Best B&W Film at box speed.

[Marvin]

Just wondered which films are best rated at their box speed. I know that many people rate their films at different speeds to get better shadow detail or for other reasons. I also read that Ilford rates their films on a practical evaluation instead of the ISO method. Are newer films closer to their box speed than older films. I have a friend that used Plus-X in medium format and rated it at ISO-80, and I think it was for better shadow detail.
Marvin

 

[Rick A]

For what purpose?

 

[bwrules]

iso is iso is iso

 

[brian steinberger]

Any film can be shot at it's box speed, it's just whether it will give you enough shadow detail or not. Most of the time, not. But with speed increasing developers such as Xtol or DD-X you'll be able to shoot films closer to or even at more than box speed. One film that I always thought was wonderful at box speed was Neopan 400 in Xtol ... RIP. The only current film I can think of that I shoot at box speed is HP5.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I've found Tmax 400 in xtol has decent shadow detail at box speed given the way I meter (spot, metering the shadows at my interpretation of zone 3). Notice that there are 3 variables here, the film, developer and metering. I was given some good advice awhile ago. Try 1/3 stop below the box speed. If you have plenty of shadow detail, try the box speed. If the shadows are lacking details, cut to 1/2 box speed. If you get the shadow details you want, keep it there. It is better to think of the box speed as an optimistic maximum and you'll never be disappointed....

 

[brian steinberger]

Good point on the metering Mark. If you're using a camera with in camera metering you can almost always count on shooting it 1/2 box speed in normal lighting and at box speed or even a stop more (and over-develop) in flat lighting. I find when I spot meter I normally shoot closer to box speed than in camera metering.

 

[bwrules]

I understand Neopan 400 was discontinued in Medium format, not 35mm, correct?

 

[JBrunner]

Most B&W film performs ok at box speed in a run of the mill developer. That said, most all of it looks better usually better over exposed about a half a stop, particularly if you are printing traditionally. It does pay a dividend to find the best speed of a given emulsion for your individual process. IME slower films perform nearer to the serving suggestion.

 

[brian steinberger]

I understand Neopan 400 was discontinued in Medium format, not 35mm, correct?

Correct. Sorry, I should have clarified.

 

[nickrapak]

I also read that Ilford rates their films on a practical evaluation instead of the ISO method.

This is not true. In order for any company to say it is ISO xxx, they have to use the ISO testing method with ISO standard developer. They can give it an e.i., but that is completely subjective.

 

[walbergb]

iso is iso is iso

How do you know when to stop typing i's, ss, & os?:confused:

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you want the best of ANY film, you expose it according to what the lighting scenario is.

In normal contrast lighting, the ISO box speed of the film is usually fine.
In high contrast lighting, where you are trying to compress the tonal scale so that your photo paper can see all of the tones, you want to over-expose and under-develop.
In low contrast lighting, where you try to stretch the tonal scale so that you don't just use a small portion of the film and paper tonal scale, you want to under-expose and over-develop.

The box speed of a film is a recommendation for normal contrast lighting.

Now let's take this one step further. I routinely expose Fuji Neopan Acros 100 at 400, and Kodak TMax 400 at 1600 or 800, all in order to get my prints to look a certain way. With a developer like Xtol 1+1, I can very closely resemble the tonal scale of Kodak Tri-X 320, a film designed for studio and portrait use, which has been discontinued in all formats except sheets. It works, and it works really well. And the funny thing is that I don't lose much shadow detail, it just gets placed on the toe of the film curve, which means that I get less separation in the shadow details. For me, that is not a sacrifice, but it is how I want the print to look.

All films will be good at box speed. If you like how they look when you expose them that way.

 

[Jim Noel]

"If you want the best of ANY film, you expose it according to what the lighting scenario is."

Finally an answer with meaning. The quality of light is far more important in rating film than most people realize.

 

[ic-racer]

You can rate film however you want and get good results. It depends on how you use your meter. I rate Pan-X at 3200 and get great results.

(I place the shadows on zone VII )

To answer you question as to which film gives the best results if one gives a marginally sufficient exposure, I'd say T-max 400 in T-max developer. That film will have the best shadow separation and density.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That doesn't address the original question. The luminance scenario affects how one exposes and develops the film. It has no impact on the inherent speed of the film (barring long exposures which involve reciprocity departure). You need to know your film speed before you can make exposures, regardless of the lighting.

You are correct. I did not address the OP's question properly.

An ISO number is kind of like the number on the carton that contains the shoes you'd like to buy.
Logically they should fit your feet.
But you still try them on.

TMax 400 and Delta 400 give the most linear representation of shadow values. But whether you rate them at box speed or something else, that is still true.

Rate them at box speed, compare to Tri-X, develop both in the same developer, and either of those two has more shadow detail. This is true at EI 200. And it's true at EI 800 too. The relative difference stays the same regardless of what speed you rate the film at.

Which is why I answered the way I did, to point out that it's impossible to determine which of all the ISO 400 films is 'best'. It's a subjective term.

 

[Marvin]

Thanks for all the info and here is what I would normally use the film for. 100 ISO In the ETRSi Bronica mounted on a tripod for scenics, lighthouses, and old Churches. 400 ISO for handheld shots with the Bronica. 100 ISO for 35mm on bright days mostly handheld and 400 ISO for lower light. For 35mm I would be using N75 or F5 Nikon with Matrix metering. For the Bronica I would be using a Seconic hand held meter. I have been using up some Neopan SS 35mm that I had and have a 100ft. roll of Legacy Pro 100 to start on next. I have some Delta 400 and TMAX 100 for the Bronica.
Marvin

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Marvin,

It sounds as though you have a plan for how you want to use your film, and you have some excellent films to use there.

Neopan SS is pretty grainy, but is beautiful and prints well. Legacy Pro 100 is Fuji Acros, and it is more similar to Tmax 100 than it is different from it. Delta 400 is another stellar performer. The way I have used those films in the past, they can all be shot at box speed and yield great results that way in normal contrast lighting.

If I may suggest to perhaps use less of a variety of films, I think that would benefit you, as consistency with our materials helps us to learn how to fully explore them, and by improving your technique with materials you know well, you can take your results farther. Shortcomings in our results are seldom caused by our materials, it is almost always a matter of technique and pushing our abilities beyond our current limitations.

Have fun and happy shooting!

 

[TareqPhoto]

ّ I am new in film and i always shoot film at box speed, i get nice results whether for shadows or highlights details, but i think my talk is due to scan not print, i am sure if i start to print then it will be a different story, but even with scan i tweak, and many said even with print you do tweak [dodge/burn, contrast,....etc], so if that is the point, what is the problem to shoot at the box speed? are shooting at box speed not giving a good results in all or any lighting conditions? and how can i know that if i rate a 400 film at 100 or 800 will give me the best result at a certain lighting condition more than 400 box speed?

 

[nworth]

Michael R's very intelligent discussion pretty much outlined the situation. Most films perform very well at box speed it you are reasonably careful about exposure. The advanced exposure systems on modern cameras make errors even less likely. But films have pretty good tolerance for overexposure (with the risk of some highlight compression in some films) and almost none for underexposure. In general, loss of shadow detail is a greater risk than loss of highlight detail, although it is not always that way. The Zone System was developed partly to avoid these problems. Although it is not fully applicable to most roll film situations, being aware of it can avoid many exposure problems.

That said, the best film is pretty much a matter of the look you like and what you get along with in the darkroom. Tri-X and FP-4 work well for me. They are pretty forgiving for my errors and darkroom variability. The T-grain films are somewhat less forgiving than regular films, but I still get good results from them at box speed or a third of a stop less. I haven't done much with HP-5, but some tests showed it should be an excellent general use film and quite forgiving.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The attached photo is Fuji Neopan Acros 100 exposed at EI 400; a film many claim has to be shot at EI 50-80. Developed in Xtol 1+1, agitating every two minutes. I didn't lose much shadow detail (as you can see), but they mostly get placed differently.

There is room for underexposure, depending on the developer. I regularly shoot film one and two stops under box speed, just because I want to, and I like the results. Exposure is a TOOL to get what we want, not some sort of religion that has to be obeyed. By exposing and developing differently, you get a different look - from the same film.

I'm kinda tired of the discussion of what is correct and what is not. There are no rules, just results, and having fun exploring the FULL potential of our materials.

 

[2F/2F]

Just wondered which films are best rated at their box speed. I know that many people rate their films at different speeds to get better shadow detail or for other reasons. I also read that Ilford rates their films on a practical evaluation instead of the ISO method. Are newer films closer to their box speed than older films. I have a friend that used Plus-X in medium format and rated it at ISO-80, and I think it was for better shadow detail.
Marvin

Depends on what "better" means in this case. If you mean the ones that will hold the most in the low end, then the tabular-grained films are them. Kodak T-Max, Ilford Delta, and Fuji Acros. They also have the most underexposure latitude because of this. (And they also have the most overexposure latitude, but for a slightly different reason.)

Practically, however, it is such a small advantage that it really doesn't matter in most cases, IMO. In cases of underexposure, however, 1/3 stop difference in shadow detail can make a difference.

What really makes a film "better" in capturing low-end information is your own eye for lighting, not EI rating. If you shoot normal, under, or over depending on the lighting, you are better off than re-rating across the board IMO. If your eye for the contrast of lighting seems "off" based on experience, you can use a meter to measure it precisely. Many people shoot in light that creates contrasty pictures, and then blame the film for not being the right speed. Then they will downrate the hell out of their films in all cases, when all they need to do is see that the lighting is contrasty, and take steps to work through it.

For precise tonal placement, figuring out a working EI is the way to go. When working this way, you need to figure out exactly where things will fall if you expose them a certain way. For incident metering, it is not necessary unless one of the factors of your shooting and processing (shutter/aperture errors, light loss in the lens, or weird water, for instance) makes a large impact. Box speed works great for almost everything. That is why it is the box speed.

 

[tkamiya]

I tried hard to find an optimal ISO setting for more than a year. I heard so much about finding "personal film speed." None really worked well in all situations. Then, I did some systematic shoot by over-exposing/under-developing, and under-exposing/over-developing as well as normal-exposing/normal-developing. That was the answer I was looking for.

When looking at contrasty scenes, I over-expose by one stop and under-develop by 20 to 25%. When looking at normal or flat scenes, I usually normally expose and normally develop. Then if needed, bump up the contrast at printing time. To me, pushing film is only to gain additional speed, not really for contrast control. This is without using precise metering at exposure time. I leave my camera at matrix metering (F-100) and normally meter and shoot. Of course in unusual situations, I do take more care in metering.

I am not so sure anymore if this "personal speed" thing is all that beneficial. Film speed is one thing but film manufacturer has already figured that out based on industry standard. To me, exposing the scene with contrast range in mind and developing accordingly does the trick.

 

[Athiril]

To answer the thread title.. well its's a bit subjective but I would say FP4+, and Rollei ATP.

 

[2F/2F]

When looking at contrasty scenes...

That is right on. LOOKING at CONTRAST. It is required to get one's precisely-desired results, yet almost no one does it. Then they blame their materials for dropping shadow detail or not being true to box speed. Then ask what kind of meter they use. 90% will probably say an in-camera reflected meter, which is designed to give most people OK results most of the time, but gives "perfect" or "ideal" results to almost no one, and almost never.

We should learn roughly what "ISO speed " means, then learn how to judge whether each scene is representative of ISO testing conditions. Contrasty compositions are not representative. Nor are flat ones. If conditions are not representative, then changes must be made to make a "non-normal" scene look "normal."

The problem lies with unrealistic expectations from ISO film speed, not with a flaw in the materials or incorrect info from the manufacturer. ISO film speeds give you information about how your film will behave in a "normal" situation. You cannot expect a film to automatically compensate for situations that are not "normal." You have to recognize them and you have to take steps to get what you want in these situations.

The problem is that the "non-normal" situations are not only extremely common, but often attract photographers, as they can make for stellar photographs!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

ISO film speeds give you information about how your film will behave in a "normal" situation. You cannot expect a film to automatically compensate for situations that are not "normal." You have to recognize them and you have to take steps to get what you want in these situations.

Exactly!

Each situation is different, and exposure is a tool, in combination with film development, to eke the most out of each lighting situation. Sometimes that means over-exposure, other times it means under-exposure.