Film speeds?

[Charles Webb]

Over the years I have had several "favorite" films that I felt delivered the information I wanted in my negatives. With the exception of Tri X the majority were rated on the slow speed side. ( ASA/ISO 25,32, 64, and 100/125 ) I chose those slower rated films because I felt the finer grain and in most cases better accutance would lead to a better final representation of my subject. I guess I still lean in that direction, but have become aware that lots of folks are using faster films in 4x5 and up. I readily admit that I hate to experiment so haven't really tried any thing faster than ISO 320 to 400. My results have been quite acceptable, but I still wonder if they might have retained a bit more detail, definition, information in the shadow/high light areas had I used a slower 100 rated film?

My question is why do so many LF photographers today prefer and choose 400 over 100? I feel I am missing something but am not sure what? I would appreciate members sharing their thoughts on this. Why one over the other?

In commercial work I have always chosen the film to match the product and shooting conditions. If quantity and quality of light outdoors was sufficient I would choose the slower film. I guess I may be too far over the hill to understand, but I will try! Thanks in advance!

Charlie.............................

 

[vet173]

I've been out with 100 speed film and the air is moving leaves just enough that the difference between 100 and 400 speed is the deal breaker. Also you might just loupe an old 100 grain neg and one from new 400 speed film. The difference, agreed there will be, might be less than you think. In ulf it's always a balancing act between depth of field and defraction. I agree with your view of using the slowest film that you can. My standard film is fp-4.

 

[noseoil]

Charlie, my fast film is asa 100 (Efke), slow is 25. I tend to agree with you about shadow detail, but I guess it has to do with the style of shooting you do and the conditions you have available. Since I'm just an amateur, I don't have to worry about grabbing a scene with a time limit imposed. If it is too windy, I don't go out to shoot. This approach won't work if you are getting paid for the shoot. You must have a faster film or you won't get to eat.

I just like the flexibility of Efke 100. It can be pushed or pulled to meet a lot of differing light conditions and will get all the detail you could wish for in shadows, while still retaining all values in the highlights. Granted, I tend to run it on the slow side, but I'm happy with results. The 25 speed is a different critter. It is very picky about light, exposure and development, all at the same time. On the plus side, it has such a nice tonality for some settings that I'm spoiled by it and can't seem to bring myself to compromise when a shiny chrome subject is on the list of things to shoot.

I think a lot of this has to do with the look you want and the time you have to do it. Fortunately, as an amateur I don't have to worry about eating. tim

 

[df cardwell]

Hey Charlie

In my LF commercial days, I shot a lot of PX and Ektapan out west, and TX and Royal Pan in the east. Shooting for me now, and for portraits, I usually break the camera out when the sun goes behind the trees, and the extra speed makes the shot possible. The only difference is that TMY is like shooting PX used to be.

I think so many folks go straight to TXP because Ansel shot it. And, since he's not here to defend himself, I'll guess it was the curve shape, that old fashioned 'portrait curve', that was the reason why: compress all that shadow information and emphasize the high mids and brights. But we don't really KNOW much today about curve shape, do we Charlie ? I remember being taught the most important thing about film was how it represented color and tone, and my old time teachers never even talked about grain....

d

 

[BBarlow690]

I use Tri-X because I want as much speed (read: shutter speed and/or depth of field) as I can get. Here in NH, Tri-X (tested to be ISO 320 for me) on a sunny day yields 1/60 at f22 for me, which for expensive 8x10 film gets me where I want to be. For portraits in open shade, I can still get adequate depth of field at a shutter speed subjects can sit still for (literally and figuratively).

I tested HP5 (Tested for me at ISO 250), Bergger 200 (tested ISO 100) and FP4 (tested ISO 64) against Tri-X, and couldn't see a compelling reason to change. They were all fine films, but not "better enough" (or even "better") to get me to change my quite-settled world.

Life's too short to test film. I want to go make pictures. Good luck!

 

[Charles Webb]

My thanks to all of you! My suspicions were pretty much right on, and I definitly understand being comfortable in "a settled world". I also know about "WIND", I believe it was born here in Colorado before the invention of photography for only one reason. That is to keep the Aspen leaves quaking!
I might also say that it does a fine job of that. Kind of like packing a 20 ga.
shotgun with field loads when the birds are breaking at 40 yards. I have just purchased some faster films from J&C and will be playing with them in the near future.

When I think back I am certain that I have exposed more Tri X and Royal Pan
than all the other B&W films put together over the past 50 or so years.

I have seen excellent results in the gallery of images made with
Ilford and other ISO 400 films, so am looking forward trying them.

Again Thank you for your input!

Charlie................................

Don, ya got me there, No I haven't given much thought to film curves in a long, long time.

 

[Donald Miller]

Charlie,

Excellent post and replies. One other thing that some consider is the ability of the film to build the density range needed by some of the alt process or even Azo applications. Not all films have the same ability in this regard. One of those that is very limited in it's ability to expand density range is Bergger BPF 200. Efke PL100 is a good film in this characterisitic and that is why I use it as my primary film

Tmax 400 is another wonderful film when one considers this aspect.

 

[Charles Webb]

DM, Great thoughts, some I had not considered!

Concerning TMax 400, I have a hundred sheets of it in the freezer and have never tried it! I think I fall into that comfort thing and continue to go with what I have had the best results with. I simply have got to get out and get it done. I have 5x7 and 4x5 and absolutely no good reason for not playing with it. Perhaps I am afraid it will be a better "mousetrap" then I will have to admit and revise all of my antiquated ways of thinking ;-)

Have a great day!

Charlie.............................

 

[rbarker]

FWIW, Charlie, my "standard" for 8x10 is HP5+, while I use FP4+ for most 4x5 and smaller formats. All I do with the 8x10 negs are contact prints, so grain isn't really an issue for me.

 

[df cardwell]

DM, Great thoughts, some I had not considered!

Concerning TMax 400, I have a hundred sheets of it in the freezer and have never tried it! .......

Charlie.............................

Hey Charlie

TMY is like.... Royal Pan, but no fog. And no grain. And no reciprocity.
And sees detail better than Plus X. But that never ending straight line ?
Yep. No toe to speak of. AND it is a hard, tough film.

Made for the Black Canyon, my friend.
.

 

[jimgalli]

Charlie, goodness knows I've got enough enemies but......I'll wonder out loud anyway. Can't help but wonder if the phenomenon isn't caused at least for some by a hatred of Tmax 100 and a realisation of how smooth and nice Tri-X 320 can be. That would be enough for me but I switched from the yellow box early on. I remember testing Ilford Delta 400 D100 and PanF 50 all next to each other. There didn't seem to be enough significant difference between the 50 and the 400 that I wouldn't have chosen the 400. After all was said, I settled on FP4+, an adequate if un-exciting film. We had a large HABS HAER job out at work and since you were buying me the film, I bought Acros Readyloads. MERCY! That is simply gorgeous film. Probably worth 3 and a half bucks a sheet or whatever the hell it is.........but alas, I'm film poor and lens rich. Are you coming on out to Tonopah?? Hope so.

 

[Charles Webb]

Jim,
I guess I have put off trying a lot of the newer faster films long enough, so
I am planning to burn some of it. What film did you use for the latest instalment of "Ford Times" ? I sure like them!

My early tests with Ilford films were dismal failures. Everytime I purchased additional film it was very different from the last batch leading to more testing I hated that, so stayed with the yellow box and Tri X.


We have the plans in motion to come to Tonopah. I am however having a few glitches with my "pill rollers", the Cardiologist says I absolutely can not make the trip and the others seem to agree with him. I am going to continue with the plans to make the trip, but there is a chance I'll get out voted and will have to back out. My wife agrees with me that it is up to me, but I am weighing all the information available and will make the final decision closer to " T " Day. "T" Day is of course the date for the invasion of Tonopah!

All take care,

Charlie............................

 

[rbarker]

. . . "T" Day is of course the date for the invasion of Tonopah!

I've driven through Tonopah a few times, but never thought of actually invading. I fear the locals would be better equipped than I.

 

[jimgalli]

Jim,
I guess I have put off trying a lot of the newer faster films long enough, so
I am planning to burn some of it. What film did you use for the latest instalment of "Ford Times" ? I sure like them!

My early tests with Ilford films were dismal failures. Everytime I purchased additional film it was very different from the last batch leading to more testing I hated that, so stayed with the yellow box and Tri X.


We have the plans in motion to come to Tonopah. I am however having a few glitches with my "pill rollers", the Cardiologist says I absolutely can not make the trip and the others seem to agree with him. I am going to continue with the plans to make the trip, but there is a chance I'll get out voted and will have to back out. My wife agrees with me that it is up to me, but I am weighing all the information available and will make the final decision closer to " T " Day. "T" Day is of course the date for the invasion of Tonopah!

All take care,

Charlie............................

Hi Charlie. The Battle Mountain Ford's were done on Efke 100 Cirkut camera film that I cut up. It's nice film, and CHEAP. Or at least it used to be. Cost IS a factor for me. O/wise I'd likely go for 320 tri X or maybe even HP5. HP5 comes alive in Pcat HD which is what I soup most everything in.

Hope you get to come. What my wife thinks I can do probably outweighs what 10 docters would say.

 

[noseoil]

Ralph, nice shot! New model Blackhawk? 9mm what & what is the bolt gun & caliber? tim

 

[rbarker]

Tim - the rifle is a Sauer 202, configured for .270 Winchester (it uses interchangeable barrels), with a Leica scope. Very nice shoting rifle, and a comfy caliber. And, yes, the .44 mag is a new-model Blackhawk. The 9mm is a Beretta 92F.

 

[argus]

Thanks Charles, for the great thread and all the other for the replies. Once again, I learned some interesting points. This one's got an A+ from me.

The main reason for switching between slow and fast film for me depends on what lens I am using at the moment and depending on the light conditions.

Shutterless lenses go with slow film and mostly non-moving subjects. Shutter mounted lenses are used with live subjects and fast film.

This is a non-scientific approach but, than again, I make pictures for fun.

G

 

[df cardwell]

This is a non-scientific approach but, than again, I make pictures for fun.

Argus

WRONG. You HAVE a scientific approach. The guys that consult charts, computers and 'expert opinion' LACK the scientific approach.

.

 

[Bruce Watson]

My question is why do so many LF photographers today prefer and choose 400 over 100? I feel I am missing something but am not sure what? I would appreciate members sharing their thoughts on this. Why one over the other?

Speed. Plain and simple.

Who wants to spend their lives waiting for the wind to die down? The vast majority of my shots are f/16 - f/32, for all the normal sharpness and DOF reasons. As a result, I rarely see the high side of 1/30 of a second.

If there was a film available with real speed of 800, I'd be using that!

 

[roteague]

My question is why do so many LF photographers today prefer and choose 400 over 100? I feel I am missing something but am not sure what? I would appreciate members sharing their thoughts on this. Why one over the other?

I don't. Fuji doesn't make Velvia in 400.

...... well you asked.