[AquaDome]

If you want to take it to the local lab for processing, they probably only process color film. Portra 400 is my favorite, but the cheapest Fuji 200 is just fine stuff.
If you want to mail it away to a lab or develop it yourself, black & white film becomes an option. Kodak Tri-X is my favorite. Color can be developed at home too, but I recommend starting with black & white.

[Alex645]

I have plenty of example of 100ACR film that have just as much "exposure latitude" as 400 film. Exposure latitude is more a function of tabular gain film vs cubic grain and/or film brand dependent.

Please post those bracketed examples where apples for apples (same developer, not push processed, T-grain vs. Delta, etc) a lower ISO film has as much exposure latitude as a higher ISO film.

In the same way I've always seen slides with less exposure latitude than negatives, I've never seen Plus-X with a greater or equal exposure latitude to Tri-X, or Pan F vs. FP4 vs. HP5. The only exception I've seen is Ilford XP2 because of the dye coupler emulsion has a much higher exposure latitude than what is normal for most 400 ISO films.

[tuco]

Please post those bracketed examples where apples for apples (same developer, not push processed, T-grain vs. Delta, etc) a lower ISO film has as much exposure latitude as a higher ISO film.

I'd have to do test shots for same everything except different film. However, many times I did long exposures with a NDX400 + Orange filter using a one-degree spot meter. And I forgot to put on the orange filter or I forgot to account for it. That would be a +/- 2-stop over/under exposure from where I placed my middle gray and the results on Acros were pretty good. I'd have to find and scan some examples.

But here is an example of a accidental 6-stop under exposed using Acros that I have scanned some years ago. I metered a 1 minute exposure at f19 with a green filter on this red car and forgot to put the camera on bulb. I inadvertently shot it at 1 second. That makes this 6 stops under exposed and developed with Rodinal. Naturally a green filter will really darken red but you should be able to draw some conclusions for a 6-stop under exposure.

Hasselblad 500C/M





Here is the same shot this time without the green filter and the camera was shot at the metered exposure and on the same roll as the above image.






Here is shooting Acros at EI 12. That is, I metered the scene as if I was shooting ISO 12 film. Technically this isn't exposure latitude because it wasn't a normal development time but it shows the exposure flexibility of tabular grain films. I post examples of 400TMY at EI 50 and EI100 all the time. And I haven't had this kind of success (so far) with the cubic grain films I've tried.

Pentax 67

[TomB_tx]

From the '60s through '80s I used mainly Kodak films: for B&W PanatomicX for high quality, and TriX for speed, often shot at EI 1200 developed in Acufine. Since getting back into film B&W this decade I've switched to Ilford, as their films dry flat and so seem to scan and print sharper across the frame. HP5 has replaced TriX for me, and PanF in place of PanatomicX, and FP4 fits in the middle.
For color I like Ektar and Portra.

[Cuthbert]

You can make good photos using just about any film, provided it's still good.

I have to disagree with that, probably because we live in different parts of the world.

In Europe, especially old medieval town with narrow streets sometimes it's hard to get decent light to use consumer's grade colour like Gold 200 or Fuji 400, I have many pics taken with those and I gave up photographing in the 90s because my pics were...well boring. This is especially true in winter's time.

These pics give good results when there's plenty of light, but even at sunset or on the mountains where the light might be very blue they don't behave as I would, my old landlord in London after seeing some pics with Portra suggested me to stop using cheap film.

Ektar is good for landscape and when you need to push a little the colours, but I find terrible with people, some come out very reddish like they are alcoholics others like me look strangely yellow as they have a liver's disease.

Stil in good conditions they might perform well but as a rule in winter I prefer to shoot in B&W...for monochrome if I want to see the grain I used Hp5 and Tri-X, if I want a smoother look I use Delta400 or Tmax. A user here pointed out my shots with Tmax are very "grey" and not much black and white, he thought it was a developing flaw but I think it's a characteristic of the film itself.

Generally speaking for colous I prefer to use Portra and Fuji Pro, also E6 like Agfa Precisa is great.

It's all a matter of what the photographer wants to achieve, in my experience all films behave differently and it's a little like the painter who decides which colours to use to make a certain paint.

[Alex645]

I see your point, but you're an advanced photographer in selecting your EI, compensating with specific developers, and yes exposure latitude between different grain structures are a big factor as well. I was trying to simplify for the OP trying to give a ballpark with a K1000. That's why I recommended HP5+ and Tri-X over T-Max or Delta.

For the OP, you can get a free trial of Google's Nik Software. Bundled in there is Analog Efex Pro 2. With that you can take some favorite digital shots of yours and then experiment with how different film emulsions would look, as the software simulates the color, contrast, and grain structure of many popular emulsions. Silver Efex Pro 2 is also included and has the same for B&W films. If you see one that works the best for your aesthetically, it's a great way to help decide what film may be to your taste, given the subjects matter you shoot.

[gofour3]

There's still a bit of Provia 400X kicking around

Yep I have some 120 & 135 in my freezer keeping the peas and corn company! Will miss it when my stash runs out.

Phil.

[Swift1]

I have to disagree with that, probably because we live in different parts of the world.

In Europe, especially old medieval town with narrow streets sometimes it's hard to get decent light to use consumer's grade colour like Gold 200 or Fuji 400, I have many pics taken with those and I gave up photographing in the 90s because my pics were...well boring. This is especially true in winter's time.

These pics give good results when there's plenty of light, but even at sunset or on the mountains where the light might be very blue they don't behave as I would, my old landlord in London after seeing some pics with Portra suggested me to stop using cheap film.

Ektar is good for landscape and when you need to push a little the colours, but I find terrible with people, some come out very reddish like they are alcoholics others like me look strangely yellow as they have a liver's disease.

Stil in good conditions they might perform well but as a rule in winter I prefer to shoot in B&W...for monochrome if I want to see the grain I used Hp5 and Tri-X, if I want a smoother look I use Delta400 or Tmax. A user here pointed out my shots with Tmax are very "grey" and not much black and white, he thought it was a developing flaw but I think it's a characteristic of the film itself.

Generally speaking for colous I prefer to use Portra and Fuji Pro, also E6 like Agfa Precisa is great.

It's all a matter of what the photographer wants to achieve, in my experience all films behave differently and it's a little like the painter who decides which colours to use to make a certain paint.

This is not the fault of the film...
Film does not know low or poor light. Film just records the light that the camera and photographer allows to reach it.
In my experience, most poor results from color films are from poor exposure, poor processing, and/or poor scanning.

[filmamigo]

If you are interested in doing your own processing, the easiest way to do that, with excellent results, is to shoot Kodak Tri-X, exposing it at ISO 1250 instead of 400, and developing it in Diafine. You can do this in your kitchen sink without concern for careful temperature control or timing. As a bonus, I love the look of this combination. Other films in Diafine are ok-to-good. Tri-X is great. A second bonus - ISO 1250 is a great speed for dim winter light!

[Xmas]

...
And tabular grain films are really flexible shooting at different Exposure Indexes than its box speed (assuming you develop this I e film accordingly for the new speed) in general. It is also possible to get a slightly different look with tabular grain film vs cubic grain.

Never found that?

[tuco]

Never found that?

Never found the difference between cubic/tabular, tabular ISO flexibility or both?

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 14:22 ----------

If you are interested in doing your own processing, the easiest way to do that, with excellent results, is to shoot Kodak Tri-X, exposing it at ISO 1250 instead of 400, and developing it in Diafine.

Ilford's Delta 3200 Data Sheet gives developing times for shooting that film at EI 12500, 6400, 3200, 1600, 800 and 400 for a bunch of different developers too if you're interested in speed options in one film.

[Xmas]

Never found that?

I apologise never found either.
Apart from tabular's less grainy and toes higher contrast.
But never tried flashing except with paper.

[tuco]

I apologise never found either.
Apart from tabular's less grainy and toes higher contrast.
But never tried flashing except with paper.

Do you remember when tabular grain films were introduced? I recall a lot of controversy especially among large format photographers arguing over the new tabular grain film look vs cubic grain And Ilford's Delta data sheet show how flexible you can expose that tabular grain film too. I haven't seen a data sheet show that much range with a cubic grain film. And I've found at least Acros and T-Max 400 does a wide range too.

[Alex645]

Do you remember when tabular grain films were introduced? I recall a lot of controversy especially among large format photographers arguing over the new tabular grain film look vs cubic grain And Ilford's Delta data sheet show how flexible you can expose that tabular grain film too. I haven't seen a data sheet show that much range with a cubic grain film. And I've found at least Acros and T-Max 400 does a wide range too.

When I refer to "exposure latitude", my understanding or meaning is that at a given EI or ISO, the emulsion's ability to record an image (not bullet-proof silver black and not clear base only). So for example, at ISO 125, FP4+ could be purposely or unintentionally still record a viewable image when under-exposed -4 EV and over-exposed +6 EV; thus if that were the case (a theoretical example) FP4+ at 125 ISO/EI has an exposure latitude of 10 EVs. Whereas HP5+ at 400 ISO/EI might have -5EV and +12 EV; and thus have a greater exposure latitude, more forgiving for incorrect exposures, of 17 EVs.

I suppose one could consider the range of workable EI as the exposure latitude, but I've never heard or read that before. For this thread, my reference again was for the OP in terms of recommendation of films and ISO that were easy to start with successfully and didn't think the OP would be into push and pull processing, zone system developing or exposure indices with custom or hand processing.

There certainly are differences between tabular and cubic grain emulsions, but even when you compare a Delta 100 with a Delta 3200, doesn't the higher ISO stock have a larger exposure latitude?

[Xmas]

Do you remember when tabular grain films were introduced? I recall a lot of controversy especially among large format photographers arguing over the new tabular grain film look vs cubic grain And Ilford's Delta data sheet show how flexible you can expose that tabular grain film too. I haven't seen a data sheet show that much range with a cubic grain film. And I've found at least Acros and T-Max 400 does a wide range too.

It seems like yesterday '86 from memory.
You have good sources but I've not seen any difference between the 100 and 400 cubic and tabular films for other than grain and toe contrast, both in hot soups eg Rodinal stand and Microphen. Note not tried Acros.

If you want to wet print shadows the toe speed is fixed. If you want press grab shots from '60 you can push.

XP2+ standard mini lab c41 is ok at 800, but tailing off at 1600, if you want to wet print and only have available darkness, in low contrast, the mini lab prints horrible, to my eyes. XP2+ is better at 200 or 100.

Advising a noob otherwise may put them off, if they think the film is like digital.