There is some debate amongst analogue photographers about the degree to which using different brands of film affect the final result. Or, whether it matters at all.

The fact that I get labs to develop my film is a sure sign that I’m clearly not a serious film photography buff. I just haven’t got the patience, time or space. But mainly, I just haven’t got the desire.

All of which makes much of what I’m going to say highly debatable – at least amongst those who spend, much time experimenting and discussing the merits of various film emulsions and developers.


Time tunnel (on Eastman Double-x)

I’ve often found that I get less than the best results from Ilford’s films – apart from their C41 black and white film XP2. At least, this is true from a scanning point of view –  and therein probably lies the rub. It may well just be the way that Ilford’s traditional black and white films interact with scanners (or, at least, with the scanners that I use). Either way, I seem to get a very grainy effect with both HP5+ and FP4+ (the latter of which ought to be fairly grainless, in the scheme of things).

Overhead view of tram and cars

Overview – (on Eastman Double-x)

Sure, this might be down to the way the films were developed, but that’s out of my control. But I certainly find that Eastman Double-x, for example, which is a 200-250 ISO film, looks far smoother then either of the above Ilford films when digitised. It also allows for a lot more digital post-production, without developing visible grain (as does Tri-X and the older Agfa APX, in my experience).

Anyway, I imagine that some film purists will sigh and raise their eyebrows at my lack of analogue dedication, whilst others will be convinced that, regardless of the film, I must be doing something wrong with my production process. Perhaps so.

But, either way, it says to me that different film types definitely have an effect on the resulting photo. But, perhaps not for the  same reasons as one would expect.