Which one of these films produced the best balance of clean, clearly defined images and neutral contrast in low light?
Both are great films: HP5+ has traditional grain [generally larger clumpy grain] and Delta 400 has tabular grain [small regular shaped]. So choose which film you like. There are no wrong answers here.
I am leaning toward Delta 400. But what does it do @ ISO 800?
I was thinking of trying Kentmere 400 instead (box speed).
For me, shadow detail is relevant.
If you're doing night shooting the obvious choice is Fuji Acros, as it has essentially no reciprocity failure.But how relevant is it at night?
When you say “low light” do you mean handheld? Because on a tripod even very slow films are great depending on the shot you want in low light.
If you're doing night shooting the obvious choice is Fuji Acros, as it has essentially no reciprocity failure.
I need the faster speed for handheld/monopod use.
It doesn't sound like Kentmere is popular here. I normally shoot Delta 100 (not pushed), but can buy nearly twice as many rolls of the cheaper brand for the price.
I like the way Kentmere 100 renders in good light, but have no experience with it in low light.
You didn't say what format you're shooting, but in 35mm at B&H the difference between Delta 100 and Acros is $1/roll. Yes, more expensive, but not that much different ($12 vs $13) either.It's too expensive.
You didn't say what format you're shooting, but in 35mm at B&H the difference between Delta 100 and Acros is $1/roll. Yes, more expensive, but not that much different ($12 vs $13) either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?