selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If it's been in the freezer all that time it will probably be fine. There are plenty of labs that can process it for you.

suterjo Loc: Delaplane, VA

I am totally digital at this point. I enjoy the ability to do image processing in the digital world. I waited until digital equaled the image quality of film before I jumped to Pentax digital. I had invested so much money in lenses that I didn't want to convert to anything other than Pentax.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you rely on autofocus and in-camera aperture settings you might want to stick with Pentax.

With both my mirrorless Sonys and my Z7 I can use my older manual focus lenses including Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander and Nikon.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There are plenty of lesser films available from Kentmere, Arista, and others. A visit to any online photo store that sells film will find a range of prices. These are 36 exposure rolls at B&H:

Kodak Professional Tri-X 400 $11.99
Ilford HP5 $8.95
Rollei RPX 400 7.99
Kentmere Pan 400 $6.50
Arista EDU Ultra 400 $5.99

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Agreed. I shoot a lot of Ilford HP5 and FP4, as well as Kodak Gold and Pro Image. The differences from the highest priced options to the mid-range are subtle, more in the price than the images. You really have to know where to look to find any difference, if at all, especially after editing the scans. Alas, if you pay others for the processing, the price is the same for all rolls.

BebuLamar

Yes true! Back in the 80's and 90's I just use whatever film I like the best regardless of price. The expensive ones were only slightly better than the cheap ones but the prices of either are cheap enough and didn't make a different as the higher cost was in the processing.

Badgertale Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Hadn't thought to search for a film section. Thanks for reminding me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hooray!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Often I use F/16 set at the lens and ‘hyper focal’ settings with my {manual focus} Takumar Lenses.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I've always been a bit of a control freak when it comes to tonality and color. Since I started digitizing negatives from my past, I've found that copying a negative with a digital camera and macro lens in raw file format gives me far better tonal control over JPEGs and prints than I ever had in the optical world. I knew that would be the case, having run a scanning lab full of top shelf Kodak Bremson scanners that yielded similar results.

What has made this feasible and practical for me over the last few years, has been Negative Lab Pro, a plug-in for Lightroom Classic. It's just been updated to version 3, and it is VERY powerful and easy to use. I highly recommend it for those who own macro lenses and have piles of old negatives in storage. It's not cheap or free, but if you don't want to waste time trying to convert negatives with curve inversions, it's well worth $99. Upgrade from version 2 is $49.

It is amazing what you can pull out of cheap film if it is processed correctly.

Amazingly, many films are still available in 100'/30.5m rolls, which yield 18-36 exposure cartridges when spooled in a Lloyd's or Watson film loader. I still have a Lloyd's loader I bought in 1968. The same one is sold new, today. Budget conscious photographers can save a lot by spooling bulk film into their own reloadable cartridges.

Processing B&W film is done at home easily. Color is a little trickier, because temperature control requires a sous vidé device (kitchen tempering tool) or at least care and attention to a water jacket or water bath around the tank. I did it for decades. With B&W film, using a good hypo clearing agent before the final wash, and a wetting agent after the wash, yields negatives that last at least 50 years (all of mine are intact from the late '60s and early '70s).

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

adm

You can if it is E-6 process. If it is E-4 or earlier, I believe it cannot be processed now. There are still labs that process E-6 film. I use Denver Digital Imaging in Denver, CO.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you're a really brave soul, you can probably ferret out the formulas for E-4 and do it yourself, but it would be expensive, difficult, and dangerous.

E-6 is used for Fujichrome and Ektachrome today, so both kits for home processing and labs are around that still do it.

Most of the E-6 labs batch their film together and do several days or weeks worth of receipts at the same time. That way, they can ensure the chemistry is fresh and "in process control," which simply means the chemical activity is right for near-perfect color and density. So patience may be required!

Slide mounts are getting really pricey these days... $.25 each is about as cheap as I see them at FreeStyle in lots of 100.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I have not tested the Kentmere and Arista films but there are two additional films in that range. Tmax 400 and Delta 400 are excellent choices.

These ISO 400 films are quite different in character and they respond differently to a variety of developers. They are not fungible. The Kodak and Ilford versions can actually achieve their claimed ISO performance with the appropriate developer, the others may fall short by a stop or more.

I have found that claims that Diafine can produce much higher effective ISO performance for Tri-X are somewhat exaggerated. Nevertheless, Diafine does a good job and can simplifiy the development process.

I have also found that one of the popular developers (D76/ID11) will reduce grain nicely at the expense of almost a full stop of film speed.