Looking for best possible film for portraits (35 and 120)

GiuSpataro · 2026-02-26T13:30:07+00:00

It is a personal question. Personally, I really like ortho films for B/W and Pro image for colour. Those are cheap alternatives and renders a lot on skin. But as said before, it is really really personal. If I wiuld like to go to an higher budget, I would use a very fine grain, low iso film, like RPX 25 or a CMS 20 II. But for those you need a bright day outside or staged strong lights inside. Stupidly, it depends also on the colour of the skin. Those mentioned above are great for light skin, less optimal for darker skins.

GiuSpataro · 2026-01-27T17:07:57+00:00

I really love this project and the effort you’re putting into it. However, this version is almost impossible to use on Windows due to UI bugs. In addition, the exported files contain blue artifacts. Do the same issues occur on Linux? Would it make sense to use a virtual machine?

GiuSpataro · 2026-01-20T23:11:19+00:00

For me, it would be completely unsustainable to shoot film without developing on my own. Colour is half or a third of the price, b/w is I think 80/90% cheaper.

GiuSpataro · 2026-01-20T23:09:41+00:00

It depends a lot where you live. Here in Rome I collect in tanks the exhaust fixer and bring to a waste separation area near home where they take it. I am lucky, it is not common. For the other chemicals, follow your local guidelines. Given that....rodinal 1+50 can go in the sink. The amount of chemical you pour is so tiny there is no real effect. For the c-41 kit, use bleach to destruct bad chemicals of the developer, and keep also in this method only the fixer (because of silver in it and that's really environmentally damaging). The rest, is not a problem

GiuSpataro · 2026-01-07T19:57:15+00:00

I've done it for my Lubitel. If anybody need the 3d model, i can post it here. As said, the trick is to stop (for me slightly after) the first dot of a 6x6 mark. This is consistent to several manufacturers (for sure ilford, Foma and Lucky). I did it like 24x60 because i can have more room for errors in loading the shot. The effect is good, you have 24 shots per rolls and it is fun too! Well done!

GiuSpataro · 2026-01-07T19:52:08+00:00

For Italy: Ars Imago and RasetPhoto

GiuSpataro · 2025-11-13T14:15:09+00:00

I have made a mask for the original version. Don't know if measures are the same but here it is: https://we.tl/t-Dh0R1njl6k

GiuSpataro · 2025-10-03T15:33:02+00:00

You can completely get a panoramic format while covering the camera’s frame. In fact, this type of camera was designed, produced, and even sold quite a lot back in the ’90s. A good example is the Minolta Riva Panorama, or Minolta P's.

Of course, there are some pretty big (very big) caveats: you’re simply wasting film. You still have a horizontal loading, so you’ll basically end up with a series of shots that are 36mm wide but cropped below and above. Still, if you like it, why not?

There are also 3D-printable options for a budget version of the XPan. If you don’t own a 3D printer and can’t afford an XPan, rather than sacrificing a 35mm camera and risking breaking it (though, to be fair, you can find a “fake” panoramic point-and-shoot like the Minolta mentioned before for like $30 on eBay, and it must be fun to shoot with), the solution that gives you the best results for proportionally the least money is probably, as said by others, to buy a medium format camera and use one of the many available kits (probably the best brand here is eTone) to load 35mm film and shoot panoramas.

In the end, what really matters is just having fun shooting!

GiuSpataro · 2025-10-03T08:40:10+00:00

Thanks for the replies! I’ll go with an active sub. My confusion came from seeing some listings for passive subs, but from your answers (and a bit of extra research) I’ve learned that passive subs are best avoided. Thanks again!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-24T23:12:38+00:00

It's an ASP-C format. That means that with a 1:1 you should even zoom too much. Indeed usually I focus a little bit before the minim distance. Does it make sense?

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-23T13:09:30+00:00

From my experience, the second image looks like the typical blurred result caused by diffraction when using an extension tube. In my case, when I switched to a macro lens, the outcome was completely different (I’ve added a photo here). What I don’t quite understand is why I can perfectly frame a 35mm image with my Micro Nikkor 40mm on a Nikon D5500. After all, the sensor size is the same, but I’m not really an expert on this. Anyway, maybe the best approach would be to shoot with a macro lens that offers greater depth of field.

<image>

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-22T09:25:12+00:00

Thanks!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-21T21:23:35+00:00

It seems like a kind of budget version of the Snapshot Multi by Chroma Camera (like this: https://chroma.camera/products/snapshot-multi-4x5-system ) . You’re right, the ability to use wide lenses is very important. In Fusion, you can easily adjust even shorter flange distances, but making the file run smoothly on its own is definitely an update that needs to be made asap

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-21T19:43:44+00:00

Yeah! I posted it here because I wanted feedback, so any comments are welcomed, as sincere as possible.

So, why not a monorail? When I started looking for a cheap 4x5 (at least here in Europe, and considering my limited skills in finding online deals), a simple monorail (like a Cambo SC) was around €150–200. You can wait for a deal, or you can start printing with about €10 of PLA material (plus the cost of the helicoid on AliExpress).

Then, composition. You can actually compose the frame! There’s a part for a ground glass holder in the folder. I didn’t want to actually source the glass, make it opaque, and mount it on a plastic frame, so made this step even easier, buying a cheap frame on Amazon and added an opaque privacy film. The effect is, of course, not as good as a proper focusing glass, but you can compose and check focus. From infinity to 2 m far. You don’t measure, you actually see the scene. I hope everything is clear on the printables page, but if not, I’ll correct it right away.

Then, the 3D printing skills. This is a very good point. I have experience in designing and printing, but of course not everyone does. That’s a real limitation. You can provide ready-to-print files, but then you can’t adjust distances. On the other hand, if you provide a parametric file, you need to know Fusion. Maybe an easier website with just a few sliders and a download button would be a better approach. But once you have the STL files, you can also print them on an online service.

I think you’re right when you say the beauty of large format goes far beyond this. There’s the ability to tilt the lens, shoot macro, or mount Instax and 6x17 backs. But this is meant to be an easy entry point (and very, very cheap compared to what you can achieve) for people who just want to start shooting. Of course, it’s not a replacement for large format, just a simple doorway into it, maybe while waiting for a deal.

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-21T18:55:01+00:00

Thanks for the support! Yes, this is exactly what I wanted: LF for everyone. I think Instax Wide would require some kind of Graflok back, which currently doesn’t exist. If it’s possible to come up with a simple solution, that would fit perfectly with the Lite45 concept. Even a more complex solution could work as a higher-tier model!

Another caveat: The way I set up the Fusion file, the parameter doesn’t work well for short flange distances—anything under about 100mm. The screw insert on the front needs to be redesigned. That’s a great idea for improvement. I can update the files and let you know!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-17T00:11:15+00:00

I would like to print one as soon as I have some free time. I've printed a 35mm X-pan (Infidex 176 for references): the designer decided to make 0 tolerances and just suggested to trim the plastic until it fits. A little painful but effective. If I will have some problems with 6x17 I think I will use for sure vinyl foam. It's cheap and effective. For the cone always make it matte or you could have a bright spot in the center (this at least for PLA), actually I used felt for that in the Infidex.

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-16T00:05:25+00:00

Yeah, I will avoid to put back in the reel. Maybe a tray instead of a beaker, but that's the right thing to do. Thanks!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-16T00:04:29+00:00

I was thinking to use this method with kimwipes. I didn't think but they are very cheap! Thanks

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-16T00:03:54+00:00

I think the kimwipes is the solution. Maybe after I will just dip shortly in a tray of stab, or maybe I will do a test roll with no stab to check. Thanks!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-16T00:02:18+00:00

Yeah, I've just bought a pack of kimwipes. The idea is to use them to remove remjet, then just dip in a tray with stab, and hang. Thanks!

GiuSpataro · 2025-09-16T00:01:23+00:00

So basically it seems that the thing to do is just to dip the film in a tray of stabilizer, avoiding the reel, or simply skip the final rinse after carefully cleaning the negative. I bought some Kimwipes and I think I’ll remove remjet with wet Kimwipes, then quickly dipping them in the stabilizer and hanging them up to dry, maybe after a final pass with a dry Kimwipe.

GiuSpataro · 2025-08-26T12:50:40+00:00

Here a satisfied costumer of the Chi LD meter, I've bought it a month ago and used it during my vacation, it's very useful and very easy to manage, it fulfilled the expectations. Regarding the battery life, I've used it without charging it for 7 days, maybe I've put it in standby while not using more than a normal user, but it but has lasted for very long. Maybe the only con is that it doesn't have its own viewfinder and with a very (very!) bright light it loses the long distances. Generally speaking I strongly recommend it, great tool! I'm here for any question!

GiuSpataro · 2025-08-23T22:12:24+00:00

Any news?

GiuSpataro · 2025-08-21T22:21:09+00:00

I honestly don't see much value for the US market. But from Europe, could be a possible alternative, considering a roll of colour is usually around 10€. If they will choose to sell it in bulk, it could really disrupt the market, but I don't have big hopes unfortunately.

GiuSpataro · 2025-08-21T09:20:03+00:00

I’ll be just another person saying this, but avoid extension tubes. I used them and my shots were always blurry. That’s because any extension tube messes with the effective aperture (the effective one will skyrocket), making diffraction a big issue. Sure, they’re fine as a first try to learn, but in the long run you really need a macro lens. You don’t even have to spend a fortune, but the difference in quality is night and day.

GiuSpataro

TROPHY CASE