100-125 ISO Film question

[jp498]

Get a 2nd body for the other film.. and/or get some lights to make iso400 easier to use indoors. Doesn't have to be rude 1990's flash look; read Mortensen's books. Kids will pose for a small bribe. Use digital for candids indoors.

 

[koraks]

@Helge I didn't intend to start a film vs. digital debate and won't engage in one. YMMV, we are all entitled to the level of complexity we need, each person has their own standards, etc. etc.

 

[Helge]

@Helge I didn't intend to start a film vs. digital debate and won't engage in one. YMMV, we are all entitled to the level of complexity we need, each person has their own standards, etc. etc.

It’s not at all a nefarious seed for a vs debate. And I frankly can’t see how you can construe it as one.
It’s simple facts that are good to know.

 

[koraks]

It’s not at all a nefarious seed for a vs debate. And I frankly can’t see how you can construe it as one.

Well, the technical comparison you made led me to believe the intent of your post was to conclude that one option would be better than another. And that's the pattern that film vs. digital discussions tend to follow, so I don't think my perception on this is so far-fetched.

Anyway, we're drifting off topic, so I'll leave it at this.

 

[blee1996]

How about keeping your Delta 400 film in one camera, and shoot it at different ISO for indoors (3200) and outdoors (100). Then use developers like Diafine to compensate for the different ISO exposed?

 

[Radost]

Easily solved with two cameras. One with slow film, the other with a faster film, such as HP5, Delta 400, Kentmere 400. The nice thing about HP5 is that it can be pushed to 800 and still looks great...

Or one with fast shutter.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I bulk load 12-exposure rolls of 35mm B&W film. If whatever film I have in the camera is not appropriate for the prevailing light I rewind the roll and put in a different film. If there aren't a lot of exposed frames on the removed roll I make a voice note on my iPhone of the frame number when I removed the film and reuse it later, skipping one frame to avoid overlaps.

 

[Radost]

I bulk load 12-exposure rolls of 35mm B&W film. If whatever film I have in the camera is not appropriate for the prevailing light I rewind the roll and put in a different film. If there aren't a lot of exposed frames on the removed roll I make a voice note on my iPhone of the frame number when I removed the film and reuse it later, skipping one frame to avoid overlaps.

This is complicating the process. tripple the load development time

 

[foc]

A fast film and a set of ND filters in your photo bag could also work : ND4, ND8, ND16..

+1

ILFORD XP2 SUPER.

+1

Keep things simple for yourself.

 

[Brad Deputy]

If I find myself needing indoor shots with a slow film loaded, I'll pull out the T-32 for my Olympus OM4ti.

I recently picked up a remote TTL cable, which gives me several feet to hold the flash module somewhere else to bounce it. Haven't tried it with actual photos yet, but tested it (the base on my T-32 broke off, which prompted me to try a cable, but I did end up super-gluing it back on and it's holding )

 

[Helge]

+1



+1

Keep things simple for yourself.

Might as well keep shooting FP4 if he is going to develop in B&W chemistry.

This is XP2 in C-41 though.

But not miles off from FP4.

Stand development might be an option?

ND filters is a bit daft for this. But if you really want to go the filter route, why not stack some other filters that might improve the photo at the same time as tamping down the light? Such as a green or orange filter and a polarizer to make the sky dark?
A PL and an orange filter is already three stops down. Even if you push process the film to 1600 you are still in a manageable 400 in bright sun (1/500 f16)

 

[npl]

Might as well keep shooting FP4 if he is going to develop in B&W chemistry.

View attachment 327463
This is XP2 in C-41 though.

But not miles off from FP4.

View attachment 327464

Stand development might be an option?

ND filters is a bit daft for this. But if you really want to go the filter route, why not stack some other filters that might improve the photo at the same time as tamping down the light? Such as a green or orange filter and a polarizer to make the sky dark?
A PL and an orange filter is already three stops down. Even if you push process the film to 1600 you are still in a manageable 400 in bright sun (1/500 f16)

Color filters and polarizer are great, but you may not want to use them in every compositions. ND filters are, well, neutrals.

Using only delta 3200 and putting a ND filter when needed does answer OP's problem, but yes of course it's a bit.. extreme it's one imperfect solution among all the other imperfects solutions.

But ND filters are still usefull tools to cary, along the others ones you mentionned. For exemple if you shoot HP5+ in full sunlight and you need a very shallow depth of field for a shot. Yes you could use a very fast shutter speed, but in practice most films cameras won't go over 1/1000 or 1/2000 at best.

 

[Radost]

Color filters and polarizer are great, but you may not want to use them in every compositions. ND filters are, well, neutrals.

Using only delta 3200 and putting a ND filter when needed does answer OP's problem, but yes of course it's a bit.. extreme it's one imperfect solution among all the other imperfects solutions.

But ND filters are still usefull tools to cary, along the others ones you mentionned. For exemple if you shoot HP5+ in full sunlight and you need a very shallow depth of field for a shot. Yes you could use a very fast shutter speed, but in practice most films cameras won't go over 1/1000 or 1/2000 at best.

ND complicates and adds more pieces to care for. Faster shutter camera is a better solution. ANd I am sorry that Leica only goes to a 1000.

 

[npl]

ND complicates and adds more pieces to care for. Faster shutter camera is a better solution. ANd I am sorry that Leica only goes to a 1000.

What does Leica have to to with anything ? You obviously own a camera with fast shutter speeds but are oblivious to the fact that it's not the norm, at all. And back on topic, you end up with the same problem than ND filters anyway : grainy negatives of high speed speed when a slower film woul've been better in sunlight.

 

[Steven Lee]

I like the look of FP4 or Delta 100, and I often shoot with it during the bright day. But I often left the roll unfinished during the day and when the sun comes down, or when I'm inside the house with my kids, I feel I'm unable to use this camera anymore because the film is too slow.

My impression is that 95% of people here own at least a hundred cameras perpetually loaded with every film stock in existence, so your problem isn't relevant to them

 

[Radost]

My impression is that 95% of people here own at least a hundred cameras perpetually loaded with every film stock in existence, so your problem isn't relevant to them

Yes but the people with 100 cameras “ like me” sometimes want to go out with one camera.

 

[Radost]

What does Leica have to to with anything ? You obviously own a camera with fast shutter speeds but are oblivious to the fact that it's not the norm, at all. And back on topic, you end up with the same problem than ND filters anyway : grainy negatives of high speed speed when a slower film woul've been better in sunlight.

Fast shutter is not the norm? Maybe for MF.
Also since when is grain a bad thing?

 

[npl]

Fast shutter is not the norm? Maybe for MF.
Also since when is grain a bad thing?

I was thinking 35mm SLRs and rangefinders. Until the 80's and electronic shutters a max speed of 1/1000 or 1/2000 is/was the norm. We are talking hundreds of models, millions of bodies. It's by far the most common type of cameras you find on the market, that a lot of us own and shoot.

Grain is not a bad thing, but OP said that he like delta 100 and fp4, and that delta 3200 is not his favorite. So I'm assuming he doesn't want "big" grain in every shots.

 

[Radost]

I was thinking 35mm SLRs and rangefinders. Until the 80's and electronic shutters a max speed of 1/1000 or 1/2000 is/was the norm. We are talking hundreds of models, millions of bodies. It's by far the most common type of cameras you find on the market, that a lot of us own and shoot.

Grain is not a bad thing, but OP said that he like delta 100 and fp4, and that delta 3200 is not his favorite. So I'm assuming he doesn't want "big" grain in every shots.

True. But also there are so many cameras with 4000 speed And even a few with 8000.
I personally when I” know i am at the beach and then afternoon/evening”use Minolta A7 with Sony 50mm F1.4 lens and a 400 or 800 iso Kodak film.

True. 3200 has IMHO ugly grain at any speed. I tried it with xtol and with the recommended DDX.

 

[Tim Stapp]

It's funny how flash lighting has fallen by the wayside. When I first started in photography it was "flash bulbs" when light fell to low. Then we really took a step forward and "electronic flash" came along. Now, with digital, flash is almost a thing of the past for most folks. Flash is just another tool in our tool box and I still keep my flash units from my wedding photography days. Yes, even today the use of flash can improve some photos, but it takes skill to know how to use it correctly. One thing in the favor of flash at present is that there are tons of used flash heafds on the big auction.
To the OP, if you like the slower film better than anything else, get a swivel head flash unit. Otherwise I would go with HP5+ or TMY2. Or, as some folks here suggest, a second body. Those are the three choices I think that are the best. Now you're the one that has to decide.

From my wedding shooting days, I still have 4 swivel head speedlights. I always had one on camera with one as a spare. ALWAYS changed batteries out between the getting ready shots, ceremony and then reception. Later at the reception, I had several lights positioned around the room controlled by an on camera trigger.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

FP-4 inside a house at night is restrictive…although a Leica with 35/2 cron can pull off snots if you brace the camera…..even as slow as 1/8th at f/2.8.

Tri-X at 200 shot inside a well lite office building does fine. For those evening home pictures digital is the better answer. Most of us have a phone by us at all times. Use it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Most people are conditioned to only think of flash as “that hard, flat with razor sharp drop shadows thing, that everybody hates”.
The mere mention of flash turns on a giant NO sign in their heads. “It’s difficult, clunky and looks stupid”.
Instead of a YES sign of opportunity and creative control. And first and foremost beautiful lighting with slow, fine, universal and cheap film.

Fast film certainly has its place. But should not be nearly as ubiquitous and often reached for as it is.

I agree flash is a beautiful light-modeling tool.

 

[Huss]

Out of curiosity, I pushed a roll/shot a roll of Kentmere 400 at 1600. I used it at 1600 in everything from bright daylight to dim indoors.

Thread here:

I like the look of FP4 or Delta 100, and I often shoot with it during the bright day. But I often left the roll unfinished during the day and when the sun comes down, or when I'm inside the house with my kids, I feel I'm unable to use this camera anymore because the film is too slow. Then, I have to use my digital camera just because the slow film is my analog camera.

What do you think about this? Would you shoot with 100 film in low light, would you replace the film with half roll through. Would you prefer to always shoot with faster film always and avoid situations when you cannot shot because the film?

But sometimes I feel the same with Tri-X. It's a bit faster, more flexible, but when it gets dark in my house, I still feel I cannot shoot it with it, it's too slow. I need much much faster film, otherwise it will be either underexposed or a way slow shutter for two kids that never stop moving.

But then I insert Delta 3200, shoot in the house half way though and the next day, it's sunny and bright outside and I have Delta 3200 inside (not my favorite). And then I just shoot something random to finish the roll and put another film. That's the waste, but I don't think of anything better yet. I know there's a way to shot the roll half way and then re-insert it again, and rewind it to the position where it was before, but I never tried that. I'm not that profficient with the film, so it's not a second nature to me. I'd need to take all the notes and pay much more attention and potentially ruin the previous shots, rather than save some, but if that's the only way, I guess I'll have to learn it.

Out of curiosity, I pushed a roll/shot a roll of Kentmere 400 at 1600. I used it at 1600 in everything from bright daylight to dim indoors.

Thread here:

Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath

This was an experiment. I was looking for big, chunky grain and was curious to see if pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 with DF96 would do it. 6 minutes dev time @ 90. Here is a selection of images from that roll (Leica M7, CV 40 1.2) taken in blazing sunlight and very dim indoor conditions. I...

www.photrio.com

 

[alanrockwood]

Second body sounds the best for me because I'd rather have slower film with less grain always in my camera when I need it, and faster only when it gets dark.

I actually have the second body, that I got from my father but I tried it once to make sure it works and I didn't touched it since, so I'm not used to this camera.

Buying a second body for indoor shots to replicate my main camera would be too expensive

What camera body is your main one? How expensive would it be to replicate it? Is the second body (the one you got from your father) good enough?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer bounce flash or diffused flash to direct flash when they are possible.