ASA 800 film

[thisismyname09]

As far as I know, there are no B&W films rated at ASA 800. I know a 1-stop push is easily doable with ASA 400 film, and I also know that the few ASA 3200 films are actually around 1000 ASA, so I could just as easily do a 1/3 stop pull to get the same speed. Now the question I have is which would be "better"? I'm mostly concerned with the large grain associated with fast film and/or push processing. I know delta 3200 is rather notorious for big, obvious grain, (I've seen some photos shot on it in a 6x6 TLR that had grain comparable to pushed tri-X in 35mm!) but is that because it's pushed almost three stops at the box speed or an inherent quality of the film? I've read that tmax 3200 is a bit finer grained, but since I'm shooting in 120, it's unfortunately out of the question. Does fuji still make a fast B&W film in 120?

 

[mcgrattan]

FWIW, in my experience Delta 3200 developed in the right developer [DD-X, for example] doesn't have to have huge horrible grain, at all, even at 3200. Although, as everyone always says, you don't really get the shadow detail you'd get from a true 3200 ASA film.

It's C-41, but I've had surprisingly good results with shooting XP2 at 800, in medium format. I shot a whole set of these on a Rolleiflex at a martial arts competition using XP2 exposed at 800ASA, with no push in processing. Grain levels are low.

 

[thegman]

I'd agree about XP2, I think Ilford says you can pretty much shoot it at ISO 800 and develop as normal, no push required. Otherwise I'd probably have a try at pushing Tmax 400 by 1 stop.

 

[lns]

Fuji no longer makes a fast black and white 120 film.

I use Tri-X and find it pushes well, but I like grain so our standards may be different.

If you don't mind C-41, the XP-2 was a brilliant suggestion; it's very smooth. Probably best to just try a few rolls of all of the fast films and see what you prefer.

-Laura

 

[Steve Smith]

Ilford Delta 3200 is actually rated at ISO 1000 which isn't far away from the 800 you arte looking for. I believe the Kodak equivalent is similarly rated too.


Steve.

 

[hpulley]

Ilford seems to have you covered with HP5+ and Delta 400 and Delta 3200 films in 120 size. I'm just shooting them in 35mm for now.

Ilford doesn't really recommend shooting Delta 3200 under 1600. You can shoot it from 400 to 25600 but they recommend 1600 to 6400. Delta 400 and HP5+ 400 are an easy push to 800 if you need to push them at all, one stop isn't much for underexposure really.

I've been shooting a bunch of Delta 3200 at 3200 lately and developing it in HC-110 because it is cheaper and more readily available to me than DD-X. HC-110 for $15.99 16oz at dilution B 1:31 develops 63 rolls, DD-X 1L $19.34 used at 1:4 makes only 20 rolls which is 4x more expensive; even using HC-110 at Dilution A for 3200, DD-X is still 2x more expensive. However, I may need to try a litre of DD-X to see if the grain really is better. I also have some Microphen powder to try once I finish up the HC-110 though it also seems expensive unless you reuse the developer and replenish or up the times which doesn't sound like a great idea for long push processing runs. I have a 2.5L packet but I may get a or 1L as I could just run 4 rolls through it, I don't shoot enough to have 3 developers mixed up at the same time for side by side tests unfortunately.

Yes, Delta 3200 it has obvious grain though I like it. If I don't want grain I'll shoot Delta 100 though Delta 400 at 400 is also very good. 3200 negs seem a little thin at the recommended (everywhere but on APUG) 3200 development time of 8 minutes in dilution A however and most people tell me to develop it for 6400 (13 minutes) if I shoot for 3200 which makes me wonder how fast the film really is. I have two rolls shot at 3200 ready to go in dilution A for 13 minutes and I'll let everyone know my opinion. If I get a chance to try DD-X I guess I'll have to try developing it at 3200 and 6400 recommendations there too.

I just developed a first test roll of Delta 400 shot at 1600 last night but unfortunately I haven't had time to print it yet. The negatives look very good but the proof will be in the prints. It was an easy push to 1600 for 13 minutes in dilution B of HC-110.

I'm also shooting at roll of Delta 3200 at 1600 right now for comparison. I'll see how the grain, shadow detail, contrast and so on compares between the two.

 

[A49]

I agree, that XP-2 will deliver very fine grain. But maybe it´s even better to push process it with a slightly longer development time, if you shoot at ISO 800. Anyway you might loose some shadow detail but XP-2 is said to have a large latitude so it should not be too much that will be lost.

Be aware of the limits of push processing. You will always loose some shadow detail if you shoot at higher than box speed (or even already at box speed because box speed is determined for a higher than usable contrast index) . To a certain degree an exception to that is processing conventional films in speed enhancing developers like Promicrol, Acufine, Diafine...They usually deliver larger grain than fine grain developers as for instance Xtol but I´m relatively sure that with TMAX 400 you will still have finer grain than with a ISO 3200 film (You´re right if you expect about ISO 1000 for them.) developed in a fine grain developer like Xtol.

It is hard to estimate if XP-2 @ ISO 800 or TMAX 400 @ ISO 800 would produce the finer grain. Just test it. In any case the sharpness and resolution of TMAX 400 will be better than XP-2´s.

Andreas

 

[CGW]

I agree, that XP-2 will deliver very fine grain. But maybe it´s even better to push process it with a slightly longer development time, if you shoot at ISO 800. Anyway you might loose some shadow detail but XP-2 is said to have a large latitude so it should not be too much that will be lost.

Be aware of the limits of push processing. You will always loose some shadow detail if you shoot at higher than box speed (or even already at box speed because box speed is determined for a higher than usable contrast index) . To a certain degree an exception to that is processing conventional films in speed enhancing developers like Promicrol, Acufine, Diafine...They usually deliver larger grain than fine grain developers as for instance Xtol but with TMAX 400 I assume that you will still have finer grain than with a ISO 3200 film (You´re right if you expect about ISO 1000 for them.) developed in a fine grain developer like Xtol.

It is hard to estimate if XP-2 @ ISO 800 or TMAX 400 @ ISO 800 would produce the finer grain. Just test it. In any case the sharpness and resolution of TMAX 400 will be better than XP-2´s.

Andreas

The problem is finding a lab with a tight enough C41 line to actually deliver consistent push processing. I've found XP2 to get a bit murky rated at 800, especially in low-ish contrast lighting where it's asking a lot for detail.

 

[bblhed]

For me I find it easier to push than pull. I have never had to push Tmax400 because it normally gives you about two stops of latitude anyway. I tend to do dumb things now and then and have used those two stops plus at one tome or another and I can't complain, you are only going one stop so why not just shoot a test roll and see how it turns out?

I would shoot a test roll like so half the roll at 400, and half at 800 and process as normal and see if you really need to push the film, my guess is that your results will show that you don't need to push the film.

Please let us know what you end up doing.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Agreed on pushing film 1 stop -- it's easy to do and the quality of films these days gives you terrific results. Especially with such great developers like DD-X, TMax, etc. which give full speed, low times and are well suited to pushing film.

I had wonderful results pushing 120 - Delta 400 one stop to 800...TMY is a great suggestion, also.

 

[pgomena]

I recently used 4 rolls of Ilford 3200 in 120, a first for me. I rated it at 1000 using an incident light meter. I developed all 4 rolls in divided Pyrocat-HD. The negatives showed no objectionable grain. They were a bit flat, which may be why, as hpulley said above, Ilford does not recommend rating it this low. I would not hesitate to use this film again in a situation where the extra film speed was necessary (I was hand holding a Fuji 6x9, street shooting at dusk). I would rate the film at about the same speed, maybe at 800, and develop in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 with normal agitation just to perk up the midtones a bit. It's great film, and I'm thinking it would be good in some landscape applications as well as hand held MF work.

Peter Gomena