35mm Film Stock Review

What type of film?

35mm Film Stock Review:- Film, film, film, film, film, film, film, film, wonderful film, wonderful film……..but which one to choose?

Beginners often ask on forums what’s the best film to start with. It’s a hard one to answer. So much depends on what you are trying to photograph, what sort of photography you prefer and the look you want to achieve.

If you want landscapes you probably want colour film and something with a very fine grain. For street work you may prefer black and white and a coarser grain to give it that newsprint or Cinema Verite look. Beginners often get into these kinds of questions and in this article I’ll try and give some advice as well as show different film stocks being used with my own photography to give an idea how different films render. All of the images were shot with different cameras and lenses.

While a lens may affect a picture in its sharpness or sometimes its colour rendition, the biggest effect will be the film and its post processing where modern photo editor software will give a large degree of latitude over the finished result. Likewise the developer used for the negatives can add a particular look. Film processing is an art and science unto itself and I wont be covering that in this article.

All of the pictures here are very raw and mostly as they came out of my own cameras, principally a Minolta XD7, Nikon F-301 and Nikon F. All were done with minimal post processing to correct contrast and colour, the same processes that any laboratory would use to print your pictures. All of the shots were developed by the same laboratory and were then scanned by myself using a Plustek Opticfilm 7300i scanner.

Where filters were used in taking the pictures I have made notes with each shot along with a general summary of how the film reacts. All of this is based on my own experience shooting the various films which I hope will help people on their journey.

This review doesn’t cover every film in existence, It’s geared to only the most common types. Like most photographers I mostly stick to what I know for consistent results.

General advice on film stocks for beginners.

One of the easiest mistakes beginners make is buying half a dozen different films and immediately shooting stuff. My advice is start with something readily available and stick with it while you learn how to get the best from it. Don’t incline to butterfly around trying every film type because you will never really learn how to get maximum value from the type of film you are shooting with and, if you are shooting every roll with no experience with the film, it will more often be a lucky dip as to whether stuff comes out as you intended. This is doubly so when using boutique type films which may require a roll of test shots to really get to grips with how the film renders specific scenes. Remember to keep a log book to record settings, light etc this will help you get to grips with what works and what doesn’t.

How do I get ‘that look’?

The answer lies as much in the post process as it does with the photograph on the negative. While I have tried to show pictures here to show the films off in their natural state, the post process work can render a very different look depending on how they are developed, printed or scanned. In some cases it’s not possible to truly show stuff because the web server won’t allow me to upload the master files which are in excess of 10mb per picture. Hopefully what I can show and tell will give you some pointers as to which film most closely meets your own needs and vision but always remember its as much about the post process as it is about the film itself.

STANDARD BLACK AND WHITE FILMS

The overall key to any black and white film is finding subjects with good contrast. Black and white shots absolutely need good contrast in the scene for the best images. Most black and white films have a fairly forgiving with an exposure latitude of around 2 stops so if you are shooting with vintage, unserviced cameras you may find black and white returns good results despite exposure errors. Some film stocks have a tighter tolerance and with those you really need the camera to be performing inside its stated stops or else risk having pictures under or overexposed.


Ilford FP4

A trusty standard black and white film which has been around since Noah was in short pants. It’s a film I use quite a lot and I cut my teeth on FP4 as its been around as long as I have and back in the balmy 1970s it was a low cost film making it the go-to film for students and beginners.

It has a nice smooth grain, excellent sharpness and can pick up fine detail but its weak spot is it’s quite a slow film at ASA 125 so you really need good light to make it pop. In poor light shutter speeds and aperture can be compromised forcing you to shoot at slow speeds or with an unreasonably wide aperture reducing your depth of field. In its element under good light it’s a lovely film to shoot with and quite tolerant of stop errors.

It can work well for portraiture with its tight grain and and nicely balanced tones.

35mm Film Stock Review - Ilford FP4
35mm Film Stock Review: – Ilford FP4 under dull conditions. Smooth grain and nice detail.
35mm Film Stock Review - Ilford FP4
35mm Film Stock Review:- Ilford FP4 under bright sun still retains smooth grain and good detail.
35mm Film Stock Review - FP4 Sample Photo
Ilford FP4 using a yellow filter to bring out cloud detail. As ever FP4 delivers a very smooth grain and good detail and a nice range of tones.

Ilford HP5

The running mate to FP4. HP5 is an ASA 400 film that can be pushed to faster speeds (remember to let any lab doing the processing know what ASA rating you shot it at). I have pushed it to 3200 in the past to make the film break up and go super grainy like old news print. I mostly shoot it at ASA 400. Like FP4 it’s quite tolerant to exposure errors of around 2 stops but much will depend on what was photographed. It has a medium contrast which can cause it to turn things to muddy grey if the subject lacks any solid contrast.

I like HP5 a lot, it’s fast enough for poor light and can render urban street scenes as nicely gritty. Like many photographers it’s my standard general purpose black and white film. Under good light it can produce quite a smooth grain but as the light goes down it can start to show a gritty, grainy look.

I mostly use it for street work where it allows for a faster shutter speed and produces a very gritty, realist look.

35mm Film Stock Review - Ilford HP5 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Ilford HP5 under good light with a yellow filter for cloud detail. It’s smooth enough but shows some grain.
35mm Film Stock Review - Ilford HP5 Sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- HP5 under poor light, it now starts to show a more grained up look, good for a bleak realist film look.
35mm Film Stock Review - HP5 Sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- HP5 under poor light starting to show grain and giving a ‘gritty’ look to an urban scene.

Kodak Tri-X 400

Similar to, but usually more expensive than HP5, is Kodak Tri-X 400. It’s very similar in the way it shoots, though Tri-X generally gives better detail and a much finer grain with a classic texture. I find in low light it’s rather good but under bright conditions it can create a slightly nervous look and sometimes needs a lot of careful adjusting with contrast in post processing. Tri-X gives nice solid blacks and sharp whites with excellent tones and detail.

Although a good choice for night scenes you should remember that AS 400 is not that fast and for night scenes I would usually shoot it at around ASA 1600. When pushed although Tri-X will grain up a bit though it’s nowhere near as grainy as HP5.

35mm Film Stock Review - Kodak Tri-X Sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Kodak Tri-X in its element, high contrast scene with lots of detail.
35mm Film Stock Review - Kodak Tri-X sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Tri-X again in a shot with lots of contrast. Tri-X gets a lot of detail and smooth grain.
35mm Film Stock Review - TriX sample - strong light
35mm Film Stock Review:- Under strong light Tri-X can create a slightly nervous look and the grain can become a problem.
35mm Film Stock Review - Tri-X Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Tri-X under dark clouds and with a yellow filter. Excellent contrast and detail.

AGFAPhoto APX-400

I used Agfa APX-400 only once during a trip across Europe. I did not like the results over much as the film tended to push everything towards a mush of greys rather than having any strong definition. It can create a slightly softer look than films like Tri-X and FP4. To get the film to look good it needed a lot of post edit work to tune the contrasts. On the upside it has a nice fine grain thats very close to FP4 so the film sort of falls between FP4 and HP5. The fine grains of FP4 but with the speed of HP5 but with a slightly softer look.

It may well perform better if its slightly overexposed by around a 1/2 stop or pushed to ASA 800. I can’t be sure of that as I have never used it since but some films do like to be pushed a bit to get them to behave.

It can certainly create the classic black and white film look but for me I would prefer the solid blacks of Tri-X or the finer detail of FP4.

35mm Film Stock Review - Agfa APX 400 sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Good strong detail in this shot using a yellow filter which also helped to give the film a bit more contrast.
35mm Film Stock Review - Agfa APX 400 sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- This shot actually looked very mushy-grey and needed a lot of messing with contrast in post process to get it to look good.
35mm Film Stock Review - Agfa SPX 400 sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Good detail and nice smooth grain in this shot under good strong light.
35mm Film Stock Review - Agfa APX 400 sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Under bright light and high contrast APX-400 renders much like HP5 but with tighter grain.

Ilford XP2 Super

I seldom use XP2 and find it a bit of an odd duck. Its standard speed is ASA 400 but it can be used between ASA 50 and ASA 800 on the same role without changing chemistry. I have never used that particular feature. The film is very fine grained but I have found from experience it tends to lack contrast at ASA400 and rapidly turns things into a mess of grey. Pushed out at ASA 800 it can start to be effective and can be used to create a similar tone to old 1940s movie film. In good light with strongly defined subjects it renders well with good sharp detail.

35mm Film Stock Review - Ilford XP2 sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- XP2 pushed to 800 can capture a good range of tones and fine detail thanks to its fine grain.
35mm Film Stock Review - XP2 Sample shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- With a gloomy setting XP2 can create a very 1940s style film or gothic horror look.

BUDGET BLACK AND WHITE FILMS

No one said film photography is cheap but there are some budget films around. Most are reasonable enough if you can spend time to learn how to get the best from them. As in every other field of endeavour you get what you pay for. While budget films may not be to everyones taste they can produce some nice results .

Kentmere Pan 400

A film I have not used much. I was sent a sample pack of some Kentmere by mistake and the shop didn’t want it back so I decided to shoot it. My hopes were not high for it and the initial role shot at ASA 400 delivered very average output.I found the film lacked any real ability to get details and lacked tonal range.

I resolved to shoot the next rolls at ASA 800 and see if the film would improve and it did. For dim scenes or very highly contrasted scenes the film produced quite a nice look. In can grain up quite badly and this may of course suit some people seeking a newspaper type look. It’s not a favourite of mine but I could see an application for it for getting a certain look.

Kentmere 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Kentmere 400 at ASA 400. I found it a bit lacking in tones and detail.
Kentmere 400 at 800 ASA Sample Shot
Pushed to ASA 800 and given a subject with darks and dim light the film really starts to shine giving a 1950s movie look.

Shanghai GP3 100

For a trip to Lanzarote I decided to use some slow(ish) ASA 100. I knew the light would be bright and strong and I was a bit wary of the possible risk of airport scanners and so opted for a slow film. I was a bit short of FP4 so decided to use some Shanghai GP3 100 as I had a couple of sample rolls. Shanghai GP3 is a Chinese made film and while I applaud any new manufacturer bringing a new stock to market I was a bit less impressed with the actual results.

My experience with the film was not good. It seemed to lack tonal range and suffered from quite extreme grain. On some subjects which had a very strong contrast it could work quite well but for general use I found it lacking in detail and tones and generally with an unpleasant grain. Its sole upside is that it’s less expensive than film from Kodak or Ilford. With different developing it might well perform better. My test rolls were developed by a commercial lab and I have no idea what developer they may have used and that may, in fairness, have affected its performance.

I shot a few scenes with a strong red filter and the film performed slightly better giving an almost Infra Red look to the shots.

Shanghai GP3 100 Sample shot
Lack of detail and a lot of grain in Shanghai GP3 100. I had expected this and aimed for shots with strong contrasts.
Shanghai GP3 100 Sample shot
With highly contrasted scenes the film starts to perform better – this was shot with a strong red filter to darken the sky.

BOUTIQUE FILMS

With any boutique film you need to be on your guard and shoot at least one roll of various subjects to see how the film plays. I was very wrong footed with Agent Shadow and very few of the shots taken with the first roll worked out. While boutique film makers should be applauded for their efforts you should always be wary and never shoot anything critical until you have mastered the film and know its strengths and weaknesses.

Kosmo Foto Agent Shadow 400

I was a supporter of the Kosmo Foto films Kickstarter and and was happy to receive quite a few rolls of the film as part of the Kickstarter deal. The film is a nominal ASA 400 film and its manufacturers states that it can be pushed as high as ASA 6400. The film was geared to produce a 1940s/1950s black and white movie look. As a big fan of film and especially films like ‘The Third Man’ I was sold on the idea of the film to create that style of look.

I shot the first roll at ASA 400 for testing and to see what the film was good at. I found the film tended to grain up and lose contrast in daylight at ASA 400 and tended to deliver overall poor results. In dim settings at ASA 400 the film delivered what it was supposed to do, a very cinematic look but overall I was unhappy with the film at ASA 400.

Subsequent shots using the film pushed up to 800 and night scenes showed the film could really capture the look I was going for in Bruges and I would love to try it pushed out to 1600. Sadly the film is no longer in production though it is available through some film outlets.

Agent Shadow, along with Shanghai 400 Colour (see the colour films section) are the arch example of when shooting with boutique films you absolutely need a few rolls to shoot to get a feel for how the film will respond to certain scenes.

I still have some Agent Shadow in the fridge and I am waiting for another chance to shoot in Bruges or Vienna to give the film another run.

Agent Shadow 400 at ASA 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Gloomy light in an abandoned factory. Agent Shadow 400 gives the 1940s look.
Agent Shadow 400 at 800 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Pushed to 800 and at night Agent Shadows starts to deliver the 1950s Spy Movie look.
Agent Shadow 400 at 800
35mm Film Stock Review:- Agent Shadow pushed to 800. It gives a nice 1950s look but you can see the grain starting to appear.

STANDARD COLOUR FILMS

I don’t use much colour film, it doesn’t really suit my shooting style but I am not entirely ignorant about it either and have used various colour films over the years. Many are no longer available and formulations have changed over time.
Not all colour films are equal and some will render colours quite differently to others as you will see in some of these samples.

While many people will tell you that colour print films have a good latitude for exposure the reality is somewhat different. Yes you will get an acceptable picture of Aunt Mabel in 6×4 format for your scrapbook but you may find the quality is not good enough for anything else. My own experience is colour print films may have some latitude but it’s always at the cost of quality with either nasty grain showing up or muddy colours.

Here are some samples of modern colour film with notes as to how I found them in use.

Fujifilm 400 / Fujicolour Superia 400

Much ado in online forums regarding Fuji and their film stocks. The original Superia version has been replaced with Fujifilm 400 rumoured to be produced by Kodak. I have found little difference between the two and both favour reds in the scene. The newer Fujifilm 400 seems to produce perhaps a bit more detail and is slightly less vibrant but that may just be down to the subject matter I shot with it.

Both tend to skew darks slightly towards purple and during scanning/post processing of the negatives I usually have to apply a shift to the colour to give the film a more natural look. Labs doing printing for you do this as routine. Usually I use an image editor to give a slight push on its curves to make the image a bit brighter and more colour balanced.

Both versions of Fuji 400 tend to create very vivid and overblown colours and this gets more extreme under very bright sunlight. I generally use Fuji 400 as an all purpose film but it’s especially good with intense colour scenes. It does tend to veer towards a technicolour look. It also scans very nicely to black and white giving a nice sharp finely grained look like that resembles Ilford FP4. It also has an advantage for me in that Silverfast (my scanning software) can more easily remove defects in colour film than it can with black and white making Fuji quite nice for scanning to black and white.

Fuji 400 Superia Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Older Fuji Superia. Very overblown and vibrant colours with good detail. Shot with a polariser filter.
Fuji Superia 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Another shot using the older Superia film. Nice detail very apparent and very sharp.
New version of Fuji 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- New/Current version of Fuji 400 shows similar vivid colours to Superia – especially reds.
New Fuji 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Current version of Fuji 400, like the earlier version, is nicely sharp.
Fuji 400 Scanned as black and white SAMPLE
35mm Film Stock Review:- Scanned as black and white Fuji 400 is excellent, making it a good general purpose roll to have in the camera.

Kodak Ektar 100

One of my favourites but only for work where I know I will have good light. The relatively slow speed makes it unsuitable for me. Many people forget how slow a 100 ASA film is. I like to have a very wide latitude of exposure options open to me and 100 ASA is too limiting under anything except very bright conditions. I often use a polariser filter to darken the sky down and a polarising filter can often impose a -2 stop filter factor. With 100 ASA film that stop difference can be critical.

With good conditions Ektar produces a nice vivid colour without ever lapsing into riotous colour which Fuju 400 is often wont to do and also keeps the reds under control.

Ektar 100 Sample Shot
Ektar 100 gives a nice vibrant colour that stays under control. This was shot with a polariser filter to darken the sky and take out reflections from the water.
Ektar 100 SAMPLE SHOT
Colours are nicely balanced with no undue colour shifts.

Kodak Portra 400

The ultimate in colour film for many photographers. Portra is known for its true to life colours, its ability get detail and its super fine film grain. It’s also expensive. I only use it for critical stuff where I really want the best possible output and hang the expense. The last time I used it extensively was in Japan last year where the film was cheaper to buy and I really wanted the best.

With that said for some shots Fuji 400 might have actually shot better with Fuji films more vivid colours so there’s a lesson that lower cost films are not always a worse choice. I burned through 35 rolls of Portra 400 in Japan and frankly I should have been more cautious about using so much of an expensive film. Thats the kids inheritance thinned down a bit for sure!

Portra gives lifelike colours and a very fine grain which is why portrait photographers tend to favour it as it renders skin tones well but it also renders landscapes in a very natural way with excellent detail. I have also shot Portra 160 and find little to choose between them in terms of output. I prefer a faster film speed so favour Portra 400.

Portra has a reputation for its wide exposure latitude. I have never found that to be the case and find Portra 400 and 160 can skew colours badly and lose detail very fast if exposure values are off. It will hold on to highlights but thats not of much value if all of the other colours are very undersaturated.

Kodak Portra 400 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- Overcast day and Portra 400 shows very natural colours with fine detail.
Kodak Portra 400 Sample Shot
Bright sunshine and Portra, like most colour films starts to really push the colours but never overblows them.
PORTRA 400 SAMPLE SHOT
35mm Film Stock Review:- Portra keeps the reds under control even under bright light.
Kodak Portra 400 Sample Shot
The shot I wish I had used Fuji 400 for – Portra 400 gave a more realistic look but overblown colours might have looked nicer.

BUDGET COLOUR FILMS

Budget colour films from Kodak and Fuji can be very reliable although lacking the fine grain and detail of their more expensive cousins. Most are perfectly adequate. Snobs may insist you shoot with Portra but standard off the shelf budget films Kodak Ultramax can get perfectly acceptable results.

KODAK GOLD 400 / KODAK ULTRAMAX 400

There is very little to choose between the older Kodak Gold 400 and the newer UltraMax 400. The sample shots were all done with Kodak Ultra Max as it’s a current film but I sincerely doubt you could ever tell the difference between it and the older Kodak Gold.

It’s a reasonable film but lacks the sharpness and detail of films like Ektar or Portra and can, under less than good light, make things go a bit dreamlike with subdued colours and/or show a lot of grain. That’s not a bad thing of itself and as ever a great deal of photography is knowing how to use the tools you have to achieve the look you want. Under extremely bright light it will make colours pop and somewhat overblow them rather like Fuji 400. This can be an advantage if you know how to use it and want that look.

Don’t be put off by the films weaknesses, it has its strengths too which include the price and also its exposure latitude of at least 2 stops.

Kodak Ultramax 400 SAMPLE
35mm Film Stock Review:- Bright sun and a polariser filter. Colours are bright but the film does show grain.
KODAK ULTRAMAX SAMPLE
Slightly less light and Ultramax 400 starts to show muted, dreamlike and creamy colours which are quite pleasing.
KODAK ULTRAMAX 400 SAMPLE 2
35mm Film Stock Review:- Ultramax 400 under bright sun with a polariser. Nice strong colours and sharp enough for most things.
ULTRAMAX KODAK GOLD 7292
35mm Film Stock Review:- Ultramax 400 under an overcast. Colours mute down and the film starts to lose detail.

Shanghai GP400 Color

Another film from Chinese company Shanghai. On its release I was anxious to give it a try and get some stuff shot with it on a visit to Wales. As I said earlier of Shanghais GP100 it’s very laudable that people are attempting to create new films. Sadly I found the Shanghai 400 Colour to be a bit disappointing. It has its charms but the test roll I shot was far from impressive. I suspect it needs a bit of overexposure to make it look good and would probably shoot the other rolls at around 1 stop over as it seems less sensitive to light than its ASA 400 would suggest.

As I mentioned whenever shooting a film stock you have not used before it’s as well to run some test shots before you commit to doing anything critical and doubly so when the film is either boutique or from a manufacturer which is not one of the major players.

Shanghai GpP400 Color produces a vintage like effect, something akin to a tinted postcard. Shot at ASA 400 it tends to show quite a lot of grain and a loss of detail and the scanned outputs needed a fair amount of colour correction to get them to an acceptable quality.

Shanghai GP400 Color Sample Shot 1
35mm Film Stock Review:- Shanghai GP400 Colour rendering rather like an old postcard.
Shanghai GP400 Color Sample Shot 2
35mm Film Stock Review:- Shanghai 400 Colour giving the faded look but also a lack of sharpness.
Shanghai GP400 Color Sample Shot 3
35mm Film Stock Review:- This was shot with a 50mm f1.8 lens at f16 and the loss of detail is quite striking. With a fully stopped down lens everything should be tack sharp! The colours show a faded look typical with this film and also a very high level of grain.

SPECIALIST FILMS

These are almost never budget films and have special applications though they may well perform beyond their intended purpose.

Cinestill 800

Better known for its use as a night time film Cinestill 800 can be used for daylight work. You need either a daylight correction filter or a bit of messing about with the scanned output. Rather like Shanghai GP400 Colour it can produce a nicely faded effect but it scores with better detail and more pleasing colours. I generally only use it for night shots where there is a lot of artificial light and even then quite often prefer to opt for other films, which have a more general purpose use, and use a longer exposure.

Cinestill 800 sample picture 3
35mm Film Stock Review:- Postcard like effect from Cinestill 800 in bright daylight. Colour corrected in scanned output.
Cinestill 800 sample picture 2
35mm Film Stock Review:- Nicely faded and with lots of details. This one was shot using a colour correction filter.
Cinestill 800 sample picture 1
35mm Film Stock Review:- Cinestill 800 doing what it’s best for – nightime shots with lights.

Ilford SFX 200

SFX 200 is a medium speed film, it can easily be pushed to ASA 400 with no significant loss of quality. It has an extended red sensitivity which makes it suitable for Infra Red photography using an IR filter but it can be used as a kind of high gain black and white. It will produce extremely high contrast images almost as if you were using a red filter on the camera. I haven’t shot much with it but what I have shot I have liked quite a lot. It’s very fine grained and produces beautiful darks and shadows. I only started using it recently for Infra Red work but the output from non-IR shots has certainly intrigued me and I will be shooting some more of this film in the near future.

ILford SFX 200 Sample Shot
35mm Film Stock Review:- SFX 200 shot at ASA 400. Nice solid blacks and good detail with fine grain and very high contrast.
Ilford SFX 200 sample shot
SFX 200 shot at ASA 400 with a 720nm Infra Red filter. A good choice for IR work for its its enhanced red sensitivity.

The Departed….Fuji Technical 100

The final shot is from an amazing film no longer available. I once had a pile of this bought cheap in Japan as the film was expiring. If you are ever in position to buy this as an expired film stock (assuming its been kept in a fridge) then grab it with both hands. It produces stunning colour and very high detail and for landscapes it’s simply amazing.

Fuji Technical 100 SAMPLE SHOT
One of the most beautiful film stocks – Fuji 100 Technical. Sadly this is one of the now departed films. Shot with a polariser filter.

FILTERS

A word on filters. To get the most from many films, especially with black and white, you need some filters. You don’t need dozens of every shade just a few will make a difference to how the film looks.

Yellow Filter – Black and white photographyExposure Compensation Typically 2 stops.
Darkens the sky slightly to allow clouds to ‘pop’ and renders skin tones smoothly for portraits.
A yellow filter also increases the tones in vegetation to give more tonal depth in landscape work.

Red Filter – Black and white photography
– Exposure Compensation Typically 2-3 stops.
Darkens the sky to near black for for dramatic clouds.

Polariser – Colour photography Exposure Compensation Typically 1-2 stops.
Removes reflections off of water and wet surfaces and makes the sky darker allowing clouds to ‘pop’.
The polariser is a filter which cannot be easily replicated in post processing/scanning as it affects the overall response of the film.

Bear in mind ALL filters require compensation for exposure as less light is getting into the camera. As a result you will either need to slow the shutter by 1-3 stops or open the aperture by 1-3 stops.

As an example – if your meter reading is telling you f11 at 500th and your filter compensation is 2 stops then you either have to slow down the shutter to 125th OR open the aperture to f5.6.

Your camera may, or may not, compensate based on its own TTL meter and the type of metering cell the camera uses.
Some cameras have metering cells which will not compensate accurately for various reasons. The Minolta XD series for instance is blind to a red filter due to the wavelengths on which its light meter bases exposure so will not always compensate correctly meaning you will end up with overexposed pictures.

It’s alway best if in doubt to take an exposure reading, add the filter and then check if the camera has compensated correctly.

FINALLY…

If you are a beginner, or even a seasoned pro, and using a new film don’t be disappointed with the first roll out of the camera. I have put more film in the bin than I have ever put in the negatives folders. Remember you are learning all the time about what works and what doesn’t no matter how much film you have shot. If you are not learning you are dying from a creative point of view. It will help enormously if you keep a note book of what film was in use, what did the metering suggest, did you apply compensation (for filters or bright stuff in the scene like snow), what was in the scene. This will allow you to compare outputs and learn from what worked and what didn’t – and remember you always learn the most from mistakes.

Many of the pictures I have shown in this article come from my own scrapbook – I keep a log of films and any notable failures so I don’t repeat them when using the same film. It also acts as a reference guide for what film may work best for particular shots. Yes of course I know what FP4 or Tri-X will look like but I may not recall what SFX 200 pushed to 400 and using a deep red filter looks like in 4 years time when I may want to consider using it again.

I am going away now to shoot some film – you should too!



This article is an expanded piece from some posts I have made on various forums. Unfortunately forums have a way of burying information and Facebook applies compression to images which may distort or give a false impression of what the image looks like. Quite a few people asked me to create a more permanent example of film stocks so I hope this will be of use to the film photography community. Mel

Buy Me a Coffee

Thank you all so much for visiting our site and for the great feedback. This site is also a labour of love and we are passionate about keeping it alive for as long as possible. If you found this site/page helpful why not buy us a coffee to say thank you and say hi. We love to hear how you get on with our tutorials and articles. Mel xx

Adaptall – Canon FD Dilemma

Tamron Adaptall

Tamron Adaptall Issues for Canon FD Mount

Back in the used to be Tamron saw a market opportunity.  As the camera wars of the 1970s heated up keen photographers often had a dilemma.  The true cost of photography is seldom the camera body – more usually it’s the cost of the lenses. 

A keen amateur might own only a single body but would almost always invest in lenses. As the camera wars escalated users were offered an ever increasing array of features and many owners were seduced by the charms of a different camera body as new features became possible and available (and often de rigueur) and this created no small amount of fear in many users. 

How to get good lenses and not have to change them if you ended up changing camera, it was a dilemma. 

Back in the 1970s there were few fanboys for brands and users had little loyalty to much except their wallet. The average buyer in the 1970s was much less fickle and generally had an eye to resale value and longevity when buying – cameras were expensive so people wanted the best deal for their hard-earned cash and some kind of promise that it wouldn’t be obsolete by next week.

So, there you were in the 1970s with a wedge of cash burning a hole in your pocket and trying to choose a camera.  Hmmm Pentax looks good, but then what happens if Minolta really do come through and provide a full program mode? What happens if you get some spare cash and want a Nikon next year? All those lenses you buy will be obsolete and you’ll maybe have to start from scratch.  ‘Well sonny (or little lady – camera shops were a bastion of sexism back then)’ the camera shop might have told you ‘check these Tamrons out – fantastic performance, low cost and best of all, by using a removable adaptor it will fit anything so if you want to change cameras it’s a breeze – just buy some new adaptors which are a fraction of the cost of a lens’.

Minolta SRT303
One of the earliest affordable zooms – Tamron 38mm-100mm an exceptional performer, its big and bonkers but renders well.

Good news for many buyers back then and in some ways good news for collectors today who may have multiple bodies from different makers, I happen to have Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, and Minolta bodies but cant afford to equip every camera body with a whole range of original glass. Besides the Tamrons perform very well.

The Tamron game played out quite well and they certainly sold no small amount of glass back then and, in some cases, their quality exceeded some of the big names.  Some of these lenses have gone on to be near legendary. Even the humblest ones can perform amazingly well.

So what’s the headaches then? – it all sounds rather rosy so far.  The headache was that Tamron constantly had to play catch up with some of the brands who, naturally enough, tended to keep their surprises under wraps.  Their original adaptors were designed for the cameras that were, at the time, at the front of the pack but as the big boys of Minolta, Pentax, Nikon and Canon duked it out in a game of last man standing they added more features and that meant the early promise of Tamron was somewhat dulled. After all what’s the point in having a new camera if you cant take advantage of the features thanks to your lens because Tamron don’t come through on the promise.  This is nowhere more apparent than with the Canon FL/FD lenses.

Because of the way Canon managed the cameras meter/lens interface it meant the adaptor had to be geared to the lens.  So if you had a lens with a maximum aperture stop of f2.8 you needed a specific Canon adaptor for f2.8 lenses.  Similarly for all lenses you owned you needed a specific adaptor that was matched to the lens maximum f stop.  

This somewhat ruined the advantage of Tamron for Canon users as each lens needed a specific adaptor. I suspect that Canons sudden change of design from the FL to the FD to allow open aperture metering and Shutter Priority caught Tamron out.  The AE-1 was quite a trailblazer in its day and Canon were, until the AE-1 something of an also-ran – Tamron probably had their hands full keeping up Nikon and Minolta.


Tamron did resolve this issue with a universal adaptor for Canon FD but it will only work on Adaptall 2 lenses.  At the time it was better late than never and anyway by the time Canon AE-1 had traction and the sales numbers Tamron were already moving with their newer Adaptall 2 lenses most of which would have been sold with an Adaptall 2 Interface. The Japanese camera industry was nothing if not nimble back then – damn near acrobatic in fact.

Adaptall 1 Canon FD
Adaptall 1 Canon FD Mount showing the stated F stop stud

Many a pro and serious amateur had cause to swear at Canon back in the day as Canon changed lens mounts no fewer than three times obsoleting every previous lens and caused many a pro to curse the day they trusted Canon with the cash.  But it shows you how good the Adaptall idea was (at least for non-Canon users) as it allowed people to relatively cheaply convert all their glass and back then there was a kind of paranoia to buying lenses ‘oh dear what if I buy a new expensive shiny lens and next week Olympus/Nikon/Pentax et al bring out something better and I have to swap’ of course Minolta eventually did just that and got AF working and promptly crucified everyone in a kind of Camerageddon that nobbled even the Tamron Adaptall folk. Canon retaliated of course with the EOS system which acted as a double whammy for the whole Adaptall idea. It just wasn’t possible to make an Adaptall suitable for an AF lens with all the work involved. The throat width and focal plane to flange distances for Minoltas ‘A’ mount and the Canon EOS mount being so different killed the whole Adaptall system.

Tamron Lenses with Canon FD Adaptall 1 and 2
Tamron lenses with FD Mounts in Adaptall 2 to the left and Adaptall 1 to the right

So here we are many years after the events. Here’s what you need to know – and trust me there is much bad information on this topic from the ‘still wet behind the ears’ gang on the web.

Before we start its worth mentioning that plenty of ‘experts’ on forums believe Adaptall 1 lens will work ok with an Adaptall 2 adaptor and for some lenses and mounts like Minolta and Pentax they will work fine.  Nikon will depend on whether your camera and lens and Adaptor support AiS.

Adaptall 2 Adaptors may indeed be a better choice for Pentax and Minolta as Tamron added an aperture value ring so the camera could display the lens aperture setting through its viewfinder but this is of help to Canon users. Many Canons back then never had an aperture readout in the viewfinder.

Old school cameras had a kind of mini periscope arrangement that allowed the lens aperture markings to be seen through the viewfinder through a system usually known as a ‘Judas Window’ and this is what the later Adaptall 2s offered for Minolta and Pentax users assuming your Pentax or Minolta has this feature – the Pentax K1000 didn’t and neither do a lot of old school Minoltas like the SRT101 so there’s little to no value having the later version if you own a camera without an aperture readout in the viewfinder.

For Nikon it’s a whole different ball game – there is a profusion of Adaptall adaptors – some with AiS and some without, some of the later ones omitted the lobster claw/bunny ears on the top of the lens which were used by cameras like the Nikon F Photomic. For Nikon its almost moot as most Nikon users would never condescend to use non-Nikon glass (well not at least without feeling the need to justify that decision in at least a podcast and public apology to other Nikonistas) if however your struggling with this the key to it is does the adaptor support AiS.  A non-AiS will not work on an AiS equipped camera and may damage the camera. If your a classic Nikon F user with a metered prism you need the bunny ears.

For Canon there is a whole different issue and getting the right mount for the lens is more critical especially in the Areas of Adaptall 1 lenses.

As already mentioned because of the way Canon managed the camera meter/lens interface it meant the adaptor has to be geared to the lens. 

If  you have an Adaptall 1  lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8 you have to have an Adaptall Mount 1 mount for f2.8.  The Adaptor has a small stud on its rear that states the f stop value it supports. The reason being that the camera has a spring loaded aperture detection lever that relies on the position of a stud on the back of the lens to tell the camera what the lens maximum aperture is so it can calibrate the meter accordingly. 

Tamron corrected this with the Adaptall 2 Series Canon FD/FL Adaptors which will suit any maximum aperture but these will often not work on an Adaptall 1 lens. The Tamron Adaptall 2 adaptor also features an aperture lock denoted by an ‘A’ on the lens at its minimum aperture which corresponds to a Canon FD lens which features an aperture lock marked by either an ‘A’ or an ‘O’. These lock the lens to minimum aperture for shutter priority shooting. The Adaptall 1 FD/FL Adaptors lack this feature but will operate perfectly well with shutter priority mode so long as you set the lens to minimum aperture.

Rear view of Tamron Adaptall 2 on the left and a Canon Apaptall 1 to the right
Note the differing mechanics between the Adaptall 2 (left) and Adaptall 1 (right)

But there’s a bigger problem than the missing aperture lock for Adaptall 1 lenses. The aperture spring in an Adaptall 1 lens is much stronger than in the Adaptall 2 lens and this is aggravated by the fact that Adaptall 2 adaptors have a relief spring that’s relatively weak which will fail to fully stop down an Adaptall 1 lens. The relief spring is there to prevent the cameras stop down lever putting too much force on the lens stop down actuator and is related to the way the Adaptall 2 Adaptor mechanism is geared for any lens regardless of its maximum f stop.

In Adaptall 1s Tamron solved the shock problem by having a very powerful spring in the lens actuator inside the lens itself to soften the impact.  On Adaptall 2s they went for a softer spring probably to cope with shutter priority cameras like the AE-1 and the emergent cameras like the Minolta XD-7 which required a very fast reaction from the lens aperture and so a smoother, faster operating mechanism.To take the heat off the lens mechanism the adaptor has a relief spring which stops the camera mechanism from applying too much force or pushing too far.  The problem is when you have a strong lens aperture spring, like the Adaptall 1 lenses were fitted with and pair it with a weak relief spring, like the Adaptall 2 Adaptors you’re going to get trouble !!!!

In a nutshell when an Adaptall 1 lenses is mounted to an Adaptall 2 Adaptor for Canon FD/FL fitting the lens will not react appropriately.  When you set f16 the lens will probably only stop down to about f8 when you take the picture. The weak relief spring in the Adaptall 2 mount will release before the lens reaches its selected  aperture stop down of f16 – the point where the lens spring is pushed to its highest resistance.

You can test this (and I have) with an Adaptall 1 lens mounted to an Adaptall 2 Adaptor.  Turn the lens to manual and stop it down to f16.  Make a note of how large the aperture is.  Now put it on the camera with the camera shutter set to ‘B’ , lens set to Auto and f16 and press the shutter and note the size of the aperture – its very often something close to f16 – like f11 but it will be out by a good margin, sometimes by a very large margin. That’s the weak relief spring in the adaptor.  Put an Adaptall 1 Adaptor on and it will work perfectly. I have tested this on a large range of Canon FD/FL Adaptall 2s and a large range of Tamron Adaptall 1 lenses.  None has ever worked 100% though the lenses operate perfectly when paired with the correct Adaptall 1 adaptor.

It may have been possible for an Adaptall 1 lens to work with an Adaptall 2 back when they were made and everything was operating as new and within factory tolerances back in 1970s things may well have been different and life may have been sweeter and easier.  I can tell you that this is not true today from hard won experience of these lenses.

Of course there will be exceptions but I would always advise people not to base their photographic endeavours on exceptions unless your mission is over exposed junk photographs. If you like a haphazard approach to photography a pin-hole camera will suit you rather well if on the other hand you simply want your Canon camera to work reliably with an Adaptall 1 lens then you have to bite the bullet and get the right adaptor.

Buy Me a Coffee

Thank you all so much for visiting our site and for the great feedback. This site is also a labour of love and we are passionate about keeping it alive for as long as possible. If you found this site/page helpful why not buy us a coffee to say thank you and say hi. We love to hear how you get on with our tutorials and articles. Mel xx

Whose got the Power? – A Guide to Classic Film Camera Batteries

High5Cameras Battery Power

A film camera batteries dilemma….

For lovers of old cameras, one of the biggest headaches is finding batteries for powering the electronics. Many classic 35mm SLRs were designed to use the very long lasting Mercury type batteries.  Mercury type batteries had some very attractive properties for camera manufacturers needing a stable power supply for sensitive electronics like light meters.  Mercury cells could provide a very stable output over a long period of time, years even.  This had benefits to the manufacturer in terms of accuracy and to the end user by reducing battery replacements. However, Mercury has a huge downside – it is environmentally toxic and as a result Mercury cells were banned quite some time ago in most countries. This isn’t greenie rhetoric and if you want to see just how hazardous Mercury is in the environment just do a bit of reading or watch the film ‘Minamata’.


For those of us with a love for old cameras though this does pose a problem and it’s one of the most common dilemmas for the tyro film photographer using classic gear from the 1960s and 1970s.  The original Mercury cells output at 1.35 Volts and most modern button batteries output at 1.5 Volts – its all down to the chemistry of the battery.

Each battery type discharges in a specific way and provides a specific power in volts. Cameras and light meters usually need a very stable supply at very close to the original battery specification voltage.

Film Camera Batteries - Voltage/Use Chart

You can see from the chart a rough approximation of how the batteries discharge over time.  The chart is based on hours of continual use.  You can see from the chart that Zinc Air batteries closely approximate the power output of a Mercury type – albeit with less run time.

Most cameras designed after the mid 70s used more conventional 1.5 Volt batteries and I have owned quite a few.  These include the Pentax K series and the Minolta X series. It’s worth mentioning that if you have one of these it’s ALWAYS best to use Silver Oxide types. These may be more expensive but are longer lasting with more predictable discharge curves.  Why worry? – Well a failing battery is going to give you wrong readings on your meter and result in under exposed pictures and with more complex cameras like the Minolta X series failing film camera batteries may cause odd problems to arise, hung up shutters and apparent fail conditions which may be erratic.

How do you tell the difference between Alkaline and Silver Oxide? It’s all in the naming of them – the prefix to the battery number will tell you if its Silver Oxide or Alkaline.

L = Alkaline
SR = Silver Oxide
LR = Alkaline
SG = Silver Oxide
AG = Alkaline

Where Silver Oxide cells score over their Alkaline counterpart is in their ability to maintain a more stable voltage. This characteristic makes them better for reliable metering.

Be wary as many online sellers will be selling common alkaline types as Silver Oxide and sellers are often ignorant of the differences. Besides cheap film camera batteries are almost never a good investment as they will not last long and can leak.


For cameras that need the 1.35 Volt Mercury types in this section I’ll outline the options you have:-

OPTION 1 – JUNK THE ONBOARD METER and buy yourself a modern external meter.  OK its not what you want to hear but the fact is that old cameras very frequently have dying light cells anyway. The light metering cells themselves decay with time and as the electronics age their accuracy degrades as well. But, if like me you just want the damn camera to work as intended and like the convenience of a built-in meter let’s look at some other options…

OPTION 2 – USE THE SUNNY 16 RULE and learn to gauge exposure by looking at the light. It’s tricky to be sure and takes some practice. With black and white film which has a good exposure latitude you can pull it off with experience but it’s tough without any guide if the lighting is tricky.

OPTION 3 – EXPOSURE COMPENSATION. Load the camera with 1.5 Volt batteries and compare with a known good camera. Usually you will be 1.5 to 2 stops adrift so either tweak the exposure compensation knob if the camera has one or remember that whatever the meter is telling you over exposure by at least 1.5 stops. It’s a headache as many meters do not run in a linear fashion and as a result the 1.5 Volts will be causing the meter to be inaccurate at the extreme ends of its range.

OPTION 4 – HAVE THE METER RECALIBRATED  by a professional to use a currently available 1.5 cell. This is not as easy as it sounds as the meters in many old cameras had specific needs and their electronics were designed with an exact 1.35 Volts in mind.  The meters do not work in a simple linear fashion so adjustment may be difficult, impossible or provide under or over values at the extreme ends of the range.

OPTION 5 – THE DIODE MODIFICATION.  Many cameras can be adapted using a simple diode modification that will drop the battery voltage down from 1.5 Volts to 1.35 Volts.  Its an easy modification but will require a known good camera to compare results with as the meter will need recalibrating and just like OPTION 2 may mean the meter reads under or over at the extreme ends of the scale.  For myself I don’t like bodging in parts to classic cameras and prefer to keep them 100% authentic.

Wow – it’s a counsel of despair here.  All the options seem difficult, less than wonderful or expensive.  Any chance of help here in this article? 
Read on...

OPTION 6 – THE WEINCELL.  These are Zinc Air types with the same case style as the original Mercury type so are a direct replacement.  The battery is sized exactly the same as the original Mercury type.  Zinc Air types do start to discharge immediately on removal of the safety tape and will continue to discharge whether the camera is used or not.  Typically a Weincell (link is to a PX625 equivalent as an example) will last around 3 months.  They come at a cost of around £6-£8 per battery – it’s a good and easy option but comes at a price.

OPTION 7 – MR-9 BATTERY ADAPTOR.  The MR-9 is a small adaptor that contains a diode and some circuitry to adjust modern Alkaline or Silver Oxide 1.5 VOLT film camera batteries down to 1.35 Volts and come in a range of styles to fit most cameras.  It’s very much the de-luxe solution and expensive at around £30 per convertor.  A headache if you happen to need two of these in any older camera like a Nikon F with a metered head where it may well be cheaper to get a professional technician to adjust the meter.  The upside is you can load the camera with relatively cheap modern batteries.  The down side is they are expensive.

Ow! Its expensive, sadly having an addiction to old cameras is expensive but you’ll be happy to know there is a cheap, safe and easy solution which brings us to…..

OPTION 8 – 675 HEARING AID BATTERIES are an excellent substitute battery type for Mercury types.  Like the Weincell batteries these are Zinc Air based so will discharge as soon as the safety tape is removed.  They are however cheap and typically sold in multi packs.  The price per battery is often less than £1 if you shop around.  Of course like a Weincell they will only last 2-3 months at most but they are inexpensive. 

To use one of these, simply wrap some non conductive material around its edge. This will be a good fit for the camera. Or go upmarket and buy an adaptor that will give the battery a good fit.  Unlike the MR-9 Adaptor these are simply machined metal to give the battery a snug fit in your camera. If you go this route try and find adaptors made from stainless steel as the brass type can corrode due to the outgassing of the Zinc Air batteries.  As a precaution I always remove Zinc-Air batteries when a camera is no longer in use.

Film Camera Battery Adaptors
Two types of adaptors. The stainless steel one is best and is in fact made from a discarded PX625 Alkaline cell. Note it has dimples to aid airflow to the Zinc Air Battery. The brass type has a large central hole for air flow to the Zinc Air battery but brass will corrode due to outgassing from the battery.

Let’s look at some cameras that were designed to use the older battery types. Plus, what film camera batteries solutions work…

OLYMPUS OM-1

Olympus OM1

Early 1970s design which was designed to use Mercury batteries. 

I owned a pair back then and don’t recall ever having changed batteries on them in 5 years of use.  That’s how long Mercury cells lasted! The best solution here is the 675 hearing aid battery with an adaptor.
It is possible to have these recalibrated with good results but I preferred to leave mine 100% original.  Fitted with 675 hearing aid batteries and an adaptor they work well and provide accurate and consistent metering.

Minolta SR and SRT Series

Minolta SR & SRT

Two camera series from the 60s and 70s which were both designed with Mercury in mind. The best solution here is the 675 hearing aid battery with an adaptor.  From practical experience, hearing-aid batteries last 3 months, longer if air holes are covered with tape when not in use. Both of these camera types will have accurate metering when the 675 batteries are in use. Adjustment of the meters to use 1.5 Volt Alkaline or Silver Oxide types is tricky without professional equipment. The diode modification often seen on web forums will cause the meter to read less accurately at extreme ends.  I haven’t tried an MR-9 Adaptor but would think this would lead to the same problems as the diode modification.

Circuitry in these is very primitive and are more dependent than other types on a stable/accurate voltage from the battery.

Nikon F (Photomic) – FTN Metering Head

Nikon F

With the Nikon F the meter is carried in the prism head of the camera.  Originally designed for 2x Mercury cells the FTN head is often reported to use a bridge circuit which will work with a pair of 1.5 Volt batteries.  I found that not to be the case with mine which consistently read at least a stop over.

Thankfully the metering in these can be adjusted but it’s a job for a professional.  Mine was modified to work with 1.5 Volt Silver Oxide cells using adaptors.  I chose this because constantly removing the metering head to insert new batteries was a nuisance.  The metered head on these has the batteries inserted from below requiring the head to be removed from the camera each time – back when they were made Mercury Cells lasted geologic timescales and it would not have been a problem but removing the head every time I want to shoot was.

My conclusions based on experience…

I found the 675 Hearing Aid batteries with an adaptor ( OPTION 8) to be perfectly well suited for my needs. I seldom leave film in a camera for any length of time. I’m and am happy to accept a short operating life from the film camera batteries which are cheap as chips. With the exception of the Nikon F, all cameras I currently use to work perfectly well with this solution. Even the Nikon was happy to work with 675 batteries. This was only modified because constantly messing with the prism and meter head was annoying. Plus it always put the cameras internals at risk each time.

My recommendation – raid your grandad’s cupboard for some hearing aid batteries and get yourself an adaptor.

Buy Me a Coffee

Thank you all so much for visiting our site and for the great feedback. This site is also a labour of love and we are passionate about keeping it alive for as long as possible. If you found this site/page helpful why not buy us a coffee to say thank you and say hi. We love to hear how you get on with our tutorials and articles. Mel xx