• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

400 asa 5x4 film

Ilford HP5 comes readily to mind. I beleive there is an Arista 400 out there as well. Probably a lot more than that. Quickest way would be to go to freestylephoto.biz and search black and white films with your filters set to 4x5 sheet and 400 ASA (ISO).
 
In the UK HP5, Tmax 400, and Fomapan 400 are available in 5x4 try Silverprint or Ag Photographic, the 4x5 is available from the US but luckily during transit and customs the little green men turn it sideways and charge taxes to convert it to 5x4

Ian
 
In the UK we tend put the long side first, so as with film frame sizes like 20x16 (inches) etc, the US put them the other way around. It's not a hard and fast rule though.

But some camera/enlarger manufacturers use it too, so a Wista54DX, and a De Vere 5108 (10x8) enlarger, 504, 5x4 enlarger, 203 6x9 cm enlarger.

Ian
 
Rollei R3 - all the way up to 6400 with the RHS developer
 
I've never been able to get more than 200 out of HP5+ in 4x5, I know other do.

Mike
 
Ilford HP5+
Foma Pan 400
Rollei IR (unfiltered)
Kodak T-Max 400
Kodak Portra 400NC (color neg)

...are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

Perhaps Neopan 400 is available in sheets if you import it from Japan, but I am not sure.

If you are not getting 400 out of the films, then you are probably not developing them to the same contrast that the manufacturers did in testing (assuming that your shutters, apertures, and light meters are accurate). If you are using the threshold of the lowest tones ("shadows") to judge film speed, then you will rarely get box speed, because this is a procedure for determining a personal working EI for certain methods in which you want to do specific tonal placement of low tones, and not a method for determining a film's ISO speed.
 
You're right I do test for low values and the test indicates I should use HP5+ at 200, didn't claim that to be it's ISO rating. However, I do get 400 for Tri-X in 120 using this method (which happens to be it's ISO rating).

Mike
 
mikebarger said:
You're right I do test for low values and the test indicates I should use HP5+ at 200, didn't claim that to be it's ISO rating. However, I do get 400 for Tri-X in 120 using this method (which happens to be it's ISO rating).

Mike
Click to expand...

If you have used the exact same testing parameters for each, then all this means is that the curves of the two films are different...which anyone who has shot the two side by side knows to be true. They are, after all, different emulsions with different characteristics, and when using non-ISO testing procedures to determine your personal working EI for the purpose of tonal placement of low tones, one should expect different results.

Out of curiosity, what color temperature was the light source with which you did the testing on both films?
 

In addition to Ians list there is also Kodak Tri-X but in 5x4 flavour the emulsion is rated at 320ASA.

Again available from Silverprint or Ag Photographic

Martin
 
Don't know the color temp, the hassy and zone VI were shot side by side in open shade mid afternoon against a large gray poster board taped to my garage door. Whatever it was, color temp, should have been same for both as shutters tripped within seconds of each other. Used Zone VI modified Pentax V to make sure there were no hot spots on the poster board and that the exposure hadn't changed.

Whatever the differences, and I really don't care much, I can't shoot the HP5+ at 400 and get the shadow detail I want.

Mike
 

So, are you talking about comparing the results obtained with two different shutters, two different diaphragms, two different lenses, and two different formats (meaning two different developing methods) entirely?

The color temp does matter, as the different spectral sensitivity of Tri-X will make it appear to be faster than HP5+ in the shade or in other types of cool light.
 
While it is slower than 400, Tri-X 230 is a really nice film. If 400 is a must, there is TMAX 400
 
Yes, there isn't a tri-x 400 in 4x5 to compare to the HP5+.

This goes back a ways... I did test HP5 and Tri-X when I first went to 120. Test results were the same then. Tri-X was a stop faster.
 
Well, I've got 700 sheets of HP5+ in the freezer, not likely to change anytime soon.
 
mikebarger said:
Yes, there isn't a tri-x 400 in 4x5 to compare to the HP5+.
Click to expand...

Not trying to tell you to change films. That I'd do the same test with both films in the Hassy before coming to any conclusions that compare the two films to each other across the board was my point. Try to do them in white light too.
 
I edited my previous post to reflect I have checked them both in 120.

And if you're interested, I got the same results with HC110 and 510 Pyro.
 
I know there is a lot of Kodak bashing going on, but for me I'm satified there is a difference. I also know many others like the HP5+ at 400.

That's why it's a great hobby, plenty of room for different views.
 
Assuming that both films were tested with proper "normal" development to the same contrast, for your methods, Tri-X needs to be given one stop less exposure to achieve the same densities upon tonal placement of the low tones in the color of light in which testing took place. It is not one stop "faster", since the speeds of the two films are the same. You simply use it at twice the EI of HP5+ to obtain the same low-valued tonal placements, in that particular color of light. If you want to use EIs for tonal placement instead of ISO speeds for standard exposure methods, this is the type of garbled disclaimed language you have to get into to avoid spreading foul information...not simply "speed" or "faster" or "slower".

This is not about Kodak bashing, or trying to convince you to change what you do to get your pix. It is about using language that will avoid Internet-fueled misconceptions about our materials.
 
Why is it the way you expose, develop, and print is right and anyone else's method wrong?? A lot of people evaluate shadow exposure to determine a speed for a particular film. You don't just have to use the ISO speed, unless that is working for you. Sometimes it right and sometimes it isn't.

I use Picker's development test to find the normal development time for the process I use.

Could just be your method isn't the only way to get an acceptable print on paper. If shooting 4x5 HP5+ at 400 works for you, I really happy for you.

I guess the difference between us is I don't care much about the science of film, I'm much more interested in the final print.

Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone mentioned Rollei R³ film. While a fantastic emulsion, it's my understanding it's long gone. Not sure what else is available from Rollei films in 4x5, but it seems everyone else has already covered the 400asa arguments.
 
Looking at Freestyle's site, they list HP5+, TMax 400, and Rollie Infrared 400 in 4x5 sheet film. You can throw 320TXP in if you like. I think it's beautiful film, but maybe not the best choice for use in uncontrolled lighting environments. The long toe kinda forces you to expose a little more generously and maybe pull back on development in some circumstances, making it effectively slower than the rated speed. For my money, I'd go with TMax 400. This stuff is just drop dead gorgeous and very flexible.
 
Rolleijoe said:
Someone mentioned Rollei R³ film. While a fantastic emulsion, it's my understanding it's long gone. Not sure what else is available from Rollei films in 4x5, but it seems everyone else has already covered the 400asa arguments.
Click to expand...

I recently bought 50 sheets (5x10 sheet packs) of 5x4 R3 from Mr Cad in the UK.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, at the link below, they are offering 5x4 R3 sheet film in various pack sizes, expiring August 2010.

http://www.mrcad.co.uk/shop/home.php?cat=1524
 
Rolleijoe said:
Someone mentioned Rollei R³ film. While a fantastic emulsion, it's my understanding it's long gone. Not sure what else is available from Rollei films in 4x5, but it seems everyone else has already covered the 400asa arguments.
Click to expand...

Dang! what a way to find out!

I still have 100 sheets of 8x10" in the freezer though - must use it thoughtfully
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register