Review 2 of 30
Price Paid:
$4.00
from looking glass in ber Summary: I'm constantly experimenting with different films, asking others about what has worked for them, etc. I've always been an Ilford user. I find that they have much better quality control in their films. I've used nearly every Ilford Film, except for FP4.
I usually hate film grain, and I need the finest tonal variations for my shots. I was using HP5, because of its ease of development, price, and its not a finicky film, so you can tweak the devo times pretty easily.
PanF 50 has been my favorite film by far. While it is slow, it definately takes some skill to use, since you have to have a rather steady hand, and a good understanding of how film reacts in lower light. I mainly shoot architecture, and I use a Nikon N80 with a Sigma 12-24mm wide angle zoom, so I can get good depth of field while shooting hand held with this film (I can shoot down to 1/10th of a second without getting camera shake). Strengths: For one, its panchromatic, so it much more tonally balanced than other conventional films. I've found that films such as HP5, and all 3 Deltas and T-Maxs(100,400,3200), have problems when rendering red light. They always seem to render it as a middleish gray.
For those who are wondering, yes, you can blow it up to 16x20 and get less grain than most films at 8x10. Even when using a 5 filter (170 magenta), I had absolutely no complaints. The 16x20s produced off of 35mm negs rival the sharpness and grain of those produced off of larger formats (even 4x5). Weaknesses: The recpirocity failure is much more noticeable, and it is definalely not the most versatile film out there. It takes a few rolls to really get used to it, and I wouldn't recomend it for use in a point and shoot camera, or for those who like to buy Canon Rebels, leave them permenantly on program mode, and don't know much about shutter speeds and aperature settings. Similar Products Used: Ilford Pan 100, Delta 100, Kodak Plus X-Pan 125. Customer Service: whats the point, its film.
|