4x5 sheet iso 400 film question

Willie Jan · Aug 10, 2006

Hi,
i normally shoot 4x5 sheet 125 iso (fp4+) film.
last weekend i shot portraits outside and thought of using 400 in the future for the 2 stops extra.

Next question that came up to me is why not using always 400 iso film. Are the details/benefits to use a 100 so much larger when not enlarging above 50x60?

Willie Jan.

Donald Miller · Aug 10, 2006

I personally find that 4X5 does not give me what I want in a black and white print above 16X20. So if I were going for 20X24 (inches) I would probably opt for the slower speed film.

A lot also involves how the film's emulsion characteristics convert to the tonal representation on a print...at least for me.

Bruce Watson · Aug 10, 2006

That's exactly what I do. Tri-X 5x4 film is the only film I use. I find that it performs quite well in enlargements up to 10x which is as far as I ever go. It might go a little higher. The level of enlargement with which you are comfortable is of course a personal decision.

I'd like the option of a nice 1600 ISO film but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

blokeman · Aug 13, 2006

4x5 sheet film...

Willie, this is my constant problem with deciding which one to use with the sometimes limited supply in Australia. Now that Agfa is out of action I use and love Ilford Delta 100 but it doesn't seem to exist in 5x4 400 ASA. (?) My choice for 400 was always Tri-X but I'm not so pleased with the newer 320 ASA. With the extremes of light and seasons in Melbourne I must use a 400 ASA film... and from my experience, keeping the enlargements small, say 16x20 or below the difference is not that noticable. But it IS vitally important to GET the exposure comfortably and this is why we/I go for the extra 2 stops. So, yes I'd agree to have both available.

Willie Jan · Aug 14, 2006

the 100 i use for still life.

but for nature and portraits, often the longer exposures do cause movement in leaves or flowers or heads. So the 2 extra stops would be nice.

True, the characteristics of the film would be different, which i would have to check which one i prefer. HP5 would become one to test in my opinion. Kodak film is very expensive here, and what will kodak do in future.....

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 14, 2006

I hope you mean 50x60 cm and not inches.

16x20 (inches) come out pretty grain free from the Tri-X 400, J&C 400, and Tmax 400 that I've used. I can tell a difference between them and the FP4+ and especially Tmax 100 in terms of grain. All developed in Pyrocat HD, Rodinal, or FA-1027 developer.
In terms of detail I think the benefit of two stops extra outweigh the slight disadvantage to the ISO 100 films that it's worth using them. I am very happy with the 16x20 I've printed from 4x5 film. I have never gone larger than that, however, and 50cm x 60cm would be 20 x 24.

- Thom

Willie Jan said:
Hi,
i normally shoot 4x5 sheet 125 iso (fp4+) film.
last weekend i shot portraits outside and thought of using 400 in the future for the 2 stops extra.

Next question that came up to me is why not using always 400 iso film. Are the details/benefits to use a 100 so much larger when not enlarging above 50x60?

Willie Jan.

Willie Jan · Aug 15, 2006

yep, you are right 50x60 cm....

Phil Woodney · Aug 15, 2006

Hi Willie Jan,

Have you considered Forte 400? I just bought some 5x7 from Retrophotographic in the U.K. Haven't shot any but I will next week while visiting my family in the U.S. I'm not worried about the grain but do want the extra two stops sometimes. I will also be trying Foma 100 in 5x7 during the trip as well.

Best regards,
Phil

4x5 sheet iso 400 film question

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency