how do you try film?

[rphenning]

How do you try out a film that you think would be interesting without dropping 30-50 bones on a pack? I am interested in a few films but am not sure about my alternatives if I don't really like the feel that much? Any advice or thoughts?

[darr]

If the film comes in 120 format, I'll shoot that first. After developing, if I am satisfied, I'll go to the larger size.

[Ron Marshall]

Same as Darr, 120 or 135.

[rphenning]

I do have a 35mm and that is a solid idea. I have noticed that 35mm doesn't look quite the same as it's larger format brethren though and that makes me a bit wary. Am I crazy? For example: 160nc in 35mm looks decently saturated while 160nc in 120 looks really unsaturated.

[Ben Syverson]

How are you scanning? Scanning the same film on the same scanner gives me the same tonal results, regardless of format. You just get less grain and more detail as you scale up.

[rphenning]

I have a flatbed epson 4490. Scan with epson software in professional mode with no adjustments in that software other than sharpness, then taken into PS to spot.

On that note, most of the basis behind my statement about the difference in tone between the same emulsions in different formats comes from doing searches on pbase, google, and flickr for specific films in specific sizes and not neccesarily my own experiences with my own photographs. I have noticed a difference between Fomapan 100 in 35mm and 4x5 and 400nc for the same formats. And ON THAT note maybe I should buy a real 4x5 scanner before I start up about all of this.

[Ben Syverson]

Dude, you can't evaluate a film based on other people's scans. At all. People do crazy, crazy things to their photos.

[rphenning]

Yeah that is why I kind of caught myself at the end there. I should get my head in it and get a 4x5 scanner before I start getting all freaked out over tone. Ben your photos are sick by the way.

[William McEwen]

I do have a 35mm and that is a solid idea. I have noticed that 35mm doesn't look quite the same as it's larger format brethren though and that makes me a bit wary. Am I crazy? For example: 160nc in 35mm looks decently saturated while 160nc in 120 looks really unsaturated.

You're not crazy. Technically, it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

When you're testing the SF or MF film, you aren't using the lenses, shutters, etc. that you'll be using when you try the LF version.

You probably won't use the same developing system, either.

[BradS]

When I get the urge to stray from the tried and true, I go to Freestyle and buy a box of whatever has tempted me down that path of folly. Then I shoot it and invariably realize that it is folly to use cheap film and frustrated with myself for once again yielding to temptation, go back to the good stuff. Ponying up for a full box and forcing oneself to use all of it is good medicine. You need to feel the pain.