Difference between films?

Slightly silly question here as I haven't got much experience at all with shooting film.
I've shot 2 rolls of film (properly, if you don't count mum's camera when I was a kid), one was a roll of Kodak gold 200 and the other was fuji superia 200. The kodak roll was shot in whiteout conditions, looked quite washed after developing, and the fuji roll was in nearly perfect weather, and i changed to a different company for developing and looked a lot more saturated (probably due to light)
Just wondering, what's the difference between all those types of film out there? I know higher iso = more grain, but then what else??

Thanks for putting up with my silly questions!

If you download a trial copy of Silver EFEX pro, you can take one of your digi images and apply the "qualities" of different film types (B&W) to your image and see the differences.

Not much help with colour.

Other than that I guess its off to Flickr and do some searching.

Higher ISO doesn't always equal more grain these days, or at least you can go much higher before it starts getting annoying. I mostly use Ilford HP5 which is rated at 400ISO, but the resulting negatives show very little grain at all. The only reason for using anything else in B&W (for me) is if I want a much slower film such as Pan F or the infra-red tricks their SFX is capable of, or for pure curiosity.

I plan to have a go with their Delta 3200 at some point, I'm expecting a lot of grain there! Also planning to test their Delta 400 and 100 against HP5 and FP4 to see which is better.

The OP is discussing colour print film. You are at the mercy of the processors so choose a good one and stick with them.

All colour print films up to ISO400 should be quite fine grained these days. Make sure the ISO value is set correctly in the camera.

If you decide to move into black and white then you can develop your own. The developer used and the film used can be tailored to give you the image style you prefer.

sorry, might just be me being thick, but I think I need something simpler, like there are loads of different types of just fuji and kodak film and i can't even tell the difference between fuji reala/professional/superia, of course there is the price difference but what does it do to the image etc??
Main reason for me using film is for when I'm in the hills (climbing, on more or less vertical ground when I'll be bashing myself around with the camera, so I won't have to worry about a hefty repair if I crack a lens/break/drop a camera as I'll probably bring the cheapest things along.) On less worrying ground I'll normally stick with the K5. Or else a film camera will be my backup when I'm travelling.

If you're using colour negative film, choose a recognised manufacturer such as Kodak or Fuji and you won't go far wrong. For best quality, stick to ISO200 or ISO400.

It's worth searching the net to see sample images from different films - maybe even there may be some groups on flickr for different films. I am no expert myself, although when I shoot colour film I tend to use fujicolor pro 400H (I think the 'H' means it is manufactured to give more contrast). I like the colour rendition as it is (what I would consider) slightly muted, and I believe it is prized for it's ability to represent skin tones very well. Fuji Velvia on the other hand is renowned (I believe) for its colour saturation - best bet is to do a little research and try some rolls out

Regards

Pure anecdotally, ordinary Fuji Film is biased towards the green end of the spectrum and Kodak the red. If there is any mileage in that, then the Fuji film will be better for landscape subjects and Kodak for anything where skin tone is important.

However, Fuji offer a variety of different film emulsions - ie Pro 160S and 160C. Same speed and quality, but S version for warmer subjects (i.e. skin tones), C for landscapes where green is (generally) the dominant colour. These are more expensive that the basic range. I've not used Pro 400H but it's part of the 'better' quality offer.

Velvia is in a class of it's own - but it's slide film and a step up from ordinary colour print film.


Steve

Despite the name it is actually only about ISO 1200...

K.

You'll need to read between the lines a bit when comparing the marketing blurbs, but some films are designed to give improved results for portraits since it can be dfficult to pull off good skin tones in high/low contrast and flash lighting. Otherwise the film is probably good for landscapes, etc, or might be a good compromise for all-round use.

Sometimes it's down to taste, but if you want the most faithful colour reproduction and negs that will last for fifty years then pay for the best fresh film available. If you want funky colours then out-of-date, cheapo emulsions can be great.

I think we have almost missed the most important point. In the old days you had many choices about where to develop your film and the more you paid the better the service you got.

Cheap labs would develop everything as standard and prints would be "automatically" adjusted. Expensive labs would make test prints and make lots of manual adjustments to get things right.

My advice is experiment until you get a combination of film and lab you like then invest in a decent scanner which will give you lots of latitude to make your final tweaks in Photoshop.

In this case I guess I'll stick with what I've used so far then, unless I stumble upon some dirt cheap expired film that I can play with, but again, I haven't got the time/patience to develop my own film (and I like it in colour, makes it harder), nor can I afford a scanner yet, maybe something so save up for after graduation!
I did stumble upon a jobo 2400 daylight tank but missed the bid on ebay, slightly gutted!
Thanks for the good advise anyway guys! Much appreciated!!
Oh and big thanks to Steve for lending me his camera!!!

If you have plenty of light the relatively new Kodak Ektar 100 is a lovely film. It is one of the few colour print films I have really liked (but that is largely due to a long standing bias towards slides).

K.