Can we talk about film?

[headlessmike]

a different kind of film, but polaroid released a brand new camera yesterday. i already have an instax so not sure if i want one of these but it may well end up on my christmas list.

Discover the Polaroid I-2 Instant Camera

Designed for craft, the Polaroid I-2 is the first analog instant camera with built-in manual controls and is equipped with the sharpest-ever Polaroid lens.

i2-camera.polaroid.com

it’s so exciting that film is coming back to life.

Looks like a fun camera, but that price is a bit steep for me. I have an old yet fully functional Polaroid SX-70, literally an SLR that shoots instant film. Just wish that Polaroid's film was as cheap as Fuji's, relatively speaking. I also feel that the new Polaroid company (previously known as the Impossible Project) puts too much emphasis on novelty, with film that intentionally produces washed out images. Polaroid films back in the day could give nice, vibrant colors with reasonable sharpness if you had the right camera.

 

[mollyc]

Looks like a fun camera, but that price is a bit steep for me. I have an old yet fully functional Polaroid SX-70, literally an SLR that shoots instant film. Just wish that Polaroid's film was as cheap as Fuji's, relatively speaking. I also feel that the new Polaroid company (previously known as the Impossible Project) puts too much emphasis on novelty, with film that intentionally produces washed out images. Polaroid films back in the day could give nice, vibrant colors with reasonable sharpness if you had the right camera.

it’s not cheap. but the sx70 would be $1300 today so maybe not that expensive?

my daughter has a newer polaroid that my dad gave her, a 90s vintage probably. i do prefer my instax colors over her polaroids but i’d love to do transfers which you can’t do with instax. (the cheaper option for me would just be to experiment with her camera. but you know. plus she’s off to college in a year and she’ll definitely take hers with her.)

 

[bunnspecial]

a different kind of film, but polaroid released a brand new camera yesterday. i already have an instax so not sure if i want one of these but it may well end up on my christmas list.

Discover the Polaroid I-2 Instant Camera

Designed for craft, the Polaroid I-2 is the first analog instant camera with built-in manual controls and is equipped with the sharpest-ever Polaroid lens.

i2-camera.polaroid.com

it’s so exciting that film is coming back to life.

Agreed, it's exciting to see.

With that said, what would make me happiest(and make me spend money!) in the instant film realm is if someone would start making peel-apart film again.

Fuji FP-100C in the past would look okay-ish to decent in some of the better Polaroid folders(I think I may still have a partial pack in my 250, which has a coated Triotar-type glass lens and a real rangefinder for focusing) but would really sing and look phenomenal when you put it behind really good glass. I shot some in my Mamiya RB67, which could shoot it nearly full frame and the wonderful Mamiya would make it pop. I never used the Polaroid back on my Hasselblad, as I'd sold the half dozen or so packs I had left in the refrigerator by the time I got it.

 

[bunnspecial]

Looks like a fun camera, but that price is a bit steep for me. I have an old yet fully functional Polaroid SX-70, literally an SLR that shoots instant film. Just wish that Polaroid's film was as cheap as Fuji's, relatively speaking. I also feel that the new Polaroid company (previously known as the Impossible Project) puts too much emphasis on novelty, with film that intentionally produces washed out images. Polaroid films back in the day could give nice, vibrant colors with reasonable sharpness if you had the right camera.

Polaroid made some cameras with really great glass. The SX-70 series, and in particular the original brown leatherette/brushed aluminum in all of its 70s glory, was one of those. Back when I was more accumulating cameras than collecting and not really a photographer, I bought an SX-70 at a little country auction house for probably $1 or $2(that was about my budget then). This would have been maybe 2002 or so, and IIRC you could still get SX-70 film if you looked for it. I know I HAD some and used it, as a year or two prior our local K-Mart had marked all their SX-70 down to like 75¢ a pack and even my then-middle-schooler budget could afford to buy all 10 or 12 packs they still had.

I'm rambling I know, but from what I remember at that time(late 90s/early 2000s) Polaroid seemed to be phasing out SX-70 and I don't think had even made any SX-70 cameras in several years. The Type 600 with its flip up flash was their mainstay. I remember too that they seemed to be the big on the Sprectra I think it was called. I remember even by early 2000s standards that seemed terrible expensive. The camera were $80 or so compared to $30 for the plain 600 model, and film was like $20 a pack vs. $10 for the 600 film.

BTW, I did use 600 film in my SX-70 a few times. There's a trick with an index card to load it, and I think you use a 4 stop ND over the lens to get correct exposure(and 4 stops over the meter eye to use SX-70 in a 600...). All of it was pricey compared to $1 store brand 35mm C-41 and $3 processing.

BTW, I agree on your assesment of IP/Polaroid rendition. I know it's a small miracle that they could even reverse engineer and make it, but the crazy long development bugs me also. IIRC original SX70 would show in 2-3 minutes and be done in about 5 temperature dependent. I wasn't into manipulation and didn't even know it was a thing, but inadvertenly discovered it when I took someone's advice to shake my developing photo(one of those things that doesn't actually work...) and got green splotches across the bottom. I seem to remember that SX-70 would harden up in an hour or so, but that gives you 55 minutes where you can actually see the image.

I wold my SX-70 when they were bringing over $100 on Ebay(no idea where they were now)-probably the best return I've ever had on a camera percentage wise(50x what I paid for it). I wish I'd kept it, though, as I'm sure they're probably even more expensive now and they really were/are a thing of beauty. I had an autofocus one somewhere along the way too(bought at the same auction house as my first, which BTW also yielded my prized Polaroid 250), but that lost a lot of charm of the original with the ugly ultrasonic protusion on top.

 

[bunnspecial]

i’d love to do transfers which you can’t do with instax.

Did I miss news-and I very well could have-about peel apart film coming back? AFAIK, you can only do those with peel apart. I guess you probably could do them with roll film, but that's virtually a footnote in history now although Polaroid made it up into the early 90s. I would love to see someone make THAT, especially since cameras like the 100 are phenomenal(I've stuffed a sheet of 4x5 in mine, and the lens is quite good) but it's supposedly finicky to develop.

 

[mollyc]

Did I miss news-and I very well could have-about peel apart film coming back? AFAIK, you can only do those with peel apart. I guess you probably could do them with roll film, but that's virtually a footnote in history now although Polaroid made it up into the early 90s. I would love to see someone make THAT, especially since cameras like the 100 are phenomenal(I've stuffed a sheet of 4x5 in mine, and the lens is quite good) but it's supposedly finicky to develop.

So I don't really know anything about peel apart film and am currently googling it in other tabs. But I do know for transfers, people use currently produced Polaroid film and literally tear open the border and then transfer the emulsion underwater onto something like watercolor paper.

The technology between Instax and Polaroid is quite different from what I understand. I believe that you can do an emulsion lift basically anytime after the Polaroid has developed, but the Instax develops much more quickly and basically hardens too fast to pull it apart. I think even a five year old Polaroid is still liftable in theory. And in theory if you break apart an Instax in the first 90 seconds you *might* be able to lift it, but it's really not a repeatable project with Instax.

How To Do Polaroid Transfers & Emulsion Lifts » Shoot It With Film

Learn how to do Polaroid emulsion lifts with step-by-step instructions and video. This is an easy DIY method for Polaroid emulsion lifts on watercolor paper.

shootitwithfilm.com

 

[mollyc]

@bunnspecial I assume that you already know this since you are a walking encyclopedia of film knowledge, but there is a small company currently making peel apart film at a very high price tag. But maybe you don't know and you'd be interested? Not sure how the quality compares to the original stuff you used.

One Instant

supersense.com

 

[bunnspecial]

@bunnspecial I assume that you already know this since you are a walking encyclopedia of film knowledge, but there is a small company currently making peel apart film at a very high price tag. But maybe you don't know and you'd be interested? Not sure how the quality compares to the original stuff you used.

One Instant

supersense.com

Thanks, I actually wasn't. Truth be told I'm not super plugged in to what's currently happening with film other than know that there is a lot going on now and I'm happy on the whole to see it.

I just sometimes feel like a 35 year old grumpy old man on some of these discussions . I know I've said it many times, but I really got serious about photography in 2005 when I was in high school. At time time I saw my options as the Canon Digital Rebel(I actually was far from a Nikon guy then, too, and I know Molly you've said it's hard to think of me shooting anything other than Nikon) which would have run ~$1K or so with the crummy kit lens, or buy a nice Canon A-1 kit(the camera I really latched onto liking) for $200 and have something far better. I reasoned that the $800 difference would buy a whole lot of film, which it did in those days. I could afford a nearly endless supply of Fuji Superia 400, which was about $6 for a 5 pack of 24 exposure rolls(that i could normally squeeze 27 or 28 out of) at Wal-Mart. In those days too Wal-Mart send-off processing took 3 days and was about $3(give or take depending on how many frame they printed) for 3x5 prints or $4 if you wanted to splurge for 4x6s. I'd occasionally treat myself to 1-hour also, but couldn't usually justify the $6 or 7 they charged(and it usually was more like 2 or 3 hour...).

I do wish the folks getting in to film now could have experienced working with it when it was a serious pro medium. I was on the tail end of it, especially moving into the "big boy" stuff, but it was just so different from now. Murphy's Camera in Lexington(still there, although I've since spent a LOT more time at their main store in Louisville) had a refrigerator right behind the counter. It was a big convenient store affair-about 8 ft. wide with two sliding glass doors, and a big Fujifilm sign across the top and stocked with nearly every pro emulsion Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, and then even Polaroid made(and yes goodies like 4x5 sized Polaroid instant #545 negative/positive...). There was so much variety back then, too. In Portra, for example, you had 160NC and 400NC("natural color) which essentially were an older generation very similar to the current offering. You also VC, or "vivid color" and even the wonderful(still have some in 120 stashed back) 400 "Ultra Color". If you wanted slide film, you had Astia as an additional option from Fuji. Kodak had by far the most variety, though, with E100G, E100GX(warm version that fixed the blue shadow issue that's still there in the current Ektachrome), and E100VS(supposed to compete with Velvia). You could also get Ektachrome 200. Kodak made Ektachrome Plus, "EPP", which was the previous generation(I think not T grain but don't hold me to that) for a really long time-I think up until 2010 or so-because fashion photographers in particular loved its skin tones. You also had Ektachrome 64T(EPT), which was tungsten balanced for studio hot lights(I think basically the same as EPP otherwise). There was even the consumer "Elite Chrome", which I shot endlessly after I bought over 100 short-dated rolls on Ebay. What I mostly shot, and what was most common was the 100 speed version, which I'm pretty sure was either the same thing as EPP or if not was a very, very close cousin. There was even an Elite Chrome 64T, although IIRC the spec sheet said it was balanced a bit cooler than EPT since normal 100W household bulbs are warmer than halogen studio lights. Back when I started this Kodachrome was even still being made, and I shot my fair share of K64 although I never tried Kodachrome 200.

Then of course there was the lab infrastructure. There was a little lab tucked on a side street in downtown Lexington, actually right by Transylvannia University for anyone who knows the area(just down the street from Columbia steakhouse, which I think I posted a few photos of not too long ago in another thread). It was run by a husband and wife. The wife ran a photography studio out of the shop also, and she hand processed all the B&W. They did C-41 daily in a dip-and-dunk(pretty much extinct, but guaranteed to not scratch your film and most can handle any film size you throw at them as long as you have the correct hanger and the tanks are deep enough-they even told me at one point that if I shot with a bulk film back, they could handle 100 frame rolls of 35mm without clipping). They ran E-6 twice a day, and if you got it to them by 10:00AM they would have it ready at 2:00 the same day. The few rare times I did an event, I'd drop a big envelope full of Portra 160NC and 400NC in their night drop right after the event and would pick up a few hundred rolls 4x6 prints the next Monday afternoon, all beautifully and perfectly printed on an optical printer.

I know I'm rambling, but it's just a shame we've lost so much of this kind of stuff, and especially all the old time knowledge about how to make it happen.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I like slides, and keep my F2 loaded w/ deep saturation E100 and a 14mm lens for natural landscapes, and put Provia, w more subtle contrast, in my Nikon FA & Milvus 135mm for urban & human subjects. That crazy Milvus has more resolving power than film itself, so they're essentially the finest 35mm film images technically possible. After a few years of Leica’s, PhaseOne & Sony, I’m down to a few Nikons as my only keepers, my absolute favorite bodies w a minimum of lenses. No doubt about it, my Z7ii is practically a spaceship, and yeah the features & clarity are truly spectacular, but a lot of the time I‘m not actually in the mood to go blasting around on a spaceship, it’s enough to recline on a haybail with a little wine and capture a hazy artifact of a sunset boiling off into a fog. So its perfectly appropriate to pull a few art shots on a somewhat fiddly old medium that every couple months produces a surprise box of little framed jewels that light up with colorful little panoramas inside to jog your memory in a beautiful way.

I’ll probably upgrade my Z7 to newer better blah blah blah‘s 5 more times in my life, but the old F2 will never even raise the issue of upgrades, it’ll just continue to shoot perfectly stunning images until someone steals it out of my car like the last one, & then i’ll just replace it with an identical F2. Successful images per dollar spent on the F2 would be interesting to quantify.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Film is ‘coming back’ but at the same time neither Kodak nor Fuji appear to be genuinely committing to their film products. I am old enough that I used to shoot film because that’s the only way one could take photos, but have only recently got into it beyond the snapshot camera world.

Right now it seems that C-41 color negative film is hanging on by its fingernails in terms of what people in the boardrooms of Fuji and Kodak think.

I did buy an Instax camera and it’s a lot of fun (though the photos ar really small), but at present it seems that while interest is growing, 35mm production has gone nowhere and is not being expanded. So prices and scarcity continue to rise.

 

[dimme]

Film is ‘coming back’ but at the same time neither Kodak nor Fuji appear to be genuinely committing to their film products. I am old enough that I used to shoot film because that’s the only way one could take photos, but have only recently got into it beyond the snapshot camera world.

Right now it seems that C-41 color negative film is hanging on by its fingernails in terms of what people in the boardrooms of Fuji and Kodak think.

I did buy an Instax camera and it’s a lot of fun (though the photos ar really small), but at present it seems that while interest is growing, 35mm production has gone nowhere and is not being expanded. So prices and scarcity continue to rise.

From what I have read Ilford is still very committed to film but I believe it is limited to B&W.

 

[mollyc]

Film is ‘coming back’ but at the same time neither Kodak nor Fuji appear to be genuinely committing to their film products. I am old enough that I used to shoot film because that’s the only way one could take photos, but have only recently got into it beyond the snapshot camera world.

Right now it seems that C-41 color negative film is hanging on by its fingernails in terms of what people in the boardrooms of Fuji and Kodak think.

I did buy an Instax camera and it’s a lot of fun (though the photos ar really small), but at present it seems that while interest is growing, 35mm production has gone nowhere and is not being expanded. So prices and scarcity continue to rise.

Fuji is focused on Instax. They sold off all their traditional type of film making equipment. Any Fuji film you buy now is rebranded Kodak.

Kodak is building (or maybe just staffing) a new(?) manufacturing plant in New York, so they are committed, but we won't see film levels like we had 20 years ago. Still, anything new is amazing.

Kodak announces it will hire hundreds to make film

Consumers are turning to products like disposable cameras.

spectrumlocalnews.com

From what I have read Ilford is still very committed to film but I believe it is limited to B&W.

Ilford is making film still, and there are rumors of a color film from them, but it might also be rebranded Kodak.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

From what I have read Ilford is still very committed to film but I believe it is limited to B&W.

Yes, that’s my understanding too.

Fuji is focused on Instax. They sold off all their traditional type of film making equipment. Any Fuji film you buy now is rebranded Kodak.

I’ve been trying to find a source confirming that and haven’t yet (I haven’t looked especially hard though). Is the new Fuji 200 and 400 color film Kodak? I am disappointed they seem to be doing away with Superia.

 

[mollyc]

Yes, that’s my understanding too.


I’ve been trying to find a source confirming that and haven’t yet (I haven’t looked especially hard though). Is the new Fuji 200 and 400 color film Kodak? I am disappointed they seem to be doing away with Superia.

i don’t think there is official confirmation but people have compared the spec sheets and determined they are “identical.”

 

[bunnspecial]

Is this true of just consumer negative or of all Fuji emulsions? The last Fuji pro negative I bought(NPH?) wad definitely not Portra.

Provia and Velvia definitely are not Ektachrome either.

Of course it’s always possible that Fuji emulsions are being coated in Kodak plants.

Ilford made color in the distant past. They also have C-41 experience, just not recent color C-41

 

[mollyc]

it’s my understanding that fuji has some emulsions in cold storage that they are still selling. but consumer films like c200 etc are new kodak.

 

[mollyc]

I'm curious what ISO people choose if they are loading their camera just to have film in it? Sometimes of course, we might choose a film for a specific look/event/day/location. But I tend to shoot over multiple days with no specific purpose, and I am having a hard time deciding what a good all-purpose ISO is. I am thinking 400?

I've mostly used 200 speed film, and most recently shot 800 (but rated at 400). Because I shot that roll mostly outdoors, I was having to stop down more than I would prefer because I ended up with too much light. But I also think that just leaving in 200 limits me if I want to take a couple of images indoors. With 400 I could always overexpose outdoor images a bit if needed and still give me a bit of latitude indoors.

It's hard to commit to one speed for 36 frames! 🙃 Maybe the real plan is to use different ISOs in different cameras!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'm curious what ISO people choose if they are loading their camera just to have film in it? Sometimes of course, we might choose a film for a specific look/event/day/location. But I tend to shoot over multiple days with no specific purpose, and I am having a hard time deciding what a good all-purpose ISO is. I am thinking 400?

I've mostly used 200 speed film, and most recently shot 800 (but rated at 400). Because I shot that roll mostly outdoors, I was having to stop down more than I would prefer because I ended up with too much light. But I also think that just leaving in 200 limits me if I want to take a couple of images indoors. With 400 I could always overexpose outdoor images a bit if needed and still give me a bit of latitude indoors.

It's hard to commit to one speed for 36 frames! 🙃 Maybe the real plan is to use different ISOs in different cameras!

You would more than likely have a considerably better quality of light throughout the year than we have at more northernly latitudes, (British Isles), especially in winter, when the poor quality of available (often overcast) light taught me that anything less than 400 was pretty much futile for the winter months, unless there was a rare crisp, cold and bright spell, when the available natural light was unusually dazzling.

Actually, I even ventured into the semi-professional world of 800 for (standard, grey, dreary, dark) November shooting.

Anyway, I learned that - for summer - 200 was fine, but early spring, and from mid autumn onwards, you needed 400 at a minimum (and frequently 800 for November and January, February)

Reading your and @bunnspecial's posts brought back memories of the days when I brought my camera (usually a Pentax, - I started with a ME Super, a gorgeous camera, one of the smallest and most portable SLRs available, later switched to Nikon - I had a F100, and now, I have two Leicas, both film, the R7, - which I had actually forgotten about - and my M6) almost everywhere.

This was the late 1980s, and right through the 1990s.

Actually, I spent four months on a travelling EU fellowship in the Baltic states in the early 1990s, and returned with enough (film) rolls which became several hundred photographs; at that time, you couldn't buy batteries (for light metering) in the former Soviet world, not for my Pentax, and, for the final fortnight of my stay, I remember nursing those batteries tenderly and gingerly (purchased brand new and installed immediately prior to my departure - this fool never thought to bring spare batteries, because this clown never envisaged taking so many shots that the batteries would actually die on me).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I am currently shooting a roll of TX-400 in a Nikon FM set at ISO 800. It’ll be my first attempt to home develop at other than box speed. I shoot a lot indoors so ISO 800 makes a difference in flexibility - I’ve been using the CineStill 800 for indoor shooting and I love the way it looks, but B&W is much cheaper to shoot.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I used to occasionally shoot HP5 at ISO 1200, souping in replenished Ethol UFG. Grain was a bit finer than at ISO 400 souped in D-76 or ID-11. Negs very thin but printed well on hard paper. Key was metering for the deepest shadow where detail was required. Big problem with UFG was that it was not super stable. Lasted about a month which made it essential to test the developer before developing. Also made it rather expensive.

 

[ChrisA]

Generally, you know what you will be shooting and if it will be indoors or outdoors. Then you estimate the exposure you want and choose an ISO that gives a reasonable aperture and shutter speed.

But the question was "what do you keep in the camera when you do NOT know?" Your only option is to use high ISO film because with film, under exposure is very bad. You can over-expose a few stops and still have printable negatives. So keep "fast" film like ISO 400 in the camera.

My dad woud keep ISO 64 Extachrome in his camera all the time.

A lot depends on the lens. As said you have to estimate the exposure and choose ISO for the worst case. So if your only lens is the 50m f/1.4 "normal" lens you can use slower film than if you leave an old 35-80 f/5.6 zoom attached.

 

[mollyc]

Generally, you know what you will be shooting and if it will be indoors or outdoors. Then you estimate the exposure you want and choose an ISO that gives a reasonable aperture and shutter speed.

But the question was "what do you keep in the camera when you do NOT know?" Your only option is to use high ISO film because with film, under exposure is very bad. You can over-expose a few stops and still have printable negatives. So keep "fast" film like ISO 400 in the camera.

My dad woud keep ISO 64 Extachrome in his camera all the time.

A lot depends on the lens. As said you have to estimate the exposure and choose ISO for the worst case. So if your only lens is the 50m f/1.4 "normal" lens you can use slower film than if you leave an old 35-80 f/5.6 zoom attached.

Thanks. I wasn't really looking for advice, per se, although my question was kind of worded like that. This was more an informal poll kind of question. 🙂 Some people get really attached to a certain film (like your dad) and use it no matter what. My daughter loves Ultramax in her point and shoot and won't even try anything else and doesn't care when her images are dreadfully underexposed.

I'm almost 50 and grew up shooting film (although not knowing about photography) so understand the basics of ISO and what the tradeoffs are. Was just generally curious what people use as their "go to" ISO (not filmstock, just ISO) if they are putting a roll in just to have.

 

[dimme]

I do not shoot film anymore but I did spend most of my working life in a pro photo lab. I know some photographers like to overexpose their film and under develop, and then there were the ones that under exposed and overdeveloped for their look. There is so much latitude with negative film you can't go wrong. Personally I shot at the rated speed and processed normal. What used to drive me crazy were the cross process guys. (Shoot e6 and process c-41 and vice versa.)

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks. I wasn't really looking for advice, per se, although my question was kind of worded like that. This was more an informal poll kind of question. 🙂 Some people get really attached to a certain film (like your dad) and use it no matter what. My daughter loves Ultramax in her point and shoot and won't even try anything else and doesn't care when her images are dreadfully underexposed.

I'm almost 50 and grew up shooting film (although not knowing about photography) so understand the basics of ISO and what the tradeoffs are. Was just generally curious what people use as their "go to" ISO (not filmstock, just ISO) if they are putting a roll in just to have.

Well, I used to use 400 - which had more or less become my normal, except for summer when I reverted to 200 (although overcast summers also made a bit of a mockery of that).

However, natural light elsewhere is different, something one has to learn for oneself (well, I did).

This is something I learned (the hard way) during my first few trips to the Balkans (where I took a lot of photographs), in the period immediately after the Balkan war, - over a number of years from the mid 1990s until a few years after the millennium - during my first few - six or eight - election monitoring missions.

In the Balkans, even in late winter, early spring, the (available natural) light tends to be excellent. And, using 400 meant astonishing light readings in that environment, - even in the evenings - and consequent adjustments.

Likewise, when I spent two years in Georgia (Caucasus), with the EU after their conflict with Russia; by then, many of my colleagues had switched to digital, while I was still soldiering on with film.

Again, the light, the available natural light, even in winter, was amazing and one had to re-think how one approached the basic business of taking pictures in such transformed conditions (which transformed again when one returned home on leave, where grey overcast skies, and thus, challenging light, even in summer, are not at all unusual).

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I'm curious what ISO people choose if they are loading their camera just to have film in it? Sometimes of course, we might choose a film for a specific look/event/day/location. But I tend to shoot over multiple days with no specific purpose, and I am having a hard time deciding what a good all-purpose ISO is. I am thinking 400?

I've mostly used 200 speed film, and most recently shot 800 (but rated at 400). Because I shot that roll mostly outdoors, I was having to stop down more than I would prefer because I ended up with too much light. But I also think that just leaving in 200 limits me if I want to take a couple of images indoors. With 400 I could always overexpose outdoor images a bit if needed and still give me a bit of latitude indoors.

It's hard to commit to one speed for 36 frames! 🙃 Maybe the real plan is to use different ISOs in different cameras!

My 'go to' film was Ilford HP5, 400 ISO. But sometimes I'd push it to 1600 if I wanted that lovely grainy look, or if the light was really bad. I had my own development chemical process though, which involved a weaker dilution at a longer development time. This gave greater acuity (sharpness) and a better tonal range, at the expense of increased grain, but I liked that effect anyway. I would sometimes use FP4 125 ISO in good light, but I did find 50 PanF tricky to use because it was much fussier on the development. I would also sometimes use Ilford Delta 3200, because you could push that to 6400 ISO for really poor light conditions. I did try a range of other B+W films, such as Kodak Tri-X and T-Max films, as well as AgfaPan, but our college darkroom was set up for Ilford materials, so it was just easier to use those. I would experiment with things like Kodak Technical Pan film, which was a panchromatic film with extended red sensitivity, used for copying B+W artworks etc. I'd develop it in Kodak Dektol, actually a paper developer, which pushed the speed up and rendered very high contrast images almost like lith film (pure B+W), with superb sharpness. I had lots of fun!

For colour, I'd normally use Kodak Ektachrome of some kind. Often Ektachrome Elite, which was a good bit cheaper than some of the other films. Fuji Velvia was good for landscapes and images with lots of greens. But it was invariably about costs, so I'd use whatever was cheapest really. I'm just glad I did hi-res scans some time ago, because I doubt those emulsions have lasted so well now.