rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Surprisingly, mine are still OK. The oldest B&W negatives I have date to the late 1950’s {we moved away from that home in Feb 1960}. I guess the pro’s did it right.

twb930s Loc: Aldie, Virginia

Mostly, I use various Nikon cameras from an F to an F5 along with FE, FM, etc. I also have some rangefinder Leica's, my father's Contax IIIA and some Canon SLRs and Pentax Spotmatics. I try to keep them all working through occasional usage. My main film camera , however is a Hasselblad 503CW (for which I lust a digital back) but that's a 120 camera.

Bill_de Loc: US

Have things changed much?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=still+use+35mm+film&sectnum=0&username=

---

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Troll

polonois Loc: Lancaster County,PA.

I have a quite a few 35MM cameras. My favorite is a Minolta 9XI. I generally use Portra 400. If Kodachrome 64 was available I would use that.

bnsf

Still wish I had my mother's 35mm box camera. All I remember was that the camera was square and black in color with the lens being built into the camera. Sorta like a bridge camera in today's market. Never used it so I really do not know if it still worked or what type of film it used.

bnsf

I use my Father's Argus C3 35mm camera with his light meteor and the Brown Leather Case and Strap.

I thought my Sony a99ii Digital Camera took a long time to get used to the Argus was the hardest camera to set up and get used to using in. There was no manual on how to use the camera. So I had to take some of the settings I used on the a99ii camera. Sometimes the photos turned out great but I lost a lot of the photos too.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Diafine is a love it or hate it developer. I think controlled experimentation is in order for anyone who pushes film. My own experience with Diafine was that exposure indexes above 1600 were marginal. There is simply no substitute for real shadow detail, and above native ISO, it goes quickly. My best results were at 1600.

As a teen, I used a lot of Acufine, Diafine's sibling. I usually pushed Tri-X to 1280 with usable (if contrasty and grainy) results. Sometimes, we accepted compromises to get any image at all...

I used a lot of Delta 400 and T-Max 400 in the late 1990s. Our Kodak TSR gave me a brick of T-Max 100 and a brick of T-Max 400 and a gallon of T-Max Developer concentrate to play with, so I used the 100 to illustrate some training manuals. It was super-sharp and virtually grainless. The 400 had a tonal scale that took some getting used to, but once I adjusted my agitation style and development time, it was likable.

Delta 400 I found to be a bit easier to work with than T-Max 400.

Still, after 1977, my favorite film was HP-5, then HP-5 Plus. It was especially good in ID-11 Plus, but Ilford had to take the "Plus" (a chelating agent that sequestered dissolved silver to prevent it from re-depositing on the processed image) out of it. There was something about it that produced luscious tones.

adm

T-Max 100 is a nice film but I never cared for T-Max 400. I had problems with blocked highlights and did not care for the film's overall tonality. I find Delta 400 to be much easier to work with; it also has a more appealing tonality in my opinion. I find Delta 400 to be not unlike Tri-X but with much finer grain. HP-5 is a great film and may have the most beautiful tonality of any film if processed properly.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Youtube is chock full of videos on film cameras of virtually every make, the same with film and techniques. As with this forum, some offerings are more helpful than others but all without the typical squabbling we often find here. And you can always ditch what you are watching and go somewhere more to your liking.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I did a project ten years ago that called for 4x5 negatives that the client wanted to keep. I wanted a backup set for myself so I shot two of each image. By then I had settled on HP5 for large and medium format. I found it to be better than T-Max 400 and much better than any of the Tri-X versions.

I sent the client's set off to a lab where it was developed in tanks using replenished T-Max developer. I developed my set in trays using Xtol 1+1. The results were indistinguishable.

For the 35mm format I preferred either FP4 or T-Max 100 since I could make up the loss of film speed by opening the aperture a couple of stops.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The only squabbler has been Architect1776.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Many of the “box cameras” used ‘120’ film or something similar.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And many here that don’t shoot film might think the film section is where this belongs. I personally don’t care, but I see value in his mentioning the film section since this post will attract film shooters that may not be aware of the film forum.

On the other hand I might enjoy some infighting between the Canon fanboys.

BebuLamar

No Paul didn't fight back. He didn't want to fight his fellow Canonette.