Favorite High Speed Film/Dev Combo

[Silverpixels5]

Lately I've been taking my Nikon FM around with me most everywhere in order to a bit of regular and street shooting. The only thing is that it's usually late in the day or indoors when i'm doing this and so that requires a higher speed film (or one rated at such) and a developer that is going to give me the results I'm after. The only ones I've been trying so far are TMZ and Delta 3200, both with promising results. But I was wondering what others film/developer of choice was for low light handheld-photography, and the reasons behind settling on that combo. I look forward to any responses. Thanks!

 

[Les McLean]

Whilst I love the grain produced by Delta 3200, especially with Rodinal, I think the most versitile combination is TriX with Fotospeed FD 30. I use it for most of my street photography and photo documentary projects. Prints made from negatives rated 200 ISO show little evidence of grain and when pushed to 1600 ISO the grain is there but IMO not intrusive.

 

[bjorke]

I shot a bagload of Fuji 1600 in Japan (hey, $3/roll, how could I resist?). The results in Xtol 1+1 were more pleasing than the Delta 400 I was shooting at ISO 800 in the same developer.

(Ah well, back to TriX in Rodinal 1+25... )

 

[ian_greant]

while I'm far from the pushiest guy here my favorite combo is probably the dullest: tri-x in D76 I run it to 3200 pretty often in my old rollei and am pretty darn happy with the results.

HP5 with similar handling only seems to work to about 1600 with me although I like plenty fine to there.

I'll post a low light indoor handheld Tri-x at 3200 in the non -gallery. I've enlarged to 8x10 and it looks pretty smooth.

Ian

 

[John Sparks]

My favorite high speed film is Neopan 1600. It has much finer gain than TMZ or Delta 3200 and has a really nice look to it. In the last year or so, it's been almost the only 35mm film I use.

It isn't as fast as the others. It looks good at 800 or maybe 1000. It probably useable at 1600, but beyond that I'd use TMZ and even at 1600 it's a tossup, shadow detail or finer grain. I find the flat highlights of Delta 3200 to make it look dull and lifeless in most situations.

On the other hand, I shoot more 120 film than 35mm. In 120, the only choice is Delta 3200. I get an honest 640 out of Tri-x in Microphen, but for real high speed Delta 3200 is the only choice. I'd probably use Delta 3200 much more if the highlights didn't mush out. I really wish Neopan 1600 was available in 120, I'd rarely use anything else for handheld medium format work.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

I'm a very pushy guy. I need to indulge my old photojournalist habits or I'll feel stifled by my current fine art pretensions. ;>

A couple of favorites are TMY up to EI 1600 in Microphen stock solution and Tri-X at EI 1200-1250 (depends on the camera/meter) in Diafine. Very different flavors.

TMY, as described, delivers a contemporary look with punchy midtones, controlled highlights and decent shadow detail. It's a favorite of mine for theatre photography.

TX in Diafine is old school. It's the easiest way I know of to get the look of decades past. Very good, smooth midtone gradation, very well controlled highlights, odd shadow and lower tones. There's an abrupt transition from Zone III to IV that sometimes makes for peculiar looking photos.

Both print very well on multigrade RC or fiber paper. I've done some limited printing of my TX-in-Diafine negs on graded paper with good results.

Beyond EI 1600 I see better results from Tri-X in Microphen. Oh, I can get usable results from TMY but it seems to poop out quickly approaching EI 3200-6400.

Delta 3200 at EI 1600 in Diafine looks quite normal, real shadow detail and normal tonality. It is a bit grainy and somewhat low in contrast but those are normal for Delta 3200. I'm planning to try harder pushes with this film in Microphen.

Never tried TMZ that I can recall. I've had little success pushing HP5+, which is otherwise a terrific film at or near its nominal speed.

When we want just a little more speed for daylight use of slower films I've had good results pushing FP4+ and APX 100 up to EI 250 in Diafine, a good developer for traditional type emulsions.

Tho' some photographers report satisfactory results with T-Max films in Diafine I've been unable to duplicate their success. I prefer Microphen for newer style films.

In fact, between Microphen and Diafine I'd be hard pressed to choose one. Diafine is by far the most convenient developer, being indifferent to time and temperature regardless of film used. But Microphen delivers somewhat better results. Still, Tri-X in Diafine is something unique and special.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

TX (400) and Acufine at 800 and a fast lens.

The only time I ever feel I need more than 800 is if I want to do the handheld pinhole thing, and then Delta 3200 at 1600 in D-76, but I haven't tested a lot of different options at 1600, so there's probably something better, but I do like the tonality and grain structure of D3lta 3200.

 

[JohnArs]

Hi my favorite is Delta 3200 almost at 1600 ASA sometimes at 3200 in XTol 1:1
Good light!

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

400TX in a diafine homebrew equivalent.

Jorge O

 

[bjorke]

Lately I've been taking my Nikon FM around with me most everywhere in order to a bit of regular and street shooting.

Um, gotta ask your distinction between "regular" and "street"?

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Silverpixels5]

Regular meaning just average everyday handheld snapshots at home or a friends, and street meaning taking the camera out with the into the city and taking photos.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I was out today shooting TX at 800 in Acufine, so I've posted an image and a detail of same with the other examples posted in the Non-Gallery Images Gallery. I wonder if there is some convenient way of assembling all these images on one page. It's turning out to be an interesting comparison.

 

[glbeas]

David if you are doing comparisons and discussing them you can put the image right in the middle of the discussion after you have posted to the non image gallery. At the point in the discussion you want the shot click on the icon and then put the url of the image in, found by going to the image in the gallery and right clicking for properties. Copy and drop in the url and click [Img] again to close out and the image will appear where its needed.
Example, your closeup of the shot, this one is gotten from the thumbnail:
[img]http://www.apug.org/site/main/album_thumbnail.php?pic_id=834
And this one gotten from the large image:

I hope this helps make the discussions more interesting.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks. I do that sometimes from images on my own website, but didn't know we could do that from the apug galleries (i.e., I thought we might block links to gallery images for copyright or bandwidth reasons).

 

[glbeas]

Actually I would think linking from within the gallery more effective, quicker loads and less liable to turn into dead links unless you delete the image. If you put one in from an outside site such as your own any later searches may be frustrated by the lack of an image to illustrate the discussion if you happen to change the content of your site radically.

 

[Joel Rainville]

HP5 @1600 in D76 works for me.

Dead Link Removed