Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
I know, and I agree - for pure technical quality under low light, digital absolutely spanks film. But I enjoy shooting film, I enjoy the challenges under low light, and I often enjoy the grainy look that film gives me. I'm going to go right on shooting my remaining stock of TMZ, maybe more as long as I can still get it, and the wonderful Delta 3200 in 120. I may try D3200 in 35mm and just switch entirely though. It's a great film that I enjoy in 120 and Ilford deserves our support.
I completely agree with everything you said, film has this elegant quality that digital just can't match, except the switching to 35mm in D3200, I've just found there's WAY too much grain when shooting at EI 3200, it's just a mess, 120 it's fine but 135 just doesn't have enough surface area... I like grain, but as stated above, I don't like looking at my images that look like George's paintings haha.

I was going to go ALL Ilford, but the tmax400 at B&H is actually cheaper than the same pro pack amount of ilford Delta 400 so I guess there's one Kodak film I'll be using. I also like night exposures, so of course Acros got me... and in an effort to use the KISS method...

50 ASA - Pan F+
100 ASA - Acros 100
400-800 ASA - Tmax 400
1600-3200 - Delta 3200

I know for sure when I get a 4x5 camera I'll be sad about not being able to use Pan F+ as my main stock... ah well ... do they even have Acros in LF?

Pan F+ is certainly my "can't resist" film....