Film Stock Mini Reviews
Updated October 7, 2024
As the good folks at Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland like to say in their Film Friday posts, there is no such thing as a bad film stock. Different films have particular characteristics that a photographer may use effectively for certain creative purposes. After using a variety of film stocks currently available in 35mm format, I’ve gotten a sense of what works best for me.
My results are a product of numerous factors. Although I have no doubt that different types of developing chemicals can have their own effects, I find that the steps one takes during scanning affects image quality much more. I digitize my film negatives as TIFFs with my Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE film scanner, which is driven by SilverFast 8. I typically use plain-vanilla scanning settings as a baseline for comparing what I can get using a handful of film stock-specific SilverFast Negafix profiles. The latter can change the character of a film photograph rather dramatically. I do only minimal adjustments in Paint.NET if necessary. At bottom, however, I don’t spend much time making postproduction edits. If a film stock gives me pleasing images straight out of the scanner without requiring a lot of additional work, I tend to like it.
Different lighting conditions, lenses, film formats, developer chemistry, scanning equipment, and many other variables all have an effect on the final image. Your mileage may vary.
A few words on respoolings: I group them together with their base film stocks in cases where such rebrandings are either well documented or where I have a reasonably solid belief that internet rumors are true. To be perfectly clear, I note the nominal film brand in the captions that accompany each sample image.
Black and White Films
My taste in black and white film essentially boils down to tonality. What I look for more than anything else in a film stock is an even continuity of grey tones from sheet white to jet black. I look especially closely at the richness of middle grey tones.
Related to tonality is the size of the silver grain that’s deposited on the emulsion after exposure and development. Since those grains are physically opaque, their size and density affect how middle grey tones appear in the final image. I find that slow-speed films with finer grain are better at producing a more pleasing range of grey tones than fast-speed films with coarser grain. But some grain is appropriate for certain subjects. In the end, it’s a balancing act.
Performance in shadow and highlight regions is another key concern. If highlights appear completely blown out when I expose for shadows, or if shadow detail is nearly invisible when I expose for highlights, I tend to be put off. Even if the range of luminance is not wide, some film stocks show a frustratingly sudden sensitivity drop off in shadow regions. But if my shadows appear well exposed with limited overexposure in highlights and vice versa, I’m very happy.
I also prefer black and white film stocks that tend to lean toward lower contrast levels without going too far. If I had to choose between too much contrast and not enough, I’d tend toward the latter simply because it’s easier to increase contrast in postproduction than it is to decrease contrast and recover middle grey tones that are simply not on the negative. But I also don’t want to put each and every image I scan through postprocessing. A film stock must therefore deliver images with some degree of pleasing contrast without the frequent need for edits.
Finally, I look at how forgiving a film stock is where exposure setting errors are concerned. Like everyone else, I make mistakes. It’s always nice for a film to handle those mistakes gracefully and deliver a usable negative. For this reason among others, I tend toward traditional cubic-grain emulsions over more modern tabular-grain films.
Slow Speed Black and White Films
Slower-speed black and white films deliver that gut sense of satisfaction to me more often than anything else. Film speeds around 100 to 125 ASA hit the sweet spot for tonal continuity, richness of middle greys, and grain size. And because I do a lot of street photography in outdoor daylight, I often feel less cornered by lower-speed films when I’m deciding what exposure settings to use. This is particularly the case when I’m using my Nikon F, whose exposure speeds only go up to 1/1000 sec. Slower films give me a little more wiggle room for opening up my lens aperture for narrower depth of field and speeding up my exposure time to compensate. On the other hand, faster film speeds reduce my options in this respect.
Known/rumored respoolings: Arista.EDU 100.
Observations: Like other Fomapan films, I really wanted to like this film stock mainly because of its low price. There’s a certain pleasure that comes out of shooting a cheap film stock. When my per-frame cost is low, I feel a sense of freedom and looseness with my camera in hand. But across the entire Fomapan series, contrast is just a bit too strong for me with shadow brightness falling off especially dramatically. This slowest of the three behaves the best for me. Especially when shooting scenes that have a lot of variation between brightly lit and shaded regions, shadow detail is not completely lost, but it is definitely quite dark. On the upside, though, Fomapan 100 does have fairly fine grain.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: The chief feature of Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 II is its incredibly fine grain, perhaps the best I’ve ever seen in any black and white film I’ve tried. This film stock would be great for portrait work. For my tastes, however, it rendered subjects with a bit too much contrast and with a noticable loss of shadow brightness in certain situations. Highlights can also run a touch hot. Neopan Acros 100 II might be best used under cloudy skies or other types of soft light. (As an aside, it’s worth noting an April 2024 report by kosmofoto.com that, although the emulsion itself may be produced by Fujifilm, this film stock is coated and packaged by Harman Technology in the United Kingdom.)
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: Ilford Delta 100 offers nice grey tones that are similar to what I get with Ilford FP4 Plus. My one complain is that its highlights seem to blow out more often than not. I understand that Delta 100 has a more modern tabular grain structure, which may account for its levels of contrast and its slightly temperamental nature.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: After I first shot this film and saw the results, I was on the fence about it. But months later I tried it again, and I’m glad I did. I fell in love with its darkish milky rendering of grey tones that I like to compare to the appearance of silver gelatin prints. The range and contrast of those grey tones is very satisfying. It’s incredibly forgiving when it comes to exposure setting mistakes. FP4 Plus can have a fair but not overwhelming amount of graininess especially when overexposed or when rendering brightly illuminated subjects, but I like the classic look of that grain especially when I shoot it in lower-light settings. This is appropriate considering that, as I understand it, Ilford hasn’t changed the formulation of FP4 Plus in decades. When I scan my negatives, I want my images to give me that sense of satisfaction with as little postproduction modifications as possible. Ilford FP4 Plus does that for me in spades. All in all, this has become my favorite slow-speed black and white film stock.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, photofocus.com.
Observations: Pan F Plus’s grain is extremely fine, and it rendered grey tones in a nice and rich way. Shadow brightness was somewhat disappointing, though. I would have expected a slower film stock like this to show shadow regions with just a bit more detail. I also found Pan F to be a little on the unforgiving side in terms of exposure setting mistakes. If I was more than a stop off of what I should have made an exposure at, I definitely noticed it.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, dustygrain.com.
Known/rumored respoolings: Agfa APX 100 (Maco Direct). In all honesty, I’m not 100% certain that this internet rumor is true, and I acknowledge I’m going out on a limb by grouping what is marketed today as Agfa APX 100 into a discussion of Kentmere Pan 100. But based on my observations, film in cartridges branded as Kentmere Pan behaves very similarily if not identically to the currently-available Agfa APX. But whatever the case may be on this question, today’s Agfa APX is most certainly not the Agfa APX of years past.
Observations: Kentmere Pan 100 and 400 behave rather differently from each other. I find Kentmere Pan 100 doesn’t have the same kind of contrast or ability to depict highlights with as much detail as what Kentmere 400 does. More often, Kentmere Pan 100 appears a little on the flat side, and it leaves me wanting to make postproduction edits more often than not. But all things considered, these are nitpicks. At bottom, Kentmere Pan 100 is an excellent film that renders subjects with excellent tonality. Especially considering its bargain price point, it punches way above its weight.
Further reading: alexluyckx.com, myfavouritelens.com, kashphoto.com, emulsive.org.
Observations: Judging the single roll that I shot in summertime daylight, I have to say that I'm rather disappointed in this film stock. It’s very possible I simply underexposed everything or that the lab that developed this roll did a bad job. But I was left wanting better performance especially where shadow brightness and contrast are concerned.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: After having shot one roll of it, I found Rollei RPX 25 to be a rather temperamental film stock. Hoping for better performance for this very low speed film, what I encountered instead were highlights that were blown out and shadows that were too dark. To be sure, it delivered very fine-grained images. Its contrast levels were also very pleasing but only if my exposure settings were just right and if my choice of subject matter suited what this film stock seems to prefer. All in all, RPX 25 is probably a bit more specialized than the kind of more general-purpose black and white film I am used to shooting with.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Known/rumored respoolings: There is internet chatter that claims Rollei RPX 100 is actually respooled Kentmere Pan 100. While it may be true that Harman Technologies, the owner of Ilford and the manufacturer of the Kentmere line, produces Rollei RPX to the specifications of Maco Direct, who licenses the Rollei and AgfaPhoto brands, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Harman is simply placing Kentmere Pan film into Rollei RPX-branded cartridges. As similar as they may be, I’ve personally observed enough difference between these two film stocks to doubt the rumors.
Observations: Rollei RPX 100 scores very high on my list of slow-speed black and white film stocks. It has excellent contrast, great tonal range, and is rather forgiving of exposure errors.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Medium Speed Black and White Films
Many say that medium-speed films, especially those rated at ASA 400, are the most versatile. This may be true in terms of covering the widest range of exposure scenarios—snowscapes in bright sunlight to artifically illuminated indoor scenes at night, for instance. But I tend to favor the advantages of slower-speed film stocks over the versatility of medium-speed films. When I do use faster films, I usually do so with a camera like my Nikon FM10, whose shutter speeds go up to 1/2000 sec. That faster speed allows me to open up my lens aperture a bit to narrow my depth of field even in brighter light.
Observations: After having shot one roll of Bergger Panchro 400 over the course of a few late springtime days, I can’t say many good things about this film stock. It managed to hit all of the negative sides of the various evaluation criteria I use. This film failed to preserve much shadow detail when exposed for highlights, it was heavy on the grain, and grey tones were on the disppointing side. If one’s subject matter calls for these qualities, Bergger Panchro 400 will suit it well. But for my purposes, I don’t think I will try another roll of Bergger Panchro 400 again.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: On the single roll of Ferrania P33 that I’ve shot, I saw a variety of performance characteristics both good and bad: higher levels of contrast that are on the order of what Fomapan does, inconsistent shadow brightness, very fine grain, the ability to handle very bright subjects nicely even when I had my camera pointed up toward a bright blue sky, and pleasing tonality especially with evenly-illuminated subjects. There is a silvery look to those grey tones that reminds me of Ilford FP4 Plus. I also had fun playing around with SilverFast NegaFix film profiles—photographs taken on Ferrania P33 seem to take on rather interesting characteristics depending on what scanning profile I apply. But since I look for a bit more exposure latitude and a bit less temperament, I was ultimately left feeling a little lukewarm about Ferrania P33. Sunny 16 photographers who shoot without a light meter may have some trouble deciding how to handle its somewhat oddball ASA rating of 160. Is this a slow or medium speed black and white film?
Further reading: alexluyckx.com, fogdog-photography.com, thedarkroom.com.
Known/rumored respoolings: Arista.EDU 200.
Observations: Like other Fomapan films, I really wanted to like this film stock mainly because of its low price. There’s a certain pleasure that comes out of shooting a cheap film stock. When my per-frame cost is low, I feel a sense of freedom and looseness with my camera in hand. But across the entire Fomapan series, contrast is just a bit too strong for me with shadow brightness falling off especially dramatically. This middle-of-the-road 200-speed film has the interesting tendency to offer pleasing grey tones, but I find it to be a little too temperamental for my tastes.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, casualphotophile.com, japancamerahunter.com.
Known/rumored respoolings: Arista.EDU 400.
Observations: Like other Fomapan films, I really wanted to like this film stock mainly because of its low price. There’s a certain pleasure that comes out of shooting a cheap film stock. When my per-frame cost is low, I feel a sense of freedom and looseness with my camera in hand. But across the entire Fomapan series, contrast is just a bit too strong for me with shadow brightness falling off especially dramatically. In the 400-speed variant of this line of films, shadows tend to be too dark, highlights tend to be overexposed, and I tend to be left rather unhappy with the results I get from it overall.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: In my book, Ilford HP5 Plus comes in as a close second to Kentmere Pan 400. My biggest concern is that, when I expose for shadows, HP5’s highlights tend to blow out with dense overexposure more often than what Kentmere Pan 400 does. On the positive side, HP5 is rather fine grained for its film speed. Its contrast also often looks great straight out of the scanner.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, witandfolly.co, emulsive.org.
Observations: Ilford XP2 Super is one of the few if not the only black and white film stock currently on the market that can be processed in C41 chemistry. Although rolls of this chromogenic emulsion cost just a bit more compared to true silver halide-based black and white film stocks of equal quality, the cost savings is realized after you finish a roll: C41 processing often costs less than developing black and white film. XP2 is very forgiving of exposure setting errors, although it seems to handle overexposure much better than underexposure. When exposed for highlights, shadow details can look a little dark but are still visible. But when exposed for shadows, highlights aren’t blown out. XP2 also offers excellent contrast and rich grey tones. It doesn’t seem to have the same grittiness that traditional black and white emulsions have. What little grain XP2 has is minimal. In certain situations especially in more shadowy compositions, that grain perhaps resembles high ISO noise in digital photography more than the kind of grain pattern I see with traditional medium-speed black and white film stocks, although I’m not sure if that’s just the result of my scanning technique. XP2’s acetate film base has more of a purple hue as opposed to the bluish color that traditional black and white film stocks have. The stability of C41 dyes, which can fade or color shift over the long term, is one reason I would think twice about making Ilford XP2 Super one of my bread and butter film stocks. But if I’m shooting more easygoing subject matter and archival longevity is not a concern, I wouldn’t hesitate to load Ilford XP2 Super into my camera.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com
Known/rumored respoolings: Agfa APX 400 (Maco Direct). In all honesty, I’m not 100% certain that this internet rumor is true, and I acknowledge I’m going out on a limb by grouping what is marketed today as Agfa APX 400 into a discussion of Kentmere Pan 400. But based on my observations, film in cartridges branded as Kentmere Pan behaves very similarily if not identically to the currently-available Agfa APX. But whatever the case may be on this question, today’s Agfa APX is most certainly not the Agfa APX of years past.
Observations: Kentmere Pan 400 is especially attractive because of its fine grain for a 400-speed film, and its shadow performance is also good when exposed for highlights. It has well balanced contrast, more so than what I’ve seen Kentmere Pan 100 do. This film delivers bold dark tones and a satisfying range of greys in shadow regions without going overboard. If I want to make Kentmere Pan 400 look more like Ilford HP5 Plus, all I have to do is increase contrast a bit.
Further reading: alexluyckx.com, myfavouritelens.com, 50mmf2.com.
Observations: Like Ilford FP4 Plus, Kodak Tri-X 400 offers an excellent range of tonality and contrast with a pleasing but not excessive amount of grain. Compared to slower black and white films, shadow areas can appear a bit dark when exposed for highlights but not excessively so. Those highlights show few if any hot spots like other emulsions can have. I find Tri-X 400 to be a little less forgiving of exposure setting errors than slower film stocks, which is to say that I’m quite impressed—there isn’t a dramatic change in overall exposure from one stop to the next, although slower films like FP4 Plus handle those changes a bit more gracefully. Like FP4 Plus, I like the look I get with Kodak Tri-X 400 straight out of the scanner. Images don’t require too much postprocessing, and they have that classic traditional look that appeals to me.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, analog.cafe.
Known/rumored respoolings: There is internet chatter that claims Rollei RPX 400 is actually respooled Kentmere Pan 400. While it may be true that Harman Technologies, the owner of Ilford and the manufacturer of the Kentmere line, produces Rollei RPX to the specifications of Maco Direct, who licenses the Rollei and AgfaPhoto brands, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Harman is simply placing Kentmere Pan film into Rollei RPX-branded cartridges. As similar as they may be, I’ve personally observed enough difference between these two film stocks to doubt the rumors.
Observations: This film stock has excellent contrast with a look that is similar to Rollei RPX 100. But its coarseness of grain is a bit too strong for my tastes. It also seems to have somewhat more contrast pop as compared to Kentmere Pan 400. Highlights can sometimes appear a hair overexposed. I find RPX 400 to have just a little bit of a temperamental nature, but it’s a decent performer overall.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com, petapixel.com.
Fast Speed Black and White Films
After a bit of experimentation—and I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve only done a little bit of experimentation—I must say I’m put off by higher-speed film stocks. Loss of richness in grey tones, excessive grain, and the simple fact that low-light film photography presents numerous challenges are a few reasons why I tend to shy away from any black and white film stocks rated faster than ASA 400. But I try to keep an open mind. Challenges are there to be overcome, and I may eventually get to the point where I come around to doing more photography using high-speed black and white films.
Observations: In certain cases, Delta 3200’s graininess tends to overpower an image, and grey tones have no choice but to appear gritty as a result. But in other instances and with the proper settings applied during scanning, that grain can have a positive and rather dramatic effect. When using this film stock in low light at night, I lean toward overexposing by a stop more than what my light meter recommends.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Color Films
After having shot several different color film stocks in recent years, I have to confess that I am not drawn to color film photography. If I find myself considering color film, I am typically looking for an aesthetic that gives me a compelling reason not to reach for a digital camera. Color film stocks that deliver desaturated and washed-out color tones sometimes draw my interest. But most often the driving motivation to shoot color film is a simple sense of nostalgia for the 1990s-era snapshot photography of my youth.
Slow Speed Color Films
When I was in my twenties, I remember how ubiquitous slower-speed color films were especially in consumer-grade lines. I regularly shot plain old Fujifilm 100, which seemed to be available everywhere. Not anymore. It seems slower-speed color film has fallen out of fashion or has become somewhat of a specialty item category.
Known/rumored respoolings: Popho Luminar 100, Flic Film Elektra 100, SantaColor 100, and Film Washi X (per popho.ca, bhphotovideo.com, and analog.cafe).
Observations: The actual speed of this film stock can seem a little ambiguous. Kodak’s own data sheet specifies a film speed of ASA 125 specifically for aerial photograhy, the intended application for this film. But Kodak is also quick to point out that this usage differs substantially from more conventional photography. That same data sheet adds that the aerial film speed is rounded to the nearest 1/3-stop, which presumably means that, for conventional photography, its ASA rating corresponds with the box speed of Popho Luminar 100, Flic Film Elektra 100, and SantaColor 100. When I shot this film stock, I did so at that slower speed. In general, this film stock has a nice vintage look with muted, low-saturation color and pleasingly fine grain. This is perhaps the most interesting slow-speed color film stock I’ve ever shot.
Further reading: kodak.com, alexluyckx.com, bhphotovideo.com, analog.cafe, dpreview.com.
Medium Speed Color Films
Medium-speed film lines seem to be the most plentiful in today’s color film market. I completely understand why: films rated at ASA 200 and especially 400 offer a versatility that is hard to match for casual snapshot photography. If I’m considering what to take with me during a vacation that I want to shoot on color film, my head immediately goes to something like Kodak ColorPlus 200 or Kodak UltraMax 400. Higher-grade film stocks exist for more discerning applications, but for me their cost is more often the deterring factor.
Observations: Kodak ColorPlus 200 is similar to Kodak Gold 200, but I find the former delivers somewhat more muted color saturation. My experience with ColorPlus 200 reminded me of how important scanner settings are when evaluating any film stock. In certain instances especially for exposures made in harsh light, I found SilverFast’s Kodak Royal Gold 200 NegaFix profile rendered colors in a much more pleasingly warm tone. Using the right scanner settings, I’d go so far as to say that ColorPlus 200 delivers hues that almost have a Portra-like appearance. All in all, I was very surprised by what Kodak ColorPlus 200 delivered. It makes me think twice about my habit of avoiding color film.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com
Known/rumored respoolings: Fujifilm 200 (per dpreview.com and kosmofoto.com). To be sure, Fujifilm’s consumer-grade color negative films on the market today are not the same as what Fujifilm manufactured into the late 2010s or early 2020s. In 2022, Fujifilm refreshed its packaging for Fujifilm 200 perhaps as a result of its apparent use of a third party, most likely Kodak, to produce that film stock. Although I’m always a little hesitant to believe internet rumors, I think in this case they are true: Fujifilm 200 appears to be rebadged Kodak Gold 200.
Observations: The beauty in shooting a low-priced color film lies in its easy-going nature. When you know your per-frame cost is cheaper than what higher-grade film stocks offer, sometimes the creative juices flow a little better. With Kodak Gold 200, you have the added benefit of a well-performing color negative film stock with good but not overwhelming saturation and decent sharpness. Kodak Gold 200 might have slightly less grain than Kodak Ultramax 400, but in all honesty I have a hard time telling the difference between the two.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Observations: I’ll admit that the high price of Kodak Portra 400 has always put me off. But my curiosity got the best of me, and I eventually I decided to try it out. When I did so, my choice of time of day when I shot that one and only roll of Portra 400 probably wasn’t the best. Instead of shooting earlier in the afternoon, I waited until the sun was close to setting on a fall day. Still, I ended up getting some decent images that show what this rather interesting mid-speed color film can do. I have no doubt that, in the hands of someone who is more versed in color film photography than I am, Portra 400 can perform superbly. It’s just that the price of high-end color film makes it generally unattractive to me.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com.
Known/rumored respoolings: Fujifilm 400 (per kosmofoto.com; also see above discussion of Kodak Gold 200). To be sure, Fujifilm’s consumer-grade color negative films on the market today are not the same as what Fujifilm manufactured into the late 2010s or early 2020s. In 2023, Fujifilm refreshed its packaging for Fujifilm 400 perhaps as a result of its apparent use of a third party, most likely Kodak, to produce that film stock. Although I’m always a little hesitant to believe internet rumors, I think in this case they are true: Fujifilm 400 appears to be rebadged Kodak UltraMax 400.
Observations: The beauty in shooting a low-priced color film lies in its easy-going nature. When you know your per-frame cost is cheaper than what higher-grade film stocks offer, sometimes the creative juices flow a little better. With Kodak UltraMax 400, you have the added benefit of a well-performing color negative film stock with good but not overwhelming saturation and decent sharpness. Kodak UltraMax 400 might have slightly more grain than Kodak Gold 200, but in all honesty I have a hard time telling the difference between the two.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com
Fast Speed Color Films
As with black and white films, I haven’t had much experience with high-speed color film. But those few times when I’ve loaded it into my camera, I’ve been intrigued with the results.
Base film stock: Kodak Vision 3 5219 (per cinestillfilm.com). Note that CineStill 800T is not a simple respooling. The anti-halation remjet layer has been removed to make this film compatable with C41 color film processing.
Observations: Although I don’t shoot too much color film, I have to admit that CineStill 800T intrigues me. My most recent experience with it was on a trip to Southern California. One night during a stay in Santa Monica, I got out with a roll to see what I could do with this film. I knew its tendency to halate around bright lights, so I looked for opportunities to put this to good creative use. I especially sought out red neon lights. CineStill 800T did not disappoint me in that regard. All in all, this is a really fun film to use especially for nighttime street photography.
Further reading: bluemooncameracodex.com, alexluyckx.com (CineStill 800T), alexluyckx.com (Kodak Vision 3 5219).
