Well, it's the rainy, drizzly, cloudy, gray (did I mention rainy?) season here in Seattle -- which means the sun won't be out in any meaningful way for 6 months. And while I try to figure out what I'll be shooting next, thought I'd find out what everyone's favorite situational film is. I've recently gotten into night street photography (without flash) and at this point I wouldn't part with Ilford Delta 3200 if you paid me. Love this stuff. Daytime b&w I switch between Kodak Tri-X and T-Max. For slower color print film, I've started playing with Fuji Reala 100 and when I need to get some speed into my color shots I've been using Superia 800 or even 1600 if I can stand the grain. That last one is just by default. Haven't found a higher speed color print film I'm completely happy with yet. I've been thinking about splitting my time this fall/winter between the streets and finally trying portrait photography. Any recommendations (print and slide film)? I'll probably be shooting with a really simple 2 flash, umbrella or softbox setup and 35mm camera. -=>Donald

Have you ever tried shooting with Fuji Provia 100F (RHPIII) or Velvia in drizzly/rainy situations ? I honestly can't see any valid reason to use color print film if you are looking to get satisfying results at all. My favorite is Provia 100F, and even the 800F is awesome at huge speed for slide film (with hardly any grain). Very rewarding film. Although anything that has a great warm sunlight might do well with Kodak film too. It depends on what you want to do with it I guess :) Hope that helps a bit :)

Well I really like film with bold, saturated color renditions.....so I'm hooked on Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra 160VC. But this is all outdoor work that I like to use these. I really don't do to much people/portrait work, but if I did I would probably try the Portra 160NC....supposed to be real nice for skin tones. Like you I like the Tri-x and T-max films....have yet to try Ilford films yet....although I've been meaning to...they just aren't as easy to find as the Kodak brands around here. BTW I was just telling my husband the other day how if I had to live anywhere else in the country it would be Washington....he thinks I'm nuts....maybe you do too, but I'm envious of the beauty you have around you....Not that New England isn't beautiful too.....

Although many people keep using Kodak, I would suggest on moving all your film use to fuji and ilford. Outside gloomy conditions pop in fuji npc and push it One stop, the results I had, well, grain was a bit high but the colors glowed, very saturated. Studio work alternate between fuji npz and ilford pan f (50 speed) film. Now that I think of it I am not sure they make those films in 35mm.?? anyone ? on the slide subject I go with fuji provia and velvia

ilford pan 50.... yummy lack of grain, mural print size, ooomph, aaaahhh

i use mostly illford hp5plus and fuji velvia when i shoot colour. might give ilford pan 50 a try soon...when i get a tripod as well.

I am obviously in the minority here as I use Kodak films for 90% of my film work. However, I rarely hear anyone complain that the color in my photos is off or anything, so for me I guess it works fine. I think the real issue is learning the film that you use and what it is capable of. Once you know a given film inside and out you will find that you can make it do what you want instead of hoping it will do what you you would like it to.

There is a lot of wisdom in Alpha's post. Back in the 60's there were two or three consumer photography magazines here in the States. Most every month a major article was devoted to reviewing the latest film, comparing it with others, etc. I guess maybe they are still doing that? Maybe Star needs to post something in the Resource Center with discussions, examples, opinions, myths, etc. I mostly shoot color negative materials. I used to shoot slides, because one could view the image directly without any intermediate processing "errors," and because the media relied on transmitted light rather than reflecting off of paper, the dynamic range and richness of the colors was much greater with slides than with prints. They were the closest thing to the natural scene. Art Directors insisted on slides, even when the final result was to be a print, because they provided an unambiguous reference. [IMVHO] this argument has been weakened by using film scanners and images viewed on a CRT monitor. I find with the wider exposure latitude of negative materials I can record without loss more of the scene original brightness range, and then adjust contrast and saturation to fit the final viewing method, (be that CRT screen or inkjet print). It seems to work for me, though others can have equally valid arguments depending on how they work, and the final destination. I've been shooting quite a lot of Fuji Superia Reala (about a $1 more that the stuff at Quicky-Mart). It seems to have fine grain, and more saturation than the Kodak "Gold" stuff, though some of the other films mentioned above are noted to have higher saturation. When I want B&W, I convert using duotones in Photoshop. Back in the olden days, for B&W I liked Kodak Panatomic-X (ASA32), which I think is essentually equivalent to the improvements made to Slynkster's Illford 50. I used a highly dilute Rhodinal developer with very little agitation, which was NOT fine grain. It was a high acutness developer, which needed a very fine grain film to keep the grain from turning into tennis balls. Then again, in Seattle everything is medium gray anyway...

I think it's wise to add that C41 film started out as consumer-budget orientated film, while E6 basically is based on well balanced emulsions to get even results (the same deveations, color shifts, or whatever you'd like to call them). Art Directors, or anyone involved in pre-press and press printing will tell you that E6 is the way to go. If you know how your film reacts, you should (especially with bracketing) be able to get the exposure really correct, and if you give it the right sharpness, it can be used for huuuuuge enlargements without loss of quality. Any C41 will absolutely let you down at that point. So if you want to have your good shots printed at an above average size, or have it featured in a competition or magazine or whatever, you really shouldn't go with C41. Not even Fuji's new version of the Nph/Npc film....that's still a bit for the newspaper (thrown-away-in-a-day) kind of photo journalism. Actually, digital might be a better thing if E6 is too much trouble :)

I'm with Alpha, as more than 90% of my shots are on Kodak. If Ilford were more accessible here (nearest shop is 3 hours away) I'd be using it more often. Lately I've been trying to look for 800 and faster film in the nearby shops with no luck. :-( (*

Well that's weird. I posted a response last night and it didn't "stick". Ah well. Thanks for all of the opinons guys. Probably the main reasons I've stuck with print films are increased exposure latitude (although lose in midtones from slide), speed of films and the additional cost of dealing with slide film (additional cost for mounting and especially if you want to have it scanned). Now that I'm going to probably try my hand at portraits, I have been thinking of going with some Fuji Astia 100 (or the consumer version Sensia II). Any thoughts? Starshuffler - Bummer. Where do you live? The local chain shops (Ritz, Tall's, etc.) here carry an OK selection of Kodak, Ilford and Fuji (upto Superia 1600). For the non-consumer stuff, I have to go to a real camera store (meaning ones that carry everything: darkroom supplies, filters, etc.). Love seeing what some of those films can do. Michelle - I don't think you're nuts. :) I've only been out here for 7 years (originally from Baltimore, MD). It is very beautiful out here. The scenary is magnificent. It really doesn't rain here anymore than most other places (in fact, most of the major cities get more rain). It's just that the rainy season gets spread out over 7 or 8 months here (been sunny last 2 days since I posted originally). And it rains weird here. First time I saw it "mist" all day long freaked me out (sort of like standing near a waterfall). -=>Donald

I live on the other side of the planet, Donald. Too far away from Ritz and Tall's. ;-) (*