Another important choice is deciding what kind of film to shoot. We'll look briefly at the broad categories of film, and then go into a little detail about certain interesting films.

But first, a quick note about film speed. Films are rated by their light sensitivity. A higher number, such as 800, means the film is more sensitive to light, and a lower number, such as 50, means the film is an insensitive brute. This scale is referred to as ISO or ASA (same scale, same numbers, different standards agency). Doubling the ISO number reduces the light needed for a good exposure by one half, or one stop. Faster (higher ISO) films have larger grain than their slower counterparts.

Since you are a serious photographer, you always use a tripod, right? With a tripod, you seldom need fast film; you can use slow film (generally ISO 100) and take advantage of its fine grain. The exception is when you're shooting a moving subject in low light; generally that means wildlife. For wildlife, you'll often need 400 or even faster film. If you really have to shoot hand held, you're probably better off using a faster film; a little film grain causes less unsharpness than the motion blur from slower shutter speeds.

With film, there's just no way to avoid talking about particular brands. I've shot just about every emulsion out there at one time or another, so, while my opinions may not be based on completely scientific data, they are based on substantial real world experience, with maybe a teensy-tinsy trace of dramatic hyperbole thrown in. However well founded my opinions may be, they're probably not a complete substitute for your own experience; you'll still need to try various films yourself and see what works best for your shooting style.

Slide film

Once upon a time, a long time ago the only good color film was Kodachrome. Other slide films weren't so hot, and color negative films were unsharp, had unsaturated color, and didn't last well. Times and films have changed, but many photographers don't seem to have noticed. For many, negative films are for snapshooters, and all "professional" photographers shoot slide film. Piffle.

Slide film is evil. It has no exposure latitude, it has toooooo much contrast, and many slide films, such as Fuji Velvia and Kodak EPP, have completely ridiculous, psycho-saturated colors which have no discernible connection to planet Earth.

It's completely impossible to get a tonal scale long enough to keep color in a bright sky and detail in shadows with one frame; photographers who do such things with slide film resort to bizarre contortions like making multiple exposures of the same scene with different exposure values, meticulously cutting intricate masks to block out portions of the print, and then superimposing multiple slides onto one print.1 They could shoot negative film and dodge and burn their prints, but they prefer to make obscene amounts of extra work for themselves.

I'm glad I got that off my chest. Let me pause now, and take a few deep breaths. OK, I'm better now. Maybe I got a little carried away there. Anyway, there are times and circumstances where slide film is a decent, or necessary, option.

On overcast days, the extra contrast and saturation that slide films produce can be welcome, although there are super contrasty, super saturated negative films.

If you do nature photography with the primary goal of producing slide shows, you're probably better off shooting slide film, although you could take good prints and copy them onto slide film; besides, who does slide shows any more? Powerpoint presentations seem to have largely taken over that realm.

If you shoot with the intention of selling your work to photo stock houses, you're probably stuck with slide film, but maybe some of the stock houses will advance past 1963 one of these years.

One good thing about slide film is that it gives machine labs less of an opportunity to mess up your work. What you get back from the lab generally represents what you exposed. If you can learn to expose slide film well in a wide range of circumstances, you can create wonders with the longer tonal scales of negative film.

Black and white film

I've seen lots of wonderful nature photography done in black and white, but I seldom use b&w film for nature stuff, myself. Color is just so much a part of my view of the world that I seldom want to lose it. One giant advantage of b&w is that it is relatively simple to set up your own darkroom. If I were offered the choice between printing my own b&w and shooting color but relying on machine labs, I'd switch to b&w without a moment's hesitation. On the other hand, shooting b&w and relying on machine labs is a truly ghastly option; machine labs are spectacularly inconsistent with b&w.

There are many b&w films out there, and the major companies all produce good stuff. One source of weirdness is that the process for film development isn't standardized; each film responds to different developers in different ways. If you're processing your own, you should experiment with a few different films, developers, development times, and dilutions before you settle on a favorite. Even after you've found a favorite, you'll need to make adjustments for out of the ordinary conditions. If a custom lab is doing the development, they should have a standard developer and time that is appropriate for that film.

If a machine lab is doing the developing, you should consider chromogenic b&w films, which go through the standard color film process. Ilford makes a fine chromogenic film, called XP-2. Kodak also makes one, called TCN-400. The Kodak version has an orange mask, so the processed film looks like a color negative. The machine print from both of these films are generally OK, but the Kodak film generally produces very low contrast prints in a standard b&w darkroom.

Both of these films are fast (400 ISO) and remarkably fine grained, with substantial exposure latitude. With the standard process, the film should come out of the machine consistently reasonable, but there's no telling what the prints will look like. Some machine labs print b&w negatives on color paper, some use chromogenic b&w paper. The ones printed on color paper will have some sort of color tone. It can be a pleasant brown or blue tone, or it can be a ghastly shade of green or purple. It depends on the machine's operator and the customer's request.

My favorite b&w film, however, is Ilford's slow, old fashioned, Pan-F. It responds predictably to changes in development time for great contrast control. At ISO 50, the grain is not a problem, plus it has a terrific, long tonal scale. Ilford's other old fashioned films, FP-4, and HP-5, are also excellent, but a bit grainier. For landscapes, there's seldom a reason to use the faster films, so I stick to Pan-F on those rare occasions when I'm using b&w for 'scapes.

Kodak makes films quite similar to FP-4 (Plus-X) and HP-5 (Tri-X.) Both are fine and dandy, I can't really give a rational reason for my preference for the Ilford films. Both companies also have pairs of newer films utilizing t-grain technology. Ilford's t-grain films are called Delta, and Kodak's are called Tmax. Both Tmax and Delta are available in 100 and 400 speed versions.

All four films share the same giant strength: wonderfully fine grain for their speed, and the same dangerous problem: they're mighty persnickety about development. It's very easy to wind up with negatives that have no detail in the shadows or highlights. If you're processing your own, and are willing to experiment a little to find the optimum combination of developer, dilution, and time for your exposure system and subject material, these films will reward you with dazzling results... once you find that magic combination.

Color negative film

Now for the good stuff... color negative film (aka color print film) has come a long long ways since the days of Kodachrome u¨ber alles. Today's excellent color negative films have very fine grain, fabulous color accuracy (when printed well,) and amazing exposure latitude; some films tolerate a range of five stops: three stops over-exposure and two stops under-exposure.

While snapshooters use this exposure latitude as an excuse to be sloppy, we use this latitude combined with careful exposure to create incredibly long tonal scales. The bark of backlit trees shows detail while the sky is still colorful, you can see every grain of black sand in a Lost Coast beach and every wisp in the brilliant white clouds above. Don't even contemplate the possibility of trying such things with slide film.

Garth's favorite film

And now... the moment you've all been waiting for: the announcement of the grand prize winner for Grooviest Photo Film in the Entire Universe! A hushed silence falls over the crowd... “the envelope please”... “the winner is: Kodak Supra 100” What, you've never heard of Supra? You've never seen it at your friendly neighborhood drug store?

Sounds like we need another award: “the grand prize winner for 'Pathetic Doofiosity in Marketing' goes to: Eastman Kodak for Supra” It's pretty bizarre that the Great Yellow Father would produce such a fantabulous product and then try to keep it a secret; but the Supra is a “professional” family of films (Supra 100 has faster siblings) available only to specialty camera stores. Even more bizarre is the fact that Supra 100 is actually less expensive than its amateur counterparts, such as that Gold crap you find in every drugstore everywhere. Supra isn't packaged by single rolls; it comes in five roll “pro packs”. Less packaging means a lower price... when you can find it at all.

Alternative film choices

So, you're not in the vicinity of a pro camera shop, you're on a once in a lifetime trip in Montana, you run out of film, no time for mail order, the only option is a nearby drugstore. You find lots of alternatives, but no Supra. What do you buy?

Here's my list of alternatives, based on what you'd be likely to find in such a place:

1. Kodak Royal Gold 100 (RA.) It's just about as good as Supra, only more expensive. As near as I can tell, it might even be the same thing in different packaging.
2. Konica 100. Wonderful exposure latitude, but the colors seem a tad less saturated than the groovy Kodak films. I'm not sure I trust Konica's batch to batch consistency, but I can't actually say I've had a bad experience with their films.
3. Fuji Reala. Fuji films generally have a little less exposure latitude than the films I've ranked higher, but they have more saturated colors. They don't take dodging and burning as well as some films, but they're less likely to need such special treatment. Reala, as the name suggests, has especially accurate color. An excellent choice if custom printing isn't an option.
4. Fuji Superia. Contrastier and more saturated than Reala, it's a good choice for cloudy day shooting.
5. Kodak Gold 100 (GA.) Too contrasty. OK for cloudy day shooting, I suppose, but I prefer to avoid it.

Whatever you do, don't buy cheapo house brand film. The price is tempting, and sometimes the quality is good, but you never know what you're getting. If this week's batch is good, next week's film in the same box might be stinko. The major brands have fabulous quality control; house brands use whatever is available cheaply at the moment. It might be old stock, it might be scratched and dirty, it might be plain ol' fashioned lousy. If your images matter, saving a few pennies isn't worth the risk.