Is Tri-X appropriate for shooting on a sunny Floridian summer day?

[imfrommiami]

Hey I'm new to black and white film, have been using color for about 6 months since I got my camera. In the day time I normally use Kodak Gold and at night I use Kodak Ultramax with or without flash depending on the lighting situation. I have a Minolta Maxxum 7000, and I want to take some black and white photos, I have heard that Tri-X will give that old school grainy look that I want, but I'm afraid that the ISO is too high and on a sunny day my photos will be overexposed.

I'm not a professional photographer, or even an amateur photographer, I just like to take snaps of my friends and family using film, because it's fun. I'm in Miami, and want to known before I order from B&H because my Walgreens only sells Gold and Ultramax.

Thanks

 

[Alan9940]

I guess the usual answer prevails here...it depends. It depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you need to use wider apertures for shallow DOF, then a 400 speed film like Tri-X may not be your best choice. I shoot Tri-X in the blazing sun of the desert southwest without issue, but I'm typically using f11-16 for roll film and f22-45 for LF sheet film shooting natural scene and landscapes.

 

[Shoom]

I wouldn't worry about exposure. Negative films are generally very generous with overexposure. A lot of people shoot them at half box speed (with slight compensation during development) to get more detail in the shadows.

The question is more dependent on depth of field and grain than over or underexposure. Assuming exposures based on Sunny-16, Tri-X at box speed would put you at 1/500 at f16, giving you a theoretical maximum aperture of f8 and 1/2000 with the Maxxum 7000 for most sunlit subjects. So this will give you nice sharp pictures in the sunlight, and usable shutter speeds in shadows, but you won't be able to open up for more bokeh in sunlight, if you care about that.

I find that on a sunny day, something closer to ISO 100 gives a wider range of usable settings. I'm quite partial to FP4+ for those speeds. Try also looking up Delta 100 or T-Max 100 for a different grain style.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Yes.
Tri-X should give you the same sort of flexibility that Gold and Ultramax give you.
You may have to work at getting a lot of grain though - Tri-X today is sharper and much less grainy than in days of old.
Over-exposure will help if you wish more grain.

 

[NB23]

I don’t understand why people use 400 iso 135film in broad daylight. Iso 100 film is so much better on all accounts.

 

[imfrommiami]

I wouldn't worry about exposure. Negative films are generally very generous with overexposure. A lot of people shoot them at half box speed (with slight compensation during development) to get more detail in the shadows.

The question is more dependent on depth of field and grain than over or underexposure. Assuming exposures based on Sunny-16, Tri-X at box speed would put you at 1/500 at f16, giving you a theoretical maximum aperture of f8 and 1/2000 with the Maxxum 7000 for most sunlit subjects. So this will give you nice sharp pictures in the sunlight, and usable shutter speeds in shadows, but you won't be able to open up for more bokeh in sunlight, if you care about that.

I find that on a sunny day, something closer to ISO 100 gives a wider range of usable settings. I'm quite partial to FP4+ for those speeds. Try also looking up Delta 100 or T-Max 100 for a different grain style.

If by bokeh you mean those sparkly light blobs, I am not really into that. I just want to take nice photos of a day at the beach or of my family etc. we spend a lot of time outside this time of year and I just wanted to make sure my photos wouldn't be blown out. The autofocus on this camera is really nice.

I will look up Delta and TMax as well, are they more or less grainy?

Also, if I shoot a picture at half of box speed (200 ISO) will I have to shoot the whole roll as 200 ISO?


Thanks!

 

[imfrommiami]

Welcome to Photrio.
Yes.
Tri-X should give you the same sort of flexibility that Gold and Ultramax give you.
You may have to work at getting a lot of grain though - Tri-X today is sharper and much less grainy than in days of old.
Over-exposure will help if you wish more grain.

Thanks, I just want to make sure that I don't get really overexposed photos, I don't do Photoshop or anything I just bring the roll to the pharmacy, they still do film, what I take is what I get ya know?

 

[imfrommiami]

I don’t understand why people use 400 iso 135film in broad daylight. Iso 100 film is so much better on all accounts.

In what way? I have autofocus if that matters.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don’t understand why people use 400 iso 135film in broad daylight. Iso 100 film is so much better on all accounts.

Yup

 

[BrianShaw]

In what way? I have autofocus if that matters.

You’ll find yourself constrained to very fast shutter speeds and very small apertures. If that’s your vision you’ll be fine. But if you want to open the aperture or slow the shutter speed you’ll be out of luck unless you use lots of heavy filtration.

 

[imfrommiami]

You’ll find yourself constrained to very fast shutter speeds and very small apertures. If that’s your vision you’ll be fine. But if you want to open the aperture or slow the shutter speed you’ll be out of luck unless you use lots of heavy filtration.

Like I said I'm not a photographer and I don't know the difference between the basics like a faster shutter speed means that I can capture mid-movement shots better and a wider aperture means that the depth of field is smaller and my background will be blurry. The latter is cool for stuff like splashing in the pool but I don't want my backgrounds to be mad out of focus.

 

[BrianShaw]

Suggest you get FP-4. It will give you some flexibility that you will not get from Tri-X. You won’t get the grain but you will get better pictures under the circumstances.

You’re lucky to be getting Gold at your local drug store. Ours hasn’t carried it for years.

But if I were you I’d be shooting Gold and converting to B&W in photoshop.

 

[Vaughn]

Using filters would be one advantage of using 400 speed film...use a yellow, orange, or red filter and you are down in the equivilent of 200 to 50 ASA films. For snapshots, Tri-X will allows one to hand-hold at faster shutter speeds...or worry less about focus and DoF. Have fun!

 

[imfrommiami]

Suggest you get FP-4. It will give you some flexibility that you will not get from Tri-X. You won’t get the grain but you will get better pictures under the circumstances.

You’re lucky to be getting Gold at your local drug store. Ours hasn’t carried it for years.

But if I were you I’d be shooting Gold and converting to B&W in photoshop.

I'll order FP4 then.

The film at my Walgreens is really expensive Kodak Gold is $18.99 and Ultramax is $20.99 for a 3 pack of 24 exposures each. I'm surprised that you don't have it at your Walgreens, I have also seen it at Walgreens in Atlanta and Metro Detroit. I don't have Photoshop, like I said I drop my film off and pick up my prints, I can tell the guy to "push" or "pull" it but beyond that it's nothing other than what my camera captures. Old school.

 

[imfrommiami]

Using filters would be one advantage of using 400 speed film...use a yellow, orange, or red filter and you are down in the equivilent of 200 to 50 ASA films. For snapshots, Tri-X will allows one to hand-hold at faster shutter speeds...or worry less about focus and DoF. Have fun!

Thanks man

 

[Bill Burk]

I just wanted to make sure my photos wouldn't be blown out.

I will look up Delta and TMax as well, are they more or less grainy?

Also, if I shoot a picture at half of box speed (200 ISO) will I have to shoot the whole roll as 200 ISO?


Thanks!

Don’t worry about overexposure, it’s a long story but black and white film handles overexposure gracefully.

Delta and TMAX are “finer” grained, but to see a difference you would have to compare side by side and look closely. A 100 speed film will be so much finer grained that you could easily see it.

You can mix shooting at 200 with shooting at 400. I do it all the time. Again it’s the way black and white film works.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I'll order FP4 then.
I drop my film off and pick up my prints, I can tell the guy to "push" or "pull" it but beyond that it's nothing other than what my camera captures. Old school.

As you don't plan to develop the film yourself, you might want to consider Ilford XP2 Super, a C41 film like Kodak Gold but gives you B&W pictures. It is a pretty forgiving film and should serve you well.

See http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...er/2012/10/how-to-shoot-ilford-xp2-super.html for some tips on how to shoot this film.

 

[chris77]

use it at iso 250 and develop a quarter less time (on a sunny day) this will give you a starting point.

 

[locutus]

Use filters, Filtration with B&W film is very useful and a important part of a 'look'.

With a Red filter you will lose 3 stops of speed, so ISO400 -> 50. On a Minolta AF SLR with a 1/2000th shutter speed you should be able to shoot f/2 if desired....

 

[RattyMouse]

The OP stated, "I don't do Photoshop or anything", yet you recommend:

But if I were you I’d be shooting Gold and converting to B&W in photoshop.

Two people talking, but no communication happened.

 

[NJH]

As you don't plan to develop the film yourself, you might want to consider Ilford XP2 Super, a C41 film like Kodak Gold but gives you B&W pictures. It is a pretty forgiving film and should serve you well.

See http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...er/2012/10/how-to-shoot-ilford-xp2-super.html for some tips on how to shoot this film.

+1

If your handing the film to a lab that doesn't specialise in analog photography stick to C41 which currently means Ilford XP2. Its a great film if shot at 200 ISO and almost impossible to blow the highlights.

 

[railwayman3]

I don’t understand why people use 400 iso 135film in broad daylight. Iso 100 film is so much better on all accounts.

Maximum depth-of-field (small aperture) with a fast shutter speed ?
Possibly deliberate grain (though modern films are, of course, less grainy than of old) ?
(And perhaps a mistaken impression that "fast" films must be "best" ? )

 

[avb]

I don’t understand why people use 400 iso 135film in broad daylight. Iso 100 film is so much better on all accounts.

I use Portra 400 outside because I am often inside and outside on the same roll.

 

[mfagan]

A couple of the above suggestions might be very important to you depending on whether your usual lab will process Tri-X and FP-4. If they only process C-41, you either would need to find a different lab (not too hard), or get a B&W film that can be processed C-41 (such as the XP2 suggested earlier).

 

[jeffreyg]

imfrom---
I live in Miami and black and white is my medium. I use Delta 400, Delta 100 and have used Tri-x and T-Max 400 and 100 in medium format and HP5 in 4x5. You won't over expose if you use the correct exposure for the situation you are in. It would be good to have a couple of neutral density filters. I would keep both a 400 and 100 speed film and depending on what you are shooting you will be covered. A one or even two stop error depending on the subject can usually be printed successfully. Get a tank, a couple of reels and the chemicals and develop your own film and with a little experimentation you will find the combo that best suits your needs.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/