[pres589]

Let's say you knew you'd want to take some shots of sunrises and sunsets with 35mm film. You're okay with setting up a tripod and using a cable release; long exposure times are just fine so the film ISO isn't really important and low grain is seen as a bonus. Besides Kodak Ektar 100, what would you grab from your stock of film to take some nice shots of colorful sunsets and such, with an eye on the price per roll? C-41 is fine, E-6 really isn't, and none of the color slide film stocks are very affordable these days anyway. Would be nice to keep this around $5/roll or so at most.

[stevebrot]

Let me see...

• ~ $5/roll
• Intense colors
• Fine grain
• No Ektar 100
• No slide film

The price point is the dig here. A little time with the search feature at B&H or Freestyle will provide a (very) short list of options in the sub-$7 range with no clear standouts.


Steve

[murrelet]

Let's say you knew you'd want to take some shots of sunrises and sunsets with 35mm film. You're okay with setting up a tripod and using a cable release; long exposure times are just fine so the film ISO isn't really important and low grain is seen as a bonus. Besides Kodak Ektar 100, what would you grab from your stock of film to take some nice shots of colorful sunsets and such, with an eye on the price per roll? C-41 is fine, E-6 really isn't, and none of the color slide film stocks are very affordable these days anyway. Would be nice to keep this around $5/roll or so at most.

Kodak Pro Image 100. Though I don't know how the recent Kodak price increase affects it.

[stevebrot]

Kodak Pro Image 100. Though I don't know how the recent Kodak price increase affects it.

On sale right now at Freestyle.


Steve

[Bassat]

For 35mm, I always buy the cheapest film available. Check that. No matter what size, I always buy the cheapest film available. The way I see things, the film doesn't matter a lot. I am going to pay for scanning and PP the photos in LR, anyway.

[pres589]

I thought about Pro Image 100 although I find it to be not highly saturated. Almost the opposite of Ektar. But that might be fine!

Steve, here's a breakdown of the films that I think would be up for consideration, using today's prices with B&H (so searching for deals might improve things but I'm not bothering at the moment) and ignoring 24 vs 36 exp;

Kodak Gold 200 - $3.79/roll
Fujicolor 200 - $3.99/roll
Kodak Ultramax 400 - $4.49/roll (surprised this wasn't cheapest)
Kodak ColorPlus 200 - $4.49/roll
Kodak Pro Image 100 - $23.95/5 pack or $4.80/roll
Fuji Superia X-TRA 400 - $5.99/roll
Lomograpy Color 100 - $14.90/3 pack or ~$5/roll
Lomography Redscale XR 50-200 - $17.90/3 pack or ~$6/roll (this might be really great for sunsets? Anyone used this stuff?)
Lomography Color 400 - $17.90/3 pack or ~ $6/roll

EDIT: Scratch Lomo Redscale off the list, I've found samples and it's too much of a plaything film, if that makes sense.

[stevebrot]

Steve, here's a breakdown of the films that I think would be up for consideration, using today's prices with B&H (so searching for deals might improve things but I'm not bothering at the moment) and ignoring 24 vs 36 exp;

Those look like what I found, though I would generally not look at the Lomography stuff. The short answer comes down to traditional ISO 200/400 C41 films from Kodak and Fuji with Pro Image 100 on the side. The cool part is that they will likely be very appropriate for many tasks.


Steve

[mtgmansf]

Let's say you knew you'd want to take some shots of sunrises and sunsets with 35mm film. You're okay with setting up a tripod and using a cable release; long exposure times are just fine so the film ISO isn't really important and low grain is seen as a bonus. Besides Kodak Ektar 100, what would you grab from your stock of film to take some nice shots of colorful sunsets and such, with an eye on the price per roll? C-41 is fine, E-6 really isn't, and none of the color slide film stocks are very affordable these days anyway. Would be nice to keep this around $5/roll or so at most.

I would chose Kodak Portra 160 and underexpose one or two stops. Question is, are you going to make prints, scans, or both, and do you mind doing minor manipulations in any processing software? Another question, are you willing to use a tripod? Portra have wider latitude than Ektar and so are better suited to capture the wide dynamic range or such a shot. That said, most premium 100 and 200 iso films are probably also up to the task, depending on your final product output, but having used Portra 160 and Pro-image 100, I would always go with Portra.

[pres589]

I think it's going to be Pro Image 100 for a poor man's Portra 160 replacement, Fuji 200 stuff for sunsets, and then UltraMax 400 for general purpose / evening (although with a desire to not push film for this little exercise, it's going to be early evening with a decent amount of sun still available).

Back to shopping for lenses.

---------- Post added 02-19-20 at 04:31 PM ----------

I would chose Kodak Portra 160 and underexpose one or two stops. Question is, are you going to make prints, scans, or both, and do you mind doing minor manipulations in any processing software? Another question, are you willing to use a tripod? Portra have wider latitude than Ektar and so are better suited to capture the wide dynamic range or such a shot. That said, most premium 100 and 200 iso films are probably also up to the task, depending on your final product output, but having used Portra 160 and Pro-image 100, I would always go with Portra.

The whole goal is showing off lower cost film photography in 2020, basically, so Portra is out. I agree with your suggestions but they don't fit the requirements of the project where cost is a major item. Goal would be to copy negatives via DSLR and then get a print made from digital copy of the "best" shot from each of three rolls of film. Post processing on the computer would be limited but not zero.

[MaineNative]

I used to shoot Fujicolor Superia X-Tra 400. The other Film I loved was Agfa Ultra... I cried when that went away.

[pres589]

Superia X-TRA 400 is, in my experience, great color film to push. It's sharp, decently contrasty without being overly so, and well priced / available. The one issue I have with it is the general blue/green tint that this film exhibits. This isn't really what I want for a sunset, generally. Maybe something over an ocean or sea but that's not my situation currently. I'm really trying to target the "right" film for different purposes while keeping costs low.


We'll see when I get there.

[Kevin B123]

I get what you are doing and I think you should consider a roll of Portra 160 as a baseline / benchmark / what could be achieved / what you are missing out on comparison type discussion.

[fs999]

My solution is not "affordable" but heck what beautiful colours... Velvia 50...

[Michail_P]

Apart from slide film, which would be an obvious choice but not so affordable, I like many of the mentioned options for that theme . You should consider color temperature, but portra 160 is a great choice. It renders warm tones nicely and the grain is very fine. IMHO I would stick with the Ektar. It’s my favorite 135. Very fine grain and nice saturation.

[pres589]

The goal of the project is to show that it doesn't have to cost a lot to get good images with a few inexpensive lenses, a body that maybe not everyone has considered (still shopping) and a few different rolls of low-cost film. Basically a "this is how I put my money where my mouth is to prove that you can get good images out of what most would think is too cheap to be good". Portra 160 is probably perfect for a lot of this but it doesn't fit the scope of the project.