If you could have infinite film speed choices, what would you actually use?

[Vaughn]

I would much rather just use an approximately ISO 3 film in the 5x7.

I do not worry so much about diffraction as I contact prints and usually have DoF issues that I must deal with (I'd rather lose a tiny bit of sharpness to keep everything in focus).

I have used a nice slow film (Kodak Copy film), but at the cost of having to use an ortho film (and a cost to the pocket book...if I could even still get it!). The ortho film works very well in the redwoods, but it is more difficult to use with big skies where I actually need the slower film...a Catch-22.

I need to rig up a way to attach filters (such as ND) on the back of the barrel lenses so that I can easily use the lens cap-shutter method on the front. And/or look more into using a packard shutter (more weight to carry, but it might be worth it.)

The other answer is to stick with my 300mm in the Copal 3, but having a 210mm, 19" and 24" in barrels has gotten me spoiled!

Vaughn

 

[2F/2F]

I do not worry so much about diffraction as I contact prints and usually have DoF issues that I must deal with (I'd rather lose a tiny bit of sharpness to keep everything in focus).

Unfortunately, if you don't have front tilt, that's the way it goes. Luckily my 121mm on 5x7 has lots of D of F, and the 240mm is not that bad.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not to be super technical or anything like that, but the purpose of the human eye is correlated to the lens, in that the pupil(aperture diaphragm) changes the opening of the iris(f/stop) to account for the amount of light. the brain is more similar to film, with a light meter thrown in set to aperture priority.

The retina is a variable ISO sensor that can chemically adjust from high to low intensity and move from color to B&W as it does so. It is also a linear device, rather than a non-linear device such as a film or digital sensor. Therefore, it has no significant toe or shoulder.

PE

 

[Vaughn]

Unfortunately, if you don't have front tilt, that's the way it goes. Luckily my 121mm on 5x7 has lots of D of F, and the 240mm is not that bad.

Unfortunately, most of my photographing situations seem to make the use of front tilt null and void...and the longer lenses for "normal" focal lengths on 8x10 do not have a ton of DoF.

Here are two examples (5x7 with a 210mm lens). On neither one would front tilt have been of any use.
The one of the left is a carbon print, the one on the right is a platinum/palladium print.

 

[EASmithV]

Kodak even made a product to take advantage of this many years ago. It gave a negative image under low light and a positive image under very bright light with a mixed positive and negative at medium light levels.

I remember an ad for the film from the 50s that showed a normally lit light bulb with a black filament.

PE

Ohmigawd, Does any company still make an equivalent?

 

[Bruce Watson]

I'm a 5x4 shooter. I find that 400 speed films are often just too slow for what I want. Yet, they are what I have available. So I sometimes spend hours waiting for the breeze to abate so I can make that 1/8th second exposure without the foliage motion-blurring in the foreground.

I would really like another 2-3 stops of real film speed. So an LF film with a real film speed of 1600-3200 would be outstanding. It would be expensive though -- I'd have to get all my shutters CLAed because those faster shutter speeds never get used today. A sacrifice I'd be glad to make

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm a 5x4 shooter. I find that 400 speed films are often just too slow for what I want.

I've found just the opposite. While I shoot HP5 at 200EIwhen I'm in Turkey with a hand held Crown Graphic I actually found the speed restrictive when I was shooting recently in the UK. I prefer to use longer shutter speeds and 1/8th or 1/15th at f22 is too short to allow movement of water, grasses trees etc.

My preference is to shoot with a 50 EI film like Tmax100, Delta 100 or EFKE PL25, but of course we all work in different ways.

Ian

 

[Bruce Watson]

My preference is to shoot with a 50 EI film like Tmax100, Delta 100 or EFKE PL25, but of course we all work in different ways.

Ian

Not that different. You've got film that does what you want. And if you didn't you could always fall back on neutral density filters. But I don't have a film that does what I want. So instead of working like I want, I work more like you do. I'm just sayin'...

 

[Ian Grant]

Not that different. You've got film that does what you want. And if you didn't you could always fall back on neutral density filters. But I don't have a film that does what I want. So instead of working like I want, I work more like you do. I'm just sayin'...

Have to agree about fast films, I can't get my 400 ISO film of choice Delta 400 as it's not been made in LF sizes for some time. Gone are the days when Ilford & Kodak made high speed press plates & films.

Back in the 70's I used to regularly push 35mm HP5 to 1600 EI in Microphen/ID-68 so that is still one option but at a cost to tonality, never tried it with LF though.

Ian

 

[archphoto]

50-100 ASA for outside esp on 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10
400-1600 ASA for handheldshots with 35 and 6x7
6400 ASA or higher for those rare occasions.

In general I use 100 ASA for outside and 400 ASA with IS inside and it works out well.

Peter

 

[flashgumby]

With a 300mm lens on a 35mm body, I'd love to have a "Reala-like" 6400 or 12,800 film for those twilight Kate Ceberano concerts in the vineyards...
And maybe if there was an 800 or 1600 that looks like Fuji Pro400H it would be nice for available light indoors - for weddings and stuff.

Other than that, I'm happy enough using between 100 and 400 for most stuff. I can't complain about Reala, Pro400H or Delta 400 - they each have a character that I'd rather keep than lose to some technical 'perfection'.

If I could only use films from my list, they would be:
* ISO100 outdoor colour - Fuji Reala.
* ISO400 general purpose colour - Fuji Pro400H.
* ISO1600 colour - I'd love one that's just like Pro400H.
* ISO6400 or 12,800 colour - I'd love one that looks just like Reala.
* ISO100 & 400 B&W - Delta seems fine so far.

Of course, they would all be happy with shutter speeds ranging from at least 4 seconds and faster, without having to deal with reciprocity failure.

Ah, don't you love dreaming...

Regards,
Gordon

 

[Chazzy]

I'm a 5x4 shooter. I find that 400 speed films are often just too slow for what I want. Yet, they are what I have available. So I sometimes spend hours waiting for the breeze to abate so I can make that 1/8th second exposure without the foliage motion-blurring in the foreground.

I would really like another 2-3 stops of real film speed. So an LF film with a real film speed of 1600-3200 would be outstanding. It would be expensive though -- I'd have to get all my shutters CLAed because those faster shutter speeds never get used today. A sacrifice I'd be glad to make

I feel the same way. If I could get the speed of 1600 or 3200 with the grain of a slow film, that would be my standard choice. I mainly use a medium format rangefinder, and I am often looking for greater depth of field to cover focusing errors with the longer lenses.

I have a roll of Portra 800 in one of my Koni-Omega backs. If it looks even half as good as the Portra 400 speed films, it would be a winner.

 

[Q.G.]

ISO 100 is a very useful speed. 400 too, sometimes.
And when they are not, at least 6400 or 12800 would be nice.

 

[nicefor88]

I never use films over 200 ISO, the all year round because I find them fast enough. 200 for autumn and winter light, 100 for spring and summer. I shoot from full aperture to f8, rarely f11. There's usually a drop in quality beyond f11. I do a lot of landscape and street scene so shoot in the 30/s to 500/s range.