Fast films and 35mm

[Tom Kershaw]

Somewhat new to my way of photography I've just picked up a Nikon FM2N. Centre-weighted metering and the small negative is a different challenge to my more usual Delta 100 and a spot meter. To that end I'm going through my options in the 800-1600 exposure index range:

ILFORD Delta 3200 / Kodak T-Max 3200 - low contrast film for normal to high contrast settings.

Kodak Tri-X / T-Max 400 - any comments here on suitability for rating at 800? - bearing in mind in camera metering versus spot metering.

Tom

 

[mrred]

I regularly push Neopan400/TMY to ei3200 in XTol 1:2 (20 mins on my bes motor base, extend to 24-26 for normal). There is a scan here. You can view all sizes.

I just don't see much advantage with the faster delta/tmax offerings with results like this in xtol. Even with the grain that show up on a scan, it prints quite beautifully.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Those are good results. Have you made optical prints from the negatives, and how fast is that motor base rotating?

Tom

 

[mrred]

I have only made an 8x12 and nothing shows up. One of my freinds accused me of d**l, lol.

It's just a crappy $25 beseler motor base off the *bay site. I think maybe 3-4 rpm? It doesn't reverse like the unicolor. It is the best purchase I ever made....

 

[fotch]

Nice job. Have you tried the faster films? I have not myself, just wondering if you did and compared them side by side.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Nice job. Have you tried the faster films? I have not myself, just wondering if you did and compared them side by side.

Fotch,

I guess your question is directed at 'mrred', but from a theoretical point of view the Delta 3200 should deliver lower contrast, i.e. more shadow detail compared to the 400 speed films. However I've read about TMY-2 delivering good shadow detail @ E.I. 1600.

Tom

 

[mrred]

I didn't do a real side-by-side comparison. The last time I tried Delta 3200 I picked up 3 rolls. Shot one of them and could not see any advantage, considering I got a 100' of Neo400 at Freestyle for about $25. I gave the other 2 away.

I originally was trying to put my Kiev4a so jacked up so that I could leave the focus locked and shoot f22 for some street photography stelth/hand held. I was so stund at the results, I rarely shoot this stuff @ 400 anymore. I figure if I want super fine grain and shadow detail, I'll soup up some pyro. Otherwise, this is my go-to combination now.

 

[fotch]

Thanks Tom and mmred for the replies. I have been thinking about trying the supper fast films but have not had the time. Usually, I avoid faster films and like the quality of slow films even though that means using some kind of camera support. However, times change and I will venture into the high speed film area.

 

[c.w.]

I do a lot of low light stuff - i've tried a lot of films to try and find one that i really like, and i have to say that pretty much every option will look good, but different. I use an OM2n which has automatic center weighted metering. I use HC-110, which is not exactly the best developer to push with, but it works.

I've tried T-max 400, Tri-X, Foma 400, Neopan 400, Neopan 1600, Ilford 3200 and T-max 3200.

For EI 800, pretty much any 400 speed film is going to work fine. 800 is said to be close to Neopan 1600's actual speed - I found it a little contrasty with the recommended time, i'm going to try a higher dilution next time i get some, and see if I can't tame the highlights.

At EI 1600 differences start to show up more. With 400 speed films, underexposure is more of a concern. T-max 400 works really well, as does Neopan 400 (but Neopan is a lot cheaper). Neopan 1600 is easier to work with though (but not as cheap). I found Tri-X and Foma 400 to work OK, but the didn't seem to handle it as well as the T-grain stuff. It gets grainier too, looks good in 8x10s, not as good in 11x14s. The T-grain stuff looks really good though. I've printed 8x10s from Neopan 1600 that look grainless.

The "3200" speed films are a different beast. T-max P3200 is very very grainy - big lumpy grain even making 5x7s. I've tried it at 1600, and found it to print well, but just not have much contrast. I have a roll i tried at 6400, the negatives look pretty great, but i haven't printed them yet. I'm not sure if i'll shoot at 6400 again or not - it seemed like i was at f8 1/125 all the time, which is a little weird at midnight.

Ilford 3200 I've only used in Medium format. I hated it in HC110, but really like it in Rodinal. It's got a similarly lumpy grain and lowish contrast to T-max 3200, but the grain didn't matter as much because of the bigger negative size when i used it. Other than that i can't say much about it. It's too expensive for me to shoot regularly, so i haven't gotten to know it that well.

I had sort of decided on Neopan 400 as my go to film for 35mm and MF medium to high speed, but now that it's sorta discontinued in 120 i'm starting to experiment again.

Sorry for the sort of a rambling post, my experiments have not been exactly organized. I tend to buy what's cheap and shoot it however I need to. It's just a hobby for me - if it turns out terrible, so what? Hopefully you find something useful in what i've said though.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

C.w.

Thanks for your post. From high speed negatives I'd like to be able to make a 9x12" print. Kodak Tri-X has been considered a classic for push processing but perhaps the most recent revision T-max 400 is a modern alternative. As far as I'm aware the Neopan films are traditional grain products.

Tom

 

[Tim Gray]

I shoot a lot of Tri-X and a decent amount of T-Max 3200 (TMZ). I've also shot a couple rolls of T-Max 400. In my tests, TMZ does a real 1 to 1 1/3 stop increase over the two 400 speed films. This is right inline with the TMZ spec sheet where its rated at ISO 800-1000.

Tri-X/T-Max 400 look alright at 800. But head to head, the TMZ is going to have a stop (plus a bit) more in the shadows. I don't find a stop missing down there at 800 too annoying. At 1600, TMZ is only running 2/3rds of a stop underexposed, while the 400 speed films are two stops under. This is where TMZ really pulls ahead in my opinion.

Of course, it seems like a lot of people say "Tri-X or T-Max 400 at 1600 looks a lot better!" If you like contrast and dislike grain, then sure. If you'd rather have better shadow tones and don't mind grain as much, then you might prefer TMZ. Also factor in that TMZ is about twice as expensive.

I don't find TMZ *that* grainy. It's certainly grainier than slower films, but I've a couple 11x14's printed from it and they look fine to me. This is an 8x10" print taken out of what would have been a 26"x19" print from a TMZ 35mm negative. Here is Tri-X version, and lastly, the TMY version. For reference, here is a scan of an 8x10" print of the full TMZ frame.

It wasn't the most scientific test, but I shot these three films on the same setup and then scanned and wet printed them to look at how they behaved. The main part of the test was to see how they all pushed, but I never wrote that up.

I'm sure you can substitute the Ilford equivalents in and get more or less the same results. I don't think you can do the same for Fuji. In my opinion, Neopan 1600 is NOT even ISO 800. It does have fine grain, but it gets really contrasty.

 

[fschifano]

Depends on what you like. I'll tell you what I use, and how I use them. First, I don't need to use the super speed films unless the light is really low and/or the contrast is off the hook. Even then, it's a compromise I don't like to make unless it's absolutely necessary. Grain is very pronounced with either TMZ or Delta 3200, and I don't like that. For a 1 stop push, TMY + XTOL is the way to go. Because the film has so little toe, there's good separation of shadow details very low on the scale. You loose a little with underexposure, but not as much as you'd expect from an older style film. It is good even to 1600 with a bit of over development, but I prefer to use Tri-X + Diafine for speeds of 1250 to 1600. The highlights are easier to control, which means less burning down in the darkroom. If I really need to use the super speed films, I use development times for pushing one stop over what I exposed the film for. I'll use development times for 3200 for an EI of 1600, 6400 development times for an EI of 3200. Naturally, I'll take the contrast of the scene into consideration when adjusting development times.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tim,

Those images are helpful, thanks. First impressions based on what I can see on this monitor are that the Tri-X film looks more dynamic compared to the 3200 speed film which matches your observations.

Tom

 

[nworth]

Ilford P3200 is still available, according to their website, and it would probably be the best choice at EI 1600 or 3200. Unfortunately, Kodak TMax P3200 has been discontinued, although there may still be some frozen stocks left. I don't know the status of Fuji's 1600 film. According to the Kodak website (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/), both TMY-2 and TX can be pushed up to 3 stops with decided increases in grain and contrast. If your subjects have low effective contrast and you can stand these affects, these films are a possibility. My guess, from experience and a look at the curves, is that the Ilford equivalents (Delta 400 and HP-5+) can also be pushed this way, maybe even more successfully.

 

[Wade D]

Anyone remember the old Kodak 2475 recording film? ASA 1250 and grain the size of the moon!!

 

[topoxforddoc]

I often push HP5 to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 for my stage photography. Here's a few examples of scanned negs. The first two are more contrasty, but that was due to deliberate post processing in Lightroom after scanning.

http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p1020271641/h189ccb45#h189ccb45
http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p611765374/h1398b5a#h1398b5a
http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p1052974996/h224219bf#h224219bf

Best wishes,

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk

 

[fschifano]

Ilford P3200 is still available, according to their website, and it would probably be the best choice at EI 1600 or 3200. Unfortunately, Kodak TMax P3200 has been discontinued, although there may still be some frozen stocks left...

Where did you learn of TMZ's discontinuance? It's still listed on Kodak's web site. I've seen no notice of it's discontinuance, and I've seen it on the shelves at B&H and Adorama. Ilford's Delta 3200 is available in 35 mm and 120 formats, wile Kodak's TMZ is available only in 35 mm stocks.

 

[2F/2F]

Ilford Delta 3200, T-Max 3200 (both ISO 1000, per their respective manufacturer's data sheets), and Neopan 1600 are your only "true" b/w options in that range. Neopan 1600's ISO film speed is not published in it data sheet, but it is probably similar to Kodak's and Ilford's, and definitely not 1600. Most I have heard on the Internet claim it is 640, give or take. However, most people who do individualized speed testing on the Internet don't do it using the same ISO standards as the film manufacturers, so that is only really a useful number when performing tonal placement (e.g. with a spot meter).

These are the films that will have "normal" or "near-normal" exposure and contrast when shot from EIs 800 to 1600, assuming that the composition itself contains a "normal" brightness range. Any of the 400 or slower films will have higher-than normal contrast if shot in that same brightness range, if you shoot them at 800 to 1600 and push development. Pushing helps improve the poor results you'd get without pushing, due to the underexposure that occurs when you rate it this way.

The only b/w films that will truly give you correct or near-correct exposures at 800 - 1600 (i.e. without underexposure) are the three I mentioned. This does not mean that films slower than these don't make for great results when uprated and pushed, however.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ilford Delta 3200, T-Max 3200 (both ISO 1000, per their respective manufacturer's data sheets), and Neopan 1600 are your only "true" b/w options in that range. Neopan 1600's ISO film speed is not published in it data sheet, but it is probably similar to Kodak's and Ilford's, and definitely not 1600. Most I have heard on the Internet claim it is 640, give or take. However, most people who do individualized speed testing on the Internet don't do it using the same ISO standards as the film manufacturers, so that is only really a useful number when performing tonal placement (e.g. with a spot meter).

These are the films that will have "normal" or "near-normal" exposure and contrast when shot from EIs 800 to 1600, assuming that the composition itself contains a "normal" brightness range. Any of the 400 or slower films will have higher-than normal contrast if shot in that same brightness range, if you shoot them at 800 to 1600 and push development. Pushing helps improve the poor results you'd get without pushing, due to the underexposure that occurs when you rate it this way.

The only b/w films that will truly give you correct or near-correct exposures at 800 - 1600 (i.e. without underexposure) are the three I mentioned. This does not mean that films slower than these don't make for great results when uprated and pushed, however.

Have you compared Tri-X to T-max 400 in the 800 to 1600 exposure index range?

Tom

 

[Tim Gray]

I have Tom. The are basically the same.

P3200 is NOT discontinued. In March/April of this year, it was out of stock everywhere. I called Kodak and they said they were out of it, and it was scheduled to be recoated at the end of April or early May (I forget which). Sure enough, around mid-May, it reappeared on the shelves.

One could estimate the real speed of Neopan 1600 by looking at the characteristic curve. In D76 it looks like somewhere in the neighborhood of ISO 500 to me. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that I don't think Fuji actually shows the characteristic curve for any of their recommended dev times for EI 1600. To be honest, other than a more pronounced shoulder, the curves are barely different from the Neopan 400 ones.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have Tom. The are basically the same.

P3200 is NOT discontinued. In March/April of this year, it was out of stock everywhere. I called Kodak and they said they were out of it, and it was scheduled to be recoated at the end of April or early May (I forget which). Sure enough, around mid-May, it reappeared on the shelves.

One could estimate the real speed of Neopan 1600 by looking at the characteristic curve. In D76 it looks like somewhere in the neighborhood of ISO 500 to me. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that I don't think Fuji actually shows the characteristic curve for any of their recommended dev times for EI 1600. To be honest, other than a more pronounced shoulder, the curves are barely different from the Neopan 400 ones.

So the T-Max 400 film with which I'm more familiar delivers its grain and sharpness advantage compared to Tri-X to a greater extent at or around box speed?

Tom

 

[Tim Gray]

That is my experience, limited as it is with T-Max 400. Sharper, less grain. It also has a different spectral sensitivity (mentioned in the spec sheet - like shooting Tri-X with a yellow filter if I recall). I think it also has less of a toe, which may or may not affect you. Others will know more about that stuff.

 

[olleorama]

I have used neopan super presto, at 2400 in diafine, quite a lot. I printed a 12x16" on a condensor enlarger, for a show yesterday. The grain structure is very visible but depending on what kind of photos you make it can be an advantage, or disadvantage. It's not so annoying, to me at least. Had I used a diffusor enlarger it may have been less visible grain structure. I will see if I can get a scan of the print and of the negative.

 

[2F/2F]

IME slower films pushed in development (regardless of whether you have normal exposure or underexposure) are sharper and less grainy - more more contrasty - than faster films exposed normally and processed normally.

So, it's a matter of what is more important to you for the pix at hand: tonality or sharpness and grain. I use both for low light pix, depending on what I want (and sometimes based solely on what I have on hand).

I happen to like the look of the faster films' grain and sharpness. I especially love how their inherently low contrast gives you such latitude with which to work in difficult lighting.

I use T-Max 400 for low-contrast low light situations, and /or if trying to keep grain to a minimum and sharpness at maximum.

I use Tri-X or HP5 for moderately low light situations that have pretty normal contrast or contrast that is a tad low. The two push differently, though IME. I have fewer reservations about pushing Tri-X than I do about HP5. HP5 seems to build blocked high tones much more than Tri-X. Of course, when I want blocked high tones and some nice, sharp grain, HP5 is the best! (I find Tri-X grain more "mushy.")

I use Delta 3200 (usually at 2000 or 4000) if I need the extra speed, and/or if I am shooting in high-contrast, low intensity light. I also use it for shooting at high shutter speeds in flat light while moving.

 

[nworth]

Where did you learn of TMZ's discontinuance? It's still listed on Kodak's web site. I've seen no notice of it's discontinuance, and I've seen it on the shelves at B&H and Adorama. Ilford's Delta 3200 is available in 35 mm and 120 formats, wile Kodak's TMZ is available only in 35 mm stocks.

I saw it on the Kodak web site. A little over a year ago there was an announcement that it would be discontinued as soon as stocks were used up. It raised quite a furor - a lot of people like that film. Looking further in this thread, it looks like Kodak has decided to coat another batch. That is very good news, and it shows that Kodak does respond to its customer base.