EI200 for ISO100 films... Have you liked it?

[Juan Valdenebro]

The only time I tried it, I used FP4+ and Microphen. I didn't like the general results: although great at EI64, the film is grainy at its box speed, and more after the EI200 underexposure, and even more after Microphen, so I quit. That didn't look fine with the 28mm.
This time, I have to do it until I like it with any ISO100 film. I photograph mainly at EI640 with 35, 40 and 50mm lenses stopped down for small format handheld photography. I used to consider my 28mm close to 35's if we talk about DOF and zone focusing behaviour, but it is a lot more capable than 35mm lenses: I can get with it, more or less the same DOF of my 35's but with an aperture a stop and a half wider.
This means the 28 allows me to use -at least in theory- ISO100 films instead of ISO400 films.
Using ISO400 films at EI200 is not the optimal option in this case, because 1) 95% of the images will be soft overcast light, so the slight push is a better tonal option than the sometimes too flat ISO400 at 200 tonality when light is soft, and 2) the 28mm has a wide vision, so finer grain and higher resolving power makes more sense than bigger ISO400 grain, which can often -for some scenes- produce a certain lack of definition (compared to normal lenses) because the 28 compresses so much visual information inside the frame.
I never tried any other ISO100 film at 200, and this time I'll pick a film and a developer, and I'll use them for many years as my street ISO100 film, something I have never tried in a stable way.
Have you tried to use ISO100 films at 200?
I'm open to all films, not only TMX and Delta...
What would you say about developers, considering this is 35mm and darkroom printing?
Thanks everyone.

 

[Bill Burk]

You can separate the concepts of EI and development. When you treat the two independently you can have the benefits you mention with an ISO 400 film.

For example, it is ok to shoot a 400 film at 200 and develop it as if for 800.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Michael, Bill...
Thanks!
I already use ISO400 film, most of the time.
My goal is finding a good street/zone focusing use for ISO100 film, only with the 28mm, for those times I have no ISO400 films...

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak's Tmax 100 data sheets states that a one stop push does not require any additional time, but as you shoot in soft overcast lighting you might want to give additional 20% to boost contrast. In terms of developers, considering how fine grain Tmax 100 or Delta 100 is, you use Rodinal, I've used Acufine in the past along with HC 110, D76 ought to be good.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Then I suppose you might as well choose the finest grained ISO 100 film. This would be TMX (or Fuji Acros). I’d recommend TMX in this case because its characteristic curve has lower highlight contrast than Acros, which might be easier to deal with if you overdevelop. XTOL or D-76/ID-11.

I think the same, Michael... And I'll test FX-39 too, which works great with TMY for mild pushing, but I have no TMX right now, so I'll have to wait. No Across or D100 right now either, so I'll read for some days.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Kodak's Tmax 100 data sheets states that a one stop push does not require any additional time, but as you shoot in soft overcast lighting you might want to give additional 20% to boost contrast. In terms of developers, considering how fine grain Tmax 100 or Delta 100 is, you use Rodinal, I've used Acufine in the past along with HC 110, D76 ought to be good.

Same thinking here, Paul... Thank you!

 

[ChristopherCoy]

For example, it is ok to shoot a 400 film at 200 and develop it as if for 800.

400 @ 200 = 1 stop over exposure
200 dev @ 800 = 2 stop under developed

Wouldn't that leave you with negatives that are 1 stop under developed?

I'm so confused.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

400 @ 200 = 1 stop over exposure
200 dev @ 800 = 2 stop under developed

Wouldn't that leave you with negatives that are 1 stop under developed?

I'm so confused.

800 development time is longer than 200. If EI 200 is right for you, then developing it like you shot it at 800 would either give you a decent negative, or one that could be over developed. This is based on using an ISO 400 film.

 

[MattKing]

400 @ 200 = 1 stop over exposure
200 dev @ 800 = 2 stop under developed

Wouldn't that leave you with negatives that are 1 stop under developed?

I'm so confused.

If you develop something to accommodate a higher EI, you increase the development ("push" = increase contrast).

 

[MattKing]

Fools seldom differ

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Andrew, I think Bill was talking about expanding contrast for soft light scenes, but without underexposing. That's valid, of course: even the best option, as Matt has also pointed in the past. It's the need to stop down and work with prefocusing what makes us underexpose and push a bit.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Andrew, I think Bill was talking about expanding contrast for soft light scenes, but without underexposing.

Ok, that makes sense.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, I think Bill was talking about expanding contrast for soft light scenes, but without underexposing. That's valid, of course: even the best option, as Matt has also pointed in the past. It's the need to stop down and work with prefocusing what makes us underexpose and push a bit.

Got it, thank you! Usually I don't give less exposure when only slight increase in contrast is desired...but for me that depends on the film, and conventional developer. For HP5, I always give a third stop less when N+1 development is anticipated. And when less contrast is desired, slightly more exposure, and less development time.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Got it, thank you! Usually I don't give less exposure when only slight increase in contrast is desired...but for me that depends on the film, and conventional developer. For HP5, I always give a third stop less when N+1 development is anticipated. And when less contrast is desired, slightly more exposure, and less development time.

Same here, HP5+ is too soft, too fast and too clean for EI400 sometimes. Overdevelopment rises its middle grays easily.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Got it, thank you! Usually I don't give less exposure when only slight increase in contrast is desired...but for me that depends on the film, and conventional developer. For HP5, I always give a third stop less when N+1 development is anticipated. And when less contrast is desired, slightly more exposure, and less development time.

I don't understand how y'all make these decisions when a roll of film contains so many different lighting scenarios.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't understand how y'all make these decisions when a roll of film contains so many different lighting scenarios.

I use sheet film. When I use 35mm film, I expose and develop for a soft negative. For 120, I have dedicated film magazines for N, N-. If I have a scene that needs extreme expansion or contraction, I vary the exposure and bang off the whole roll.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

.....and bang off the whole roll.

Do you at least have a cigarette after?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't understand how y'all make these decisions when a roll of film contains so many different lighting scenarios.

Because in each of those lighting scenarios, when I have a camera with Tri-X and a camera with HP5+, the same scene is recorded differently by both films, and sometimes one of those two films is preferred, and depending on their curves, for a certain type of scene contrast we prefer one of them and that means exposing it both the way the scene says with its light AND the way that film's curve says, which mostly means to know what will happen to the shadows, the middle grays and the highlights, and different films with different curves require slightly different exposure for that tonal control.

 

[Dali]

FP4 + divided D76 = 200 ISO easily.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok, that makes sense.

You got good answers, that's right. It's hard for me (I don't like talking about it backwards) to translate how to develop in terms of the speed you shot the film at. Sorry I made it confusing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do you at least have a cigarette after?

For someone who claims to be bored, at least your mind is in the gutter LoL!

PS. No, I don't smoke.

 

[MattKing]

I don't understand how y'all make these decisions when a roll of film contains so many different lighting scenarios.

We don't.
But sometimes/reasonably often we do expose an entire roll in the same lighting conditions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would simply use TMY-2 at EI 400 and XTOL or D-76/ID-11. The only finer grained films than TMY-2 are basically TMX and Fuji Acros, but all bets are off with respect to image structure quality when overdeveloping (pushing).

very true;when one is after more film sensitivity, one is always better off going for a higher-sensitivity film than pushing a low- sensitivity film

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't understand how y'all make these decisions when a roll of film contains so many different lighting scenarios.

You get a feel for what the light was like for a roll, and if you wrote it down somewhere, you'll know what might work for it (or at least would be right for the important shots on the roll).

If you don't know then develop it normally, whatever that is for you. I like a denser, contrastier negative than most people. I know it messes with the resolution and other technical qualities that a black and white film might be capable of with more careful treatment. But I also know that unless I use a tripod, I am likely doing more to degrade the quality than any slight overexposure and overdevelopment might degrade quality.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

very true;when one is after more film sensitivity, one is always better off going for a higher-sensitivity film than pushing a low- sensitivity film

Dear Ralph,
Please allow me to remind you Kodak say TMax100 at EI200 is not a push.