lightmeter - app to get a baseline. Need to buy a real lightmeter. 👍🏻
Interesting how I hear so many good things about Cinestill 800 but mostly pretty lukewarm things about Cinestill 50. That red halation was very noticeable!! Thanks for the video!
Thank you for this very useful video! Even if I didn't choose my medium format camera yet, your comparison helps me a lot with my 35mm films choice. Thanks guys 👍
Kodak Ektar 100 is great film for land scapes on a sunny day. Greens, reds and blues look lovely and saturated but that is also why it is a bad film for portraits. Portra 160 is a legend in portrait photos.
ISO designations have changed over the years, I see. "Low ISO" was ISO 25-50, as in Kodak Kodachrome 25, Panatomic-X (ISO 32), Ilford Pan F (ISO 50), and Agfachrome CT-18 (ISO 50). "Medium ISO" was ISO 64-125, as in Ektachrome X/Kodachrome X (ISO 64), Kodacolor II (ISO 80-100), Fuji Neopan SS (ISO 100), Plus-X Pan (ISO 125), Ilford FP4 (ISO 125). "High ISO" was ISO 160-400 as in High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160), Ektachrome 200, Kodachrome 400, Kodak Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Kodacolor 400. Anything above ISO 400 was exotic, from Kodak 2475 (ISO 1000-6400), ESP-1 High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 400), etc. Likewise, there were specialized films such as H&W Control Film (Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, ISO 80), Ektachrome Silde Duplicating Film (ISO 16?), Ektachrome Infrared ("ISO 125"), etc. There was also GAF Anscochrome slide films as well, from ISO 50-500, Monochrome and Slide (35mm). As for 120 roll film, the selection was almost as interesting, from Agfa to ORWO. But that was yesterday, when slide projectors, gelatin filters, and mechanical cable releases were common photographic accessories.
Hi Andrew, they are two different images. They do look similar, but if you look closely... the HP5 400 on the left is a bit more washed out in the blacks than the Delta 400. The Delta 400 has more contrast. You can see this in the blacks especially where her hair and hat meet in both images.
They are the same image processed differently. Unless you can shoot two films at the same time through the same lens, the two images are from the same negative. Take it into photoshop...copy one image, set to "Difference", and align it over the other image. Turns black...meaning they are the same image, pixel for pixel
The two images at 6:45 aren't in the linked scans. I'm just saying, the two images in the video are the same photo from the same negative, processed to look different. Take a screen cap of the video into PS. Overlay one image on the other, set to "difference" and it turns black. It's the same image. th-cam.com/video/XBNJx_Q0DYM/w-d-xo.html
Great “apples to apples” comparisons. Watching this makes me want to get my hands on some of that CineStill 800. Thanks for posting this useful information.
How did you shoot the 800 with the bright natural light and copious amounts of bokeh? ND filter? If so what type was it and how many stops. It looked very neutral and unaffected by filtering or refraction of high f stop.
My experiences with Kodak and Fuji colour films (from prior to 2006 when I switched to digital) was that Fuji had the better rendition of the greens and blues in a scene; whereas Kodak the yellows and reds (allegedly their respective corporate colours). So I used to have two bodies (one with Fuji and one with Kodak) as I do travel photography when I had a lot of blue sky or sea I would go for my Fuji; whereas a golden field of wheat would be on my Kodak. When I was shooting slides it was Fuji all the way. Finally and I never came to the bottom of this. I felt Kodak was always less sharp (like a pulp) when compared to Fuji; so more 'dreamy scenes' suited better. The Fuji velvia 50 was very dreamy too/saturated but I'm talking about their respective 100 ISO varieties. I was told a few times by the developing labs that Kodak would be developed with whatever chemicals; whereas Fuji demanded more precision; so I do not know if this is part of the explanation for sharpness differences but at some point I switched to slides so I got rid of the lab-variable and ultimately to digital to get rid of the film variable. By the way film is as you know sensitive to environmental conditions and shelve-time (so things like heat influence it as well as how long has it been since it left the factory doors) and as a travel photographer it was a pain to obtain fresh-film at the source and then carrying and keeping my stock in regulated temperatures plus when going through X-rays having to request that the film is hand inspected rather through the machines, I used to carry it in led pouches and the like. I'm saying this because each film travels very differently and if you buy a film lets say that's been around half the word to reach India and has been seating for a year in an Indian store vs. buying it from a supplier next to the factory the moment there is a fresh delivery-batch (and yes my supplier would inform me when there was a fresh batch coming in and they would keep it in a fridge) you will obtain very different results with the same film.
Hi, Dimitris, wow so much passion! I love it! Thanks for your insight. We didn't try to do any technical testing, just what looks good to the eye, since most people won't get down and dirty with it.
Awesome content. Do you know the chems (deletions, temps...) the lab used (for B&W)? So much of the look from film is in the development. Thanks for making the scans available. Also love Silver Lake as a location but I would of like to see a little more control lighting from a studio. Thanks Jay P. for putting this out there
I just discovered your channel. You old timer have more energy and fun inside you than any of the younf hipsters out there. Il love the way you do this!!
This is one of the most interesting and useful videos I've seen in a long time. So useful when I consider which film to try next. Currently I shoot 35mm film and wonder if the same parameters and characteristics of the 120 film stocks you compared here would apply equally to 35mm? Would your comparison have been essentially the same if you were shooting these films in 35mm instead of 120?
JP, did you shoot all of the stock at the manufacturer rated ISO? I enjoyed this upload quite a bit. I wish there was a way to compare a comparably-sized digital sensor to the 2 1/4 film with the same lens you used for the shoot. The scanned film vs. direct digital image comparison would also be educational.
One of best film comparisons I have seen. Thanks, it's really interesting and useful to see same scene on all of these different films. Have you used some filters, or are all of these photos shot without filters? I love Cinestill 800T for night, but some people are not very satisfied with it's look on daylight shots, and some daylight shots really don't look good. They also reccomend using filter for it, when shot in daylight, so I was really surprised how nice it came here.
After trying many different films over the last several decades, my favorite has been Fujifilm ACROS 100. I like it for its contrast vs smooth gradation of tones along with its very fine grain. The blacks are deep and rich and the whites are brilliant. Having said that, I'm devastated by the news of Fujifilm no longer producing it. I've stocked up for now but will dread the day I shoot my last roll.
I use Ektar 100 for landscapes and architecture Portra 160 for portraits of any photo where to subjets are people and Fuji Across 100 for all B&W adjusting contrast with filters or in post. My advice is to find the best film stocks for you and stick with them. At least until they become unavailable.
Thanks for making the video! I picked up some really good info here. I'd like to add that two types of 120 film I've 'experimented' with are RolleiRetro 400 B&W, and Lomography Color ISO 800. The effect of the RolleiRetro is hard to describe, in that is has an almost 'gauze' look to it, similar I guess to the old Hollywood glamor shots, but oddly enough it doesn't lack sharpness or definition. The Lomography color basically floored me with its lack of grain or noise--you know, the kind of junk you'd expect anything with "lomo" in its name to have--and its levels of saturation. (For 35mm, although I like Tri-X ISO 400, I have no qualms with shooting Cheap old Kentmere. In fact, I have fount that it has excellent linear tonal gradation from the lower to mid-ends.) Although HP5 and Tri-X and Portra (all ISO 400) are all my standard gotos, I think you guys did a great job on selling me on TMax ISO 100 for certain stuff. Cheers!
Some post processing has been done to the Ilford XP2 shots, there’s no way they’re that contrasty out of the box. It’s a very low contrast but lovely film.
Thanks for the video! I love Delta 3200 and Portra 800 for low light situations. Can you make a video of some long exposures using these, it would be cool to see your tests :D
thank you! very helpful video I really like the portra 160 for color and B&W I prefer ilford delta 100, I like Kodak ektar 100 for landscapes never had the opportunity to shoot with cinestill films yet but looking forward to do some portraits with cinestill 800.
I'm missing fomapan here!!! (it's good and very affordable, here in czech republic it's suuuper cheap, since it's produced here) ...but you did a good job otherwise, Thanks!
Foma is certainly worth a try! It is not my film of choice but it is a quality product and at some places you can get it for half the price of Kodak and Fuji films.
Hell of a comparison, thanks for that. I'm trying to download the scans but it seems there is a technical problem ... I can't enter my e-mail anywhere. A comparison to the digital RAW files would also be great if possible. I would be very grateful for that! Stay healthy and keep up the good work!
Great video! I really like Ektar 100 and soon I will try some Fuji stuff before they will be gone :( Today I was developing a Fomapan 100 120 with stand development, can't wait to see the results.
Post your results to our facebook page! We'd love to see what you got! It's sad that Fujifilm won't make any stock :( We really liked how they held up!
Hi, Grant! Thanks for watching. We are thinking about doing a color slide film video in the future. But we're still feeling the burn in our pocket from this one.
There are relatively few shops in the US that still do E-6 development. If you're not developing at home, you're shipping it halfway across the country.
We just bought all the available stocks that were are Sammy's camera, a local shop here in LA. Not all film is represented here, but most of the major players are.
This was awesome!!!!!!!! I didn't even realize how much of a difference there was (I pretty much just thought other than changing the iso, there wasn't too much difference between film....pleasently found out I was wrong). What about doing this with 35mm stocks? Ones that don't come in medium format
The scanner actually effect color way more than films. I use Hasselblad x5 for most of my work but I do have a 4000ed. Different film behavior super differently when use different scanner.
Nice but there are so many problems unaccounted for variables. How the lab developed them and how they were scanned really confuses the results. Typical labs have film profiles for each fit they scan.
If you overexpose Portra a little, you get a creamy glow that really works with portraiture. I would have loved to shoot Acros before they discontinued it
For color, Fuji Pro400H is so pretty, but if you stick with Portra you get a pretty consistent color science across 160, 400 and 800. The 400 is especially strong technically as it incorporates technology from Kodak's Vision line of cinema films. Kodak Portra 400 is unquestionably the most advanced color negative film in existence and it's a winner every time.
Great work! Not sure if this was already asked, would there be a film comparison for landscapes? It would be great to compare color saturation while shooting say sunset/sunrise
Thanks for asking! We actually don't have one specifically on comparing color for sunset and sunrise, but we do have one comparing slide film vs. color negative, and we shot some landscapes for that video here: th-cam.com/video/xEpSRtcc4zM/w-d-xo.html. What film would you be interested in seeing this on?
Hmm, we don't normally shoot with Ektar, but we will definitely keep it in mind for our next shoot! Feel free to conduct your own tests as well. If you have an idea that you want to try out, we suggest you go for it.
3:50 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 are T-grain films, much like Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, but FP4 125 Plus and HP5 400 Plus have more random grain structure, much like Kodak Tri-X 400. Allegedly, the random grain structure allows for more tolerance for underexposure, but the visible grain is less refined. T-grain films are often sharper in appearance, but at the detriment of not being as flexible when underexposed.
Wow, great information, Michael! Thanks for that!
Thanks for the information. So many people are interested in film and how to use it.
Also T-grain films are much more limited in terms of push-pull process
I would have thought _no_ film can be tolerant of underexposure by definition, but hey ho, I basically have no idea what you're talking about I suppose.
I found it really annoying how the presenters didn't know these facts. Even if they glanced at the official webpage for the films, they would have found out. Really enjoyed the video and found it useful.
please keep on going analog stuff
We will try! This stuff is sort of expensive to produce so we're trying to get it sponsored by a film company.
6:49 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't here a mistake? I see the same image, sorry. Same pose, same lightning, same everything. If it's not, then this girl is weird because she managed to stay REALLY still.
I just screenshotted that frame and overlapped the two pictures and yes you're right it's the same exact picture.
This is THE best film comparison video I've ever seen on TH-cam! great job guys! Thank you
Very nice comparison. I shot Fuji Pro 400H for the first time this summer and really love my results in sun-soaked New Mexico. I thought it had (for me) the best look with the model except for Portra 160. The others, she seemed to have a very yellow cast in varying degrees except for the CineStill 800. I normally shoot Acros 100 or FP4 125 for B&W and both looked great. Good to know though that if I need to go above 400 or above that the C-41 films all seem to do better w/grain than the B&W.
Great video! It's a lot of work to compare all these stocks, I'm glad to see more people enjoying film.
Thanks for recognizing the hard work we put into our channel, Joseph! Please share the video with your friends!
Fantastic video for a guy that is just starting to shoot film in medium format! Very useful and informative.
hey thanks for checking it out! we're happy to hear it was useful! because it was expensive, man!
Appreciate the help you provide to navigate the jungle of films. Even though different lighting conditions would also have been interesting and added a second dimension to your review. Good job.
Great point! Thanks for watching!
This is such a seriously awesome video. Love it when you guys talk film. Thanks for doing this!!
Thanks, Chris! We love talking about film too. This one was a bit expensive since we had to buy all that film and develop it.
Gosh I love film so much!!!
Yeah, gotta love it!
If you never used acros 100, it was the first and probably the last time, that film was discontinued. Fuji Kill Film
Since their mirrorless have an almost indistinguishable film simulation and it wasn't a very popular film to begin with, it won't be missed.
Just like so many other things.
ErebosGR Acros 100 has almost no reciprocity failure. But at least we have ilford, I love push hp5 at 1600 it's a great film.
I'll miss it. Just like I'll miss Velvia when it's all gone too. As far as the film simulations go, it's not all about the look with film, but more so the process compared to the digital process. To each his his own though. It's awesome that we live in an age where you have the choice between film and digital to create images how you want. It's just too bad Fuji seems to be systematically taking away all of their film options. And the fact that they wouldn't sell their pack film machines before destroying them is something that is hard to forgive. Time to stock up if fuji emulsions are the look you like, or support another brand that still supports film.
RIP Acros, it was a really great film. Wonderful reciprocity and liquid smooth highlights, the digital simulations get the tones right but doesn't compare to a well exposed medium format acros frame.
One of the great things about still dabbling in film is trying out a whole bunch of film stocks. So many different looks. Really enjoyed the video. The stocks you picked are all tried and true, lovely, options. I like shooting those, for sure, but often try out less known or less expensive options too. Its amazing how many of the consumer options from Kodak mimic their professional stock cousins. I had not picked up my film cameras for years….in 2022, haning gone back to them, I will not make that mistake again. The cameras and those film tones/ shooting experience is just too fun not to experiment with from time to time.
So good to hear your experience! Enjoy shooting with film!
Excellent! I'm so glad you took the time to shoot and compare these film stocks. To each his own...I really like the T-Max and Ilford products. If I had to pick it would be the Ilford B&W and Portra for color.
thanks for checking it out, Robert!
Acros also has fantastic reciprocity characteristics--no correction up to 2 minutes, so great for pinhole and long exposures, generally--and pushes well, too. It's quite versatile.
One of the best black and white films ever made. Unfortunately it is discontinued so stock up if you can.
It's really unfortunate! :(
We both really liked the look of Acros as well.
What up H-Wag! I agree, Acros would do well in those scenarios.
Oh, no! I hadn't heard that news. Thanks for the heads-up. I guess the freezer will now be completely dedicated to film. . .
Love your film stuff, probably the best stock comparison i've seen. Keep it up.
Thanks for the love
What parameters did you give Richards on the scanning of the film? So much of the look depends on the tech who does the scanning that without that information it's hard to know how understand results. I know that they will work with every photographer who uses them to fine tune a look which is awesome but also a huge part of the "look of film". Thanks for all the great work you do!
that is what I was thinking
Hi Joseph, you are right, the scanners they use DO make a difference. We didn't set it as one of our perpetrators. We actually went with a different lab in San Diego.
Agreed, and I'd add that the appearance of the black & white film has a lot to do with the development fluids & timing. For example, Acros 100 looks amazing when developed with care, but utterly subpar when treated like any ordinary b&w film.
best comparison video on the tubes
Wow, thanks! Glad you found it worthwhile!
Would love to see a smiler comparison with pushing film
Good suggestion! These film videos seem to be doing fairly well on our channel, so hopefully we can get around to it!
We just made a video on pushing and pulling film, check it out here: th-cam.com/video/90bo5bb77_g/w-d-xo.html
@@TheSlantedLens Wow. Did you guys really reply back after 8 months? LEGENDARY.
Thanks very much guys. It's great to see side-by-side comparisons. If you every decide to do this again, take a look at the Rollei B&W films Like RPX, Retro 80, Retro 400, Infrared. These film are all sold by Freestyle Photo along with films from Adox, Arista, Foma and others.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing! We will definitely look into it! If you have any photos from these stocks, share them on our facebook page
Rollei retro 80s is probably my favorite film stock and the Rollei RPX 25 isn't far behind.
fantastic video guys! I shoot most of these films in 120, this is really helpful, and it's very nice to see someone else's opinions on these films, thank you so much!!
hey chang, thanks for checking out our video. we're glad you liked it.
Wow... this was a fantastic presentation! Extremely helpful, informative, and fun to watch, too! Thanks
Great job! Thank you it gives a wide idea about which to choose
I had to come back and watch this again, something I rarely do. Thanks for doing this. I would love to see the same testing done for landscape/cityscape work.
Hey Craig, thanks for your suggestion. We will take that into consideration when shooting our film series! Please subscribe to get updated on our newest film videos!
overall pick - bw : iiford 100bw / color : kodak portra 160
great picks. portra 400 and 800 look good in different situations.
Fuji Provia is also a very good film. I hope Fuji don't stop making film completely.
#filmisnotdead but #fujimightbe
The Slanted Lens Fuji Provia and Velvia are like nothing else. Nothing like their digital film simulations. Kodak aren’t making anything like that. If Fuji quit film completely, people might start to abandon film if they don’t like the Kodak warmer tones. On the plus side, Fuji are making an analog instant square camera, so they are not abandoning it completely.
I hope you do this more often. Please! It's very educational.
Great video. Love seeing these kind of comparative videos. Very helpful. Fuji Acros 100 has been a favourite of mine for many years, but Ilford Delta 100 has, more recently, become a more affordable option and provides a similar look, though Acros is fairly unbeatable for me and what I like.
Good to hear what you think. Thanks for sharing!
What did I learn from the vid? That so many factors affect the look of your photographs and that ultimately the difference is so minimal, especially after post-processing, as to be negligible. Just pick whatever you feel like and roll with it.
Great to see film discussed in the era of digital overload. Thank you.
hey, steven! thanks for checking it out! hope you found the information useful.
I put an old Minolta AF7000 film camera back into use a few months ago and asked what was the best B&W and to a note most said Ilford XP2 400 film (C41). Mind, the Minolta isn't a medium format camera but I thought the grain was not bad.
I liked the results that I achieved with the Ilford.
I’m a sucker for those Fujifilm greens and pinks man, Fuji Superia 400 everyday for me!
Hot damn this was perfect timing. I just bought a RZ67! =D
:) two thumbs up! What film stock are you going with?
The Slanted Lens I bought a whole bunch! 😃 TriX, Delta 100, delta 400, 3200, hp5 and portra 400. Just finished the first roll of TriX and only used a lightmeter - app to get a baseline. Need to buy a real lightmeter. 👍🏻
I have one too, they are magnificent i use mostly Delta 100, Velvia 50 for landscapes and Portra for everything else.
I just ordered a M645
Interesting how I hear so many good things about Cinestill 800 but mostly pretty lukewarm things about Cinestill 50. That red halation was very noticeable!! Thanks for the video!
hi bradley, thanks for your response. try them out for yourself. you might get different results.
Thank you for this very useful video! Even if I didn't choose my medium format camera yet, your comparison helps me a lot with my 35mm films choice. Thanks guys 👍
hey! we're so happy you found the information helpful. Glad you were able to find use in it.
Kodak Ektar 100 is great film for land scapes on a sunny day. Greens, reds and blues look lovely and saturated but that is also why it is a bad film for portraits. Portra 160 is a legend in portrait photos.
all true statements!
Loved this comparison! Thanks for sharing. I would love to see more videos on analog photography!
Hi Richard, we like making videos about film too. It's going to be a regular series on our channel.
ISO designations have changed over the years, I see. "Low ISO" was ISO 25-50, as in Kodak Kodachrome 25, Panatomic-X (ISO 32), Ilford Pan F (ISO 50), and Agfachrome CT-18 (ISO 50). "Medium ISO" was ISO 64-125, as in Ektachrome X/Kodachrome X (ISO 64), Kodacolor II (ISO 80-100), Fuji Neopan SS (ISO 100), Plus-X Pan (ISO 125), Ilford FP4 (ISO 125). "High ISO" was ISO 160-400 as in High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160), Ektachrome 200, Kodachrome 400, Kodak Tri-X Pan (ISO 400). Kodacolor 400. Anything above ISO 400 was exotic, from Kodak 2475 (ISO 1000-6400), ESP-1 High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 400), etc. Likewise, there were specialized films such as H&W Control Film (Agfa Copex Pan Rapid, ISO 80), Ektachrome Silde Duplicating Film (ISO 16?), Ektachrome Infrared ("ISO 125"), etc. There was also GAF Anscochrome slide films as well, from ISO 50-500, Monochrome and Slide (35mm). As for 120 roll film, the selection was almost as interesting, from Agfa to ORWO. But that was yesterday, when slide projectors, gelatin filters, and mechanical cable releases were common photographic accessories.
6:45 The Ilford HP5 400 vs Delta 400 is the EXACT same image. So it seems to be a comparison of the same film
Hi Andrew, they are two different images. They do look similar, but if you look closely... the HP5 400 on the left is a bit more washed out in the blacks than the Delta 400. The Delta 400 has more contrast. You can see this in the blacks especially where her hair and hat meet in both images.
They are the same image processed differently. Unless you can shoot two films at the same time through the same lens, the two images are from the same negative. Take it into photoshop...copy one image, set to "Difference", and align it over the other image. Turns black...meaning they are the same image, pixel for pixel
Take a look at the images that were sent to us from the lab. theslantedlens.com/filmscan/
The two images at 6:45 aren't in the linked scans. I'm just saying, the two images in the video are the same photo from the same negative, processed to look different. Take a screen cap of the video into PS. Overlay one image on the other, set to "difference" and it turns black. It's the same image. th-cam.com/video/XBNJx_Q0DYM/w-d-xo.html
What a great comparison !
Great “apples to apples” comparisons. Watching this makes me want to get my hands on some of that CineStill 800. Thanks for posting this useful information.
Thanks for watching! We are releasing another video on film tomorrow, so stay subscribed to watch it!
Fantastic, thanks for this comparison, long live film !
I have watched this video several times tohelp decide on a film stock which I should use. Thank You!
Wow!! Thank you for doing this!!! Very informative!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching :)
No Provia or Velvia is kind of disappointing as somebody who shoots pretty much that only for colour!
How did you shoot the 800 with the bright natural light and copious amounts of bokeh? ND filter? If so what type was it and how many stops. It looked very neutral and unaffected by filtering or refraction of high f stop.
My experiences with Kodak and Fuji colour films (from prior to 2006 when I switched to digital) was that Fuji had the better rendition of the greens and blues in a scene; whereas Kodak the yellows and reds (allegedly their respective corporate colours). So I used to have two bodies (one with Fuji and one with Kodak) as I do travel photography when I had a lot of blue sky or sea I would go for my Fuji; whereas a golden field of wheat would be on my Kodak. When I was shooting slides it was Fuji all the way. Finally and I never came to the bottom of this. I felt Kodak was always less sharp (like a pulp) when compared to Fuji; so more 'dreamy scenes' suited better. The Fuji velvia 50 was very dreamy too/saturated but I'm talking about their respective 100 ISO varieties. I was told a few times by the developing labs that Kodak would be developed with whatever chemicals; whereas Fuji demanded more precision; so I do not know if this is part of the explanation for sharpness differences but at some point I switched to slides so I got rid of the lab-variable and ultimately to digital to get rid of the film variable. By the way film is as you know sensitive to environmental conditions and shelve-time (so things like heat influence it as well as how long has it been since it left the factory doors) and as a travel photographer it was a pain to obtain fresh-film at the source and then carrying and keeping my stock in regulated temperatures plus when going through X-rays having to request that the film is hand inspected rather through the machines, I used to carry it in led pouches and the like. I'm saying this because each film travels very differently and if you buy a film lets say that's been around half the word to reach India and has been seating for a year in an Indian store vs. buying it from a supplier next to the factory the moment there is a fresh delivery-batch (and yes my supplier would inform me when there was a fresh batch coming in and they would keep it in a fridge) you will obtain very different results with the same film.
Hi, Dimitris, wow so much passion! I love it! Thanks for your insight.
We didn't try to do any technical testing, just what looks good to the eye, since most people won't get down and dirty with it.
Hi all - any idea who the awesome model is for this one? Super cool and great work JP and the Slanted Lens gang!
Awesome content. Do you know the chems (deletions, temps...) the lab used (for B&W)? So much of the look from film is in the development. Thanks for making the scans available. Also love Silver Lake as a location but I would of like to see a little more control lighting from a studio. Thanks Jay P. for putting this out there
Hi Tim, thanks for your feedback. We'll keep it in mind for next time.
Super informative. Thank you 🙏🏽
Thanks for watching! Stay subscribed for more of our film videos
I just discovered your channel. You old timer have more energy and fun inside you than any of the younf hipsters out there. Il love the way you do this!!
Welcome aboard! So glad you like my energy!
Thanks for the video! Really helpful
thanks for checking it out! please subscribe
Well done gentlemen! I appreciate the comparisons. Thanks, Tony
Hey Tony, thanks! We're glad you found the information useful!
This is one of the most interesting and useful videos I've seen in a long time. So useful when I consider which film to try next. Currently I shoot 35mm film and wonder if the same parameters and characteristics of the 120 film stocks you compared here would apply equally to 35mm? Would your comparison have been essentially the same if you were shooting these films in 35mm instead of 120?
hi, thanks for checking out our channel! we're glad you thought the info was helpful. yes, the characteristics should be comparable on 35mm.
RIP Fuji Acros 100
It will be missed for sure!
And just like that, Acros has risen from the dead. Zombie film!
Good comparison video
thanks! hope you found the information useful!
Thank You!!! Great video!
You are welcome! Thanks for watching!
JP, did you shoot all of the stock at the manufacturer rated ISO? I enjoyed this upload quite a bit. I wish there was a way to compare a comparably-sized digital sensor to the 2 1/4 film with the same lens you used for the shoot. The scanned film vs. direct digital image comparison would also be educational.
Hey you guys are awesome, thanks!
you're awesome for checking us out! thanks for stopping by!
One of best film comparisons I have seen. Thanks, it's really interesting and useful to see same scene on all of these different films.
Have you used some filters, or are all of these photos shot without filters? I love Cinestill 800T for night, but some people are not very satisfied with it's look on daylight shots, and some daylight shots really don't look good. They also reccomend using filter for it, when shot in daylight, so I was really surprised how nice it came here.
Cinestill recommends shooting 800t at 500 ISO and with an 81C warming filter when in sunlight. Otherwise, daytime shots get a cool cast
LOVED THIS.
Correct me if im wrong. I level it from 1-3. 1 is the smallest, 3 biggest.
Fuji Across 100 black 2, grain 1, contrast 2.5
Ilford 100 black 2.5, grain 1, contrast 3
Ilford 125 black 2.3, grain 1, contrast 2.7
Kodak TMax 100 black 3, grain 1, contrast 2
Ilford Delta 400 black 2.5, grain 2, contrast 2.6
Ilford HP5 400 black 2.3, grain 2, contrast 2.4
Ilford XP2 Super 400 black 3, grain 2, contrast 3
Kodak TMY-2 400 black 2.6, grain 1.8, contrast 3
Kodak Tri-X 400 black 2.6, grain 1.5, contrast 2.4
Ilford Delta 3200 black 2.3, grain 3, contrast 2.4
After trying many different films over the last several decades, my favorite has been Fujifilm ACROS 100. I like it for its contrast vs smooth gradation of tones along with its very fine grain. The blacks are deep and rich and the whites are brilliant. Having said that, I'm devastated by the news of Fujifilm no longer producing it. I've stocked up for now but will dread the day I shoot my last roll.
that stuff is going to be worth something once they stop producing acros.
I use Ektar 100 for landscapes and architecture Portra 160 for portraits of any photo where to subjets are people and Fuji Across 100 for all B&W adjusting contrast with filters or in post. My advice is to find the best film stocks for you and stick with them. At least until they become unavailable.
Very nice comparison
Just took my first 120 roll of Ilford XP-2 Supper 400 on my Hasselblad 500CM, I like it a lot - the contrast.
Hi, Stuart! Thanks for checking out our channel. We would love to see the shots you got :) Put it on our Facebook group
Great job, Gents!! As far as Black + White goes, you can have my Tri-X when you pry it from my cold, dead hands
hahaha...people are in love with that stock. and i can see why!
Thank you for this video, I've been shooting my landscape photographs on Ektar for a while now. But I might just have to try shooting portra 160.
Give it a whirl. Enjoy your shoots!
Thanks for making the video! I picked up some really good info here.
I'd like to add that two types of 120 film I've 'experimented' with are RolleiRetro 400 B&W, and Lomography Color ISO 800. The effect of the RolleiRetro is hard to describe, in that is has an almost 'gauze' look to it, similar I guess to the old Hollywood glamor shots, but oddly enough it doesn't lack sharpness or definition. The Lomography color basically floored me with its lack of grain or noise--you know, the kind of junk you'd expect anything with "lomo" in its name to have--and its levels of saturation.
(For 35mm, although I like Tri-X ISO 400, I have no qualms with shooting Cheap old Kentmere. In fact, I have fount that it has excellent linear tonal gradation from the lower to mid-ends.)
Although HP5 and Tri-X and Portra (all ISO 400) are all my standard gotos, I think you guys did a great job on selling me on TMax ISO 100 for certain stuff.
Cheers!
Thanks for watching and sharing your insight on the film :) We will keep that in mind next time we shoot!
Very helpful! Thanks a lot!
Glad it helped! Thanks for wathcing!
Very nice. Informative. Thanks.
Thanks, Merlin! It took a lot of coordination and money lol
Wonderful Video! thanks
Glad you liked it! Hope you enjoy shooting film!
Nice video! The Kodak Gold 200 is missing. For me a must have when it comes to style and look in analog negative films.
What are you guys talking about? Scanner has adjusted the exposure automatically and that’s all you’re noticing here.
Some post processing has been done to the Ilford XP2 shots, there’s no way they’re that contrasty out of the box.
It’s a very low contrast but lovely film.
All of these have been scanned which means a person has made color decisions about them and they have most likely added contrast.
Love XP2 !!!
Thanks for the video! I love Delta 3200 and Portra 800 for low light situations. Can you make a video of some long exposures using these, it would be cool to see your tests :D
Great suggestion! I have added it to our list. Thanks!
Hi - thank you for a another informative video - in B/W photography, developer makes such a difference - what developer were you using? Thank you-
We sent the film to Richard Photo Lab.
thank you! very helpful video I really like the portra 160 for color and B&W I prefer ilford delta 100, I like Kodak ektar 100 for landscapes never had the opportunity to shoot with cinestill films yet but looking forward to do some portraits with cinestill 800.
Sounds like fun. Thanks for your comment!
kodak portra 160 - cyan black , golden skin tone and dreamy overall look, love it
there's a reason why portra is the standard.
Nice video, when shooting landscape Ektar will pump up. More contrast and special for red color rendering
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Thanks for this amazing video... THANKS!!!
YOU'RE WELCOME!
I'm missing fomapan here!!! (it's good and very affordable, here in czech republic it's suuuper cheap, since it's produced here) ...but you did a good job otherwise, Thanks!
that's a film stock I've not tried yet. It wasn't available at our local film shop. We tried to get all the major players at least.
Foma is certainly worth a try! It is not my film of choice but it is a quality product and at some places you can get it for half the price of Kodak and Fuji films.
how cheap is it in czech?
Hell of a comparison, thanks for that. I'm trying to download the scans but it seems there is a technical problem ... I can't enter my e-mail anywhere.
A comparison to the digital RAW files would also be great if possible. I would be very grateful for that! Stay healthy and keep up the good work!
Glad you liked the comparison. Thanks for watching!
would love to have seen you include Provia 100 (e-6) in this comparison...but still, great work (as usual)!..thanks
Great video! I really like Ektar 100 and soon I will try some Fuji stuff before they will be gone :( Today I was developing a Fomapan 100 120 with stand development, can't wait to see the results.
Post your results to our facebook page! We'd love to see what you got! It's sad that Fujifilm won't make any stock :( We really liked how they held up!
The Slanted Lens yes I will do next week! Stay tuned 😄
This is great. Thank you.
You're welcome! Check out our landscape photography videos: th-cam.com/video/h13MA3SEsto/w-d-xo.html
this was awesome! Any chance we can see color slide film as well?
Hi, Grant! Thanks for watching. We are thinking about doing a color slide film video in the future. But we're still feeling the burn in our pocket from this one.
Ektar 100 is great for landscapes, environmental. What about Velvia 50? What about Foma products? They're great.
No colour positive film?
There are relatively few shops in the US that still do E-6 development. If you're not developing at home, you're shipping it halfway across the country.
We just bought all the available stocks that were are Sammy's camera, a local shop here in LA.
Not all film is represented here, but most of the major players are.
That is true! It seems like film is going through a second-life resurgence though! Fingers crossed that it makes it for another 100 years.
This was awesome!!!!!!!! I didn't even realize how much of a difference there was (I pretty much just thought other than changing the iso, there wasn't too much difference between film....pleasently found out I was wrong).
What about doing this with 35mm stocks? Ones that don't come in medium format
Hi Barrett, that's a great suggestion. Maybe in the future. We are still financially recovering from this one.
The Slanted Lens I bet it wasn't cheap to make. The viewers appreciate it though from what I can see 😊
The scanner actually effect color way more than films. I use Hasselblad x5 for most of my work but I do have a 4000ed. Different film behavior super differently when use different scanner.
How much DPI do you use when scanning??
They're all so freaking beautiful. It's hard to pick a favorite. I'd shot them all. Very good video. Visually spectacular and informational. Thanks
thanks for that shooting film is fun don't forget to subscribe
awesome, great stuff
Thanks, Sami! We love doing videos about film so we're glad you enjoyed it.
Nice but there are so many problems unaccounted for variables. How the lab developed them and how they were scanned really confuses the results. Typical labs have film profiles for each fit they scan.
If you overexpose Portra a little, you get a creamy glow that really works with portraiture. I would have loved to shoot Acros before they discontinued it
Well Ektar was not made for shooting people or skin, it always adds the red hue to it, but its superb for landscape, architecture etc
Thank you. Fantastic. Please do this same thing for landscape appropriate films. Have a great day.
thanks Craig! this is an ongoing series that we're doing so maybe sometime in the future!
For color, Fuji Pro400H is so pretty, but if you stick with Portra you get a pretty consistent color science across 160, 400 and 800. The 400 is especially strong technically as it incorporates technology from Kodak's Vision line of cinema films. Kodak Portra 400 is unquestionably the most advanced color negative film in existence and it's a winner every time.
Thanks for your comment. It's so interesting to see how the different film stocks react.
Kodak Tri-X is what I use but the Portra looks amazing! Might have to try it out.
hey ryan! you should totally try it!
Great work! Not sure if this was already asked, would there be a film comparison for landscapes? It would be great to compare color saturation while shooting say sunset/sunrise
Thanks for asking! We actually don't have one specifically on comparing color for sunset and sunrise, but we do have one comparing slide film vs. color negative, and we shot some landscapes for that video here: th-cam.com/video/xEpSRtcc4zM/w-d-xo.html. What film would you be interested in seeing this on?
Thanks for the reply! I was drawn to high saturation on ektar, and wondered how it will be for sunset/sunrise landscapes
Hmm, we don't normally shoot with Ektar, but we will definitely keep it in mind for our next shoot! Feel free to conduct your own tests as well. If you have an idea that you want to try out, we suggest you go for it.
Thanks!! I'm going to do some additional research on this
@@karthik7800 Tag us in your photos @theslantedlens! Best of luck