We’ll start with color film, which comes in two versions, positive and negative.
Positive film vs. negative film
Positive film saves the image as you saw it when you pressed the shutter button. It produces rich, saturated colors and tends to have strong contrast. It’s much less forgiving in my experience. You need to get good exposure and there’s not much you can do after the fact if you don’t. I tend to avoid high contrast scenes with positive film (or use graduated neutral density filters to reduce contrast). Positive film is usually mounted as slides when developed by a professional.
Negative film records the opposite of what you saw. In black and white, everything is reversed, the blacks are white and the whites are black so that when you pass light through it to print, the black areas retain the light, making them lighter in the print, and light areas allow more light to pass through. , making them dark in print. The same goes for color negative film, but they tend to look more like a yellow-orange mess than a negative. Color negative films often have a softer appearance than color positive films, with lower contrast and higher dynamic range.
Which one should you use? I suggest experimenting to see what you prefer. Below are some film recommendations based on the type of images you want to make.
Best film for landscapes
Best overall
Fujifilm’s Fujichrome Velvia 50 is ridiculously expensive at $30 a roll, but I have yet to find another color positive film that looks as good as Velvia. Its color saturation is legendary (leaning toward red/magenta) and its neutral gray balance means you almost never get strange colors in the shadows and highlights. The price means I don’t photograph it very often, but when I go into the wilderness, this is what I bring.
Finalist
Kodak’s E100 is a new film for me, but I have already shot a few rolls and can say that it is very different from Velvia. There is none of the warmth of Velvia; the colors are rather neutral with a slight green cast on the reflections. If you’re looking to photograph landscapes with a different look than the last 50 years of Velvia-influenced images, this is the film I recommend.
Economical choice
This is another new thing for me; I’ve only shot two rolls of this color negative film, but so far my overriding impression is that this is a film stock that replicates what you get with a digital camera. The grain is very fine and the colors are extremely close to what my Sony digital sensor records: natural-looking colors tending toward the cooler side. I admit I didn’t like it when I first saw the results, but I like it and the price is hard to beat.
Best film for portraits
Portrait films need to handle skin tones well. My favorite, Fujifilm’s 160 Pro, has been discontinued, leaving Kodak’s ever-popular alternative. At $14 a roll, it’s probably the best value in cinema, period. Porta 160 is a great film for portraits, rendering skin pretty much as it is most of the time. If you need something faster for shooting in low light, there is also a 400-speed version and even an 800-speed version. I find this one to have too much grain for color portraits, but if that’s the look you want, it’s available.
Best Black and White Movies
There is a seemingly endless array of black and white films, including re-edited versions of some of the most popular films from previous decades. This is a very biased list since “best” in this case is purely subjective. Again, experiment to determine what you like.
Best overall
Tri-X was launched in the 1940s and has been in continuous production since then. It has undergone a few changes over the years, the latest being a re-engineering in 2011 that reduced the grain (that’s when it got the TX designation). A favorite of photographers as diverse as Sebastiao Salgado, Vivian Mayer and Gary Winogrand, Tri-X is loved for its versatility, with just the right amount of grain and contrast that give images a look and texture that nothing else can. no other equals. There are rich black shadows, good contrast and enough grain without being too much. Tri-X is also very simple to process if you do it yourself. If I could only make one film, it would be this one.
Finalist
Another versatile film, Ilford’s HP5 has a wide exposure latitude, meaning it will work well in mixed and difficult lighting. It has less overall contrast than the Tri-X, making it look smoother. It also pushes really well, without getting too grainy like Tri-X tends to do when you push it. If you want a good, full-length movie with a smooth, even tone, this is a good choice.
Ideal for low light
Let’s start by getting something out of the way. Kodak calls this “multi-speed” film; there is no need to film it at 3200°. I like to shoot it at 800° and process it at 1600°. It took me a few years to realize that what I was doing there was making my T-Max look more like a Tri-X, but the point is that the T-Max 3200 is more versatile than does not suggest the speed. That said, I tend to reach for it when I’m shooting in the evening or at night.
Film development
There used to be a film developing lab on every corner. Or at least in those little kiosks in parking lots, but those days are over. That said, there are many professional laboratories offering mail order services and fast turnaround times. Most of them will also be happy to scan your negatives, even if it increases the cost.
There are hundreds of good labs, and your best bet is to go to your nearest photography store and talk to them. Building a relationship at your local photo shop will help you get better results because they will know what you like and don’t like and can help you push and pull and communicate with the lab if necessary. That said, many camera stores have outsourced their development to large online services (the store closest to me sends the film to Nation’s lab), so be sure to ask where they develop.