In defense of 100 (and 125) ISO film

[alanrockwood]

I don't shoot a huge amount of black and white film, but when I do I usually reach for a medium speed film. For some reason I've never gotten into the habit of using 400 iso film very often, nor have I seen much of a need to do so. (I don't do much available light photography, and when I do I try to steady the camera or use a tripod.)

How about the rest of you? Are there many fans of 100 and/or 125 ISO films out there who do most of their shooting with medium speed films?

 

[koraks]

Ah, it really depends. I've shot a lot of 100-ish film in the past, but for B&W, I currently use only HP5+ (35mm) and Foma 200 (sheet film). For color, it's more of a mixed bag, but with an emphasis now on Vision 3 250D (35mm) and Portra 400 (120). So I guess I lean towards the high speed side.

Horses for courses!

 

[M-88]

Last time I had both - medium and fast films, I shot through two bulk rolls of Kentmere 100 and one bulk roll of FP4+ in the same time that it took me to shoot through a single bulk roll of HP5+. With that said, I'm heavily leaning towards medium speed film. Although this is because I don't do low light photography that often.

 

[otto.f]

In the summer 100 or 125, in autumn and winter 400. I found out that the infrared rollei 400 is just as nice as TriX in normal use without filter and less expensive.

 

[guangong]

Summertime mostly 100 film, Winter mostly 400. When in city I shoot a lot indoors (restaurants, cafes, bars, etc) where I tend to use 400. With Minox, lens fixed at f3.5, have one camera with 100 and another with 400.

 

[relistan]

I shoot 100 speed film almost all the time. Occasionally, I shoot 400 speed or 200 speed, but not regularly. 100 covers most of the situations that I shoot.

 

[BrianShaw]

You’re among friends, @alanrockwood !

I only wish that the thread was entitled, “In praise of…” rather than stated in the negative/defensive. Medium speed film (or photographers using it) really don’t need to be defended.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I use both fast (by which I mean ISO 400) and slow film (by which I mean ISO 100; I rarely go slower than that), depending on where and when I'm photographing. Mostly, I would choose the slower if I'm confident I will finish the roll while the light is still good enough; but I might choose HP5 because I'm in town, and some streets are just dark, and things move fast so I may want to use a fast shutter. Right now, my (film-) camera bag contains three exposed rolls of Adox CHS100, and another unexposed, but there's two rolls of HP5 in there in case I'd needed them.
I live in the cloudy UK, at reasonably high latitude, and for some of the year, I don't have much choice: hand-held film photography means HP5. I have sometimes gone out with nothing but six rolls of that, and a marker pen so I can mark the rolls I pushed at 1600. That time of year is just coming up.
So mostly, I don't see this as a matter of preference; I need both fast and slow film. But I can imaging someone choosing to use fast film to get the extra grain just as a style choice, if it suited the subject matter.

 

[Chan Tran]

I like film but I don't like the grain so I use 100 speed film. Color or B&W I don't use film faster than 160.

 

[grain elevator]

I want to be able to photograph: hand-held, in the late afternoon or evening, in the shade, with reasonable dof, and sometimes using filters. I can rarely get away with ISO 100 for a whole roll, although I've made it work at times - compromises can bring about creativity after all.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't shoot a huge amount of black and white film, but when I do I usually reach for a medium speed film. For some reason I've never gotten into the habit of using 400 iso film very often, nor have I seen much of a need to do so. (I don't do much available light photography, and when I do I try to steady the camera or use a tripod.)

How about the rest of you? Are there many fans of 100 and/or 125 ISO films out there who do most of their shooting with medium speed films?

I've shot a huge variety of stuff in multiple formats over the years including Agfapan 100, Plus-X, FP4+ , HP5+, Tri-X (in it's many formulations), Efke 100, Fomapan 200, Fomapan 100, Arista.EDU 100, Rollei Retro, Acros and Acros II, TMX, CHS 100 II, and Double-X.

• For 4x5, I almost always shoot Agfpan 100, Fomapan 200, or Tri-X as the scene dictates
  
  
• For 9x12 I shoot only Fomapan 100, because that's all I can find in that format
  
  
• For 6x9 I am shooting up my remaining Efke PL100M and old Tri-X. I also have some old Plus-X stashed in this format. When all the old stuff is gone, I will switch mostly to FP4+ and CHS 100 II.
  
  
• For 120 I mostly shoot Agfapan 100 but when that's gone I am switching to FP4+ and Double-X. I really wanted to shoot Fomapan 200 in this format, but Foma are having problems with the emulsions of this film in 120 - or were, last I tried it.
  
  
• For 35mm, I still have many choices in the freezer, but when I am converging on Double-X as an every day shooter. This stuff is just tremendous when developed with low agitation for a long time in Pyrocat-HD. The sharpness and minimal grain looks amazing, given the limited size of the negatives. Here is just one example - 35mm Double-X handheld with a Nikon F and 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S lens developed for an hour with only a few agitations in Pyrocat-HD:

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't shoot a huge amount of black and white film, but when I do I usually reach for a medium speed film. For some reason I've never gotten into the habit of using 400 iso film very often, nor have I seen much of a need to do so. (I don't do much available light photography, and when I do I try to steady the camera or use a tripod.)

How about the rest of you? Are there many fans of 100 and/or 125 ISO films out there who do most of their shooting with medium speed films?

Like you I mainly use ISO 400 films, but if I wanted a narrower depth of field I might choose an ISO 125 to 150 film.

 

[GregY]

I use more TMax100/FP4+ (depending on the effect I'm after) and less TMax400/Tri-X. Medium speed films in MF/LF are a dream

 

[Roger Cole]

I almost never shoot in bright sun. I find 400 useful way more often than 100/125 though I do shoot medium speed at times too, almost always FP4+.

It all just depends on the light you usually shoot in.

But I almost never shoot 35mm B&W anymore and in MF and LF grain just isn't much of an issue, even with my smallest of those, 6x4.5. Modern 400 films, and not just T-grain ones (I'm standardizing on HP5+ since Kodak priced themselves out of the market for 4x5 as far as I'm concerned. I could shoot Kodak in 120 but I want to standardize across MF and LF as much as I can) are good enough that grain, if visible at all (depending largely on print size for a given format of course) just isn't obtrusive. It won't be visible in the largest print I can make, 16x20, from 4x5 at all as that's only a 4x enlargement, and it's still acceptable even from 6x4.5 if not cropped much. (I'm in the "crop if it improves the composition at all" camp.)

 

[runswithsizzers]

Right now, there is a great selection of interesting ISO 100 films I would like to try, but only if I can actually use EI 100, and not 50 or 64. I know the generally accepted definition of "medium speed film" includes ISO 100, but in my personal dictionary, ISO 100 is "slow" even if metered at 100, and unacceptably so at EI 50.

Most often, I am using 35mm b&w negative film, hand-held. And most often, I prefer to use my cameras' built-in light meters, along with some common sense about where to aim the camera when metering that comes from 50 years of experience. I do carry a gray card and a decent hand-held light meter for tricky lighting conditions where I may want a second opinion.

When I try to hand-hold at 1/60th second, I have found a few of my frames will suffer from camera shake, so I try to use 1/125th second and faster. And while I sometimes choose to use apertures wider than 5.6, I want that to be my choice, and not something dictated by marginal film sensitivity.

According to the definitions given on <this Wikipedia page>, my usual shooting conditions have EV(100) values between 12-15. If EV 15, no problem; I can choose any combination between 1/125@f16 and 1/1000@f5.6. But if conditions are EV 12, then 1/125 requires f5.6, and any aperture smaller than 5.6 requires shutter speeds slower than 1/125 sec. So for me, metering at EI 160-200 is a more reasonable choice -- but there are only a very few b&w films with ISO ratings in that range.

Over the next few months, I will be trying some ISO 100 and 125 b&w films metered at EI 160-200 and developed in Ilford Microphen to see if I like the results. Ilford claims Microphen "gives an effective increase in film speed whilst retaining the grain characteristics associated with fine grain developers."

 

[grahamp]

I tend to stick to Delta 400 for roll film. For sheet film I like Delta 100, or HP5+ if I need extra speed. I have used Ortho in sheet form, and that is definitely in the slow group.

Once I have the tripod out exposure options are more extensive.

 

[pentaxuser]

You’re among friends, @alanrockwood !

I only wish that the thread was entitled, “In praise of…” rather than stated in the negative/defensive. Medium speed film (or photographers using it) really don’t need to be defended.

Yes that was the thought that struck me as well Mind you, a more provocative title where people need to attack or defend a proposition often gets more responses

pentaxuser

 

[Duceman]

While ISO100 is technically a medium-speed film, I consider it slow. Not sure if I've ever shot anything slower. That being said, I shoot on a ratio of about 2:1 400 to 100 speed black/white film, and about 4:1 400 to 100 color film.

I do like 100 speed film for portraiture in conjunction with off-shoe flash setup.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

TMX-100 is my high speed film. I don't think I have used any 400 speed films in decades.

 

[Paul Howell]

My ratio is usually around 7 high speed rolls to 3 100 rolls. I shoot Tmax 100 for grain and resolution, but do miss Plux X for skin tones.

 

[TomR55]

Depends on (1) The desired "character" of the final image and (2) Any practical (environmental) constraints. I use 100 ASA films (generally) when I want a particular rendering, such as mid-tone separation, micro-contrast, etc., that I cannot easily obtain with higher-speed films (we're talking 135 format here). OTOH, I'll use a ND filter in conjunction with 400 speed films when I need (want) the characteristics commonly available with 400 speed films, such as a less contrasty negative. Finally, in those rare instances where I really want 100 ASA film rendering in lower-light situations, I use additional lighting (when possible), or a good tripod.

I live in SW Florida where bright (unfiltered) sunlight is generally available for long periods of time. Maybe coincidentally, I find my ratio of 100 to 400 ASA consumption about 2 to 1.

 

[abruzzi]

in rare occasion I shoot 400, even rarer 800, 1600, or 3200. Mostly 100 or slower, but then I almost never shoot indoors. The 1600 and 3200 are for ambient light night shots. I shot a couple rolls of Portra 800 handheld inside Sagrada Familia (no tripods allowed). Every shot was unmetered, wide open (ƒ4 on a 6x6 40mm lens) and 1/30. most of the shots came out great.

But when I'm home in the New Mexico sun outdoors--100 is the best to work with. I rarely even need a meter the light is so consistent here.

 

[AnselMortensen]

In my opinion, it really doesn't need defending. <shrug>

 

[alanrockwood]

In my opinion, it really doesn't need defending. <shrug>

Good point!

 

[mshchem]

Use what is best for the task. I don't leave film setting in a camera (mostly), 100 speed film is perfect for most of my shooting. Having said that TMY-2 is amazing.