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. :) :) :)

[nathanm]

So far I've found that film kinda sorta doesn't matter. Not that this dissuades me from wanting to try new kinds, but in the end all my photos are made to look how I want them to look and the film type itself doesn't really reveal itself as a telltale characteristic except to me, the only person who has to deal with any behind-the-scenes shenanigans. Well, maybe grain would be an indicator, but I haven't used too many grainy films. The upside of this is that dropping the bucks for a full box of forbafives sight unseen has never been a loss because it's essentially just another bunch of film which more or less works fine if I don't screw up the exposure.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben your photos are sick by the way.
Thanks man!!

Nathan has a point about the differences between films. I think if you print photochemically straight from the negative, you would definitely see a difference. But if you're scanning, it's possible to make most films look the same (especially C41, less so for E6). With that in mind, I like to shoot a negative that contains the most information to play with, which is why I like Portra 160NC so much. It's naturally very "flat" and low-grain so you have almost unlimited options when you're scanning.

[Paul Kierstead]

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.

Ok, I won't add to the flogging :) However, since these are other peoples pictures, I do find it interesting that -- typically -- your LF guy will produce a scan/print that is less saturated and more subtle tonally then your 35mm guy. The formats, or the kind of people drawn to the formats, seem to influence the look. This is especially true for B&W, where your typical very subtle graduated, fully tone B&W is very likely to be from an LF guy and your start, very separated is quite likely to be from your 35mm guy (or DSLR B&W conversion. With added grain, of course. ) I'm not saying one or the other is better, just that I find the format/look correlation (all anecdotal, of course) to be interesting.

And, FWIW, $30 isn't much too spend testing some film, particularly if you go out and get some decent shots while you are doing it. It isn't likely any of them will be total losers.