ISO 100 film at EI 200 vs. ISO 400 film at EI 200?

[runswithsizzers]

I'm pretty sure the final answer is either, "it depends" or "do your own tests" -- but I was afraid we might we running out of things to argue about, so...

Would one expect to get higher quality negatives from pushing films like Delta 100, T-Max 100, or FP4+ to EI 160-200 -- compared to shooting Delta 400, T-Max 400, or HP5+ at EI 160-200, perhaps pulling development times a little (or not)? For me, "higher quality" means reasonably sharp, not too contrasty, and low-to-moderate grain.

For context, I have been using 135 films on walkabout in sunny/contrasty conditions - mostly Ilford Delta and Kodak T-Max, but sometimes others like FP4+ and HP5+. At my preferred apertures and shutter speeds, I am finding the ISO 100/125 films to be too slow (especially if shot at EI 50 or 80) -- and the ISO 400 films are sometimes almost too fast. (None of my film cameras have shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec.)

So far, I have mostly been shooting the ISO 400 films at EI 250 and developing at recommended times for ISO 400 (Xtol @ 1+1). I believe my negatives are OK for shadow detail, but may be a little dense/contrasty? I have not tried pushing any of the ISO 100/125 films.

Thank you.

 

[BrianShaw]

Why not box speeds?

 

[BMbikerider]

Just what is the point of this question? C41 film does have a good latitude and B& white nowadays, is not far behind. But why risk loosing a shot by messing around with the ISO settings unless you have to? I just doesn't make any sense

 

[faberryman]

Just what is the point of this question? C41 film does have a good latitude but why risk loosing a shot by messing around with the ISO settings unless you have to? I just doesn't make any sense

As the OP sets forth in his post, he is shooting black and white film.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Why not box speeds?

That topic deserves a thread of it's own, but... there are not that many b&w films available which have box ISO of 160-200, right?

- I have tried a roll of Ilford SFX 200 (at EI 160), which I liked OK, so definitely a contender.

- I shot a roll of Rollei Superpan 200 at EI 160, and those negatives were lacking in shadow detail. I have another roll to try, but based on previous results I am inclined to meter it closer to EI 100.

- Arista EDU Ultra 200 / Foma 200 seem to be more contoversial than average regarding ISO/EI. I exposed one roll of Ultra 200 at EI 160, and I thought the negatives were borderline for both shadow detail and highlight detail (almost too contrasty?).

Are there other commonly available ISO 200 b&w films I should try?

 

[faberryman]

I don't know what your favorite shutter speeds and f-stops are, but if it were me, I would shoot an ISO 100/125 film and open up one stop.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Just what is the point of this question? C41 film does have a good latitude and B& white nowadays, is not far behind. But why risk loosing a shot by messing around with the ISO settings unless you have to? I just doesn't make any sense

Sorry for the confusion, but I did mention in my opening post, it's "something to argue about"

I did just finish a roll of Ilford XP2 Super which is b&w, but intended for C41 chemistry. When I finish the second roll, I will send them off to be processed by a lab. Which is what I don't like about C41. Yes, I know I could do C41 at home, but right now, it's not for me.

 

[BrianShaw]

200 seems to be a dead-spot in B&W fiilms. I tried Bergger 200 way back when and hated it. SFX has characteristics that make me not even want to try it. XP2 was a but... hated it. So I shoot FP4+ 125 or HP5+ 400, depending on conditions, and most often FP4. Outdoors where I live is generally bright enough. In other lands, the faster speed is needed. But either one works for me with no need for an intermediate speed film.

 

[Craig]

What you could do is shoot a true 100 speed film like Delta 100 or Tmax 100 and use Microphen to develop them, and that will give you an extra 1/2 - 2/3 of a stop of usable speed. Gets you very close to 200 speed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not box speeds?

Use the box speed and if necessary adjust for shadows using the Zone System meter. Arbitrarily lowering the film speed from box speed brings out show details uniformly and reduces the high light range. That produces the uniform exposures making every photograph boringly the same.

 

[snusmumriken]

I use FP4+ or Delta 100 when I can, but living in one of those ‘other lands’ I often have to fall back on something stronger.

I already find it a torment deciding which one to load - having a third speed option would paralyse me.

As for pushing/pulling, I don’t really believe they achieve any more than adjusting contrast (through development) to compensate for under/over exposure. The emulsions don’t magically acquire more/less sensitivity.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Are there other commonly available ISO 200 b&w films I should try?

You could try Kodak XX 5222 re-rolled, for still cameras, by Film Photography Project, CineStill, etc.

 

[BMbikerider]

Sorry for the confusion, but I did mention in my opening post, it's "something to argue about"

I did just finish a roll of Ilford XP2 Super which is b&w, but intended for C41 chemistry. When I finish the second roll, I will send them off to be processed by a lab. Which is what I don't like about C41. Yes, I know I could do C41 at home, but right now, it's not for me.

Still another pointless post

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use FP4+ or Delta 100 when I can, but living in one of those ‘other lands’ I often have to fall back on something stronger.

I already find it a torment deciding which one to load - having a third speed option would paralyse me.

As for pushing/pulling, I don’t really believe they achieve any more than adjusting contrast (through development) to compensate for under/over exposure. The emulsions don’t magically acquire more/less sensitivity.

Pushing and pulling are for desperation photographs when nothing else will work. I avoid them like I avoid my ex.

 

[ic-racer]

The pushing fallacy; I get wonderful results pushing FP4 to 1600!

You ask how I meter? I place my shadows on zone VI….

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm pretty sure the final answer is either, "it depends" or "do your own tests" -- but I was afraid we might we running out of things to argue about, so...

Would one expect to get higher quality negatives from pushing films like Delta 100, T-Max 100, or FP4+ to EI 160-200 -- compared to shooting Delta 400, T-Max 400, or HP5+ at EI 160-200, perhaps pulling development times a little (or not)? For me, "higher quality" means reasonably sharp, not too contrasty, and low-to-moderate grain.

For context, I have been using 135 films on walkabout in sunny/contrasty conditions - mostly Ilford Delta and Kodak T-Max, but sometimes others like FP4+ and HP5+. At my preferred apertures and shutter speeds, I am finding the ISO 100/125 films to be too slow (especially if shot at EI 50 or 80) -- and the ISO 400 films are sometimes almost too fast. (None of my film cameras have shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec.)

So far, I have mostly been shooting the ISO 400 films at EI 250 and developing at recommended times for ISO 400 (Xtol @ 1+1). I believe my negatives are OK for shadow detail, but may be a little dense/contrasty? I have not tried pushing any of the ISO 100/125 films.

Thank you.

You could put a 1 stop neutral density filter on the 400ISO film and shoot it at 200.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You could put a 1 stop neutral density filter on the 400ISO film and shoot it at 200.

Better yet, just shoot a box speed and the exposure latitude of the film will work its wonders for you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You could put a 1 stop neutral density filter on the 400ISO film and shoot it at 200.

Better yet. Just shoot with the lens cap on. No need for no stinkin' neutral density filters.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Would one expect to get higher quality negatives from pushing films like Delta 100, T-Max 100, or FP4+ to EI 160-200 -- compared to shooting Delta 400, T-Max 400, or HP5+ at EI 160-200, perhaps pulling development times a little (or not)? For me, "higher quality" means reasonably sharp, not too contrasty, and low-to-moderate grain.

General answer is pushing low iso films + more contrast, while shooting 400 iso films at 200 + less contrast. That said, you can process the low iso films in a low contrast developer if you want to tame the contrast. I've done FP4+ @ 200 in D-23 1+3 with good results, FP4+ being a film that reacts well to being set at 200, notably in a high-dilution (1+3) solvent developer. Choosing a developer that gives full speed also becomes important.

You have more control when shooting 400 films at 200. If contrast is too low, you can simply add development time to the point where contrast is what you like, or you can use a higher contrast developer. Choosing an acutance developer such as Rodinal will also make a difference in this case—with Tri-X at 200 I do 9:00 minutes for high contrast scenes and 10:30 for low contrast scenes. To me, they look "shart, not too contrasty, and low-to-moderate grain", but them's are my eyes, not yours.

I said "general answer". Of course, FP4+ will yield different results than T-Max 100, HP5+, different than T-Max 400. That's the point where "do your own tests" comes in.

 

[john_s]

The pushing fallacy; I get wonderful results pushing FP4 to 1600!

You ask how I meter? I place my shadows on zone VI….

Well put!
When people talk about "film speed" it doesn't make sense unless you consider placement.

 

[bluechromis]

That topic deserves a thread of it's own, but... there are not that many b&w films available which have box ISO of 160-200, right?

- I have tried a roll of Ilford SFX 200 (at EI 160), which I liked OK, so definitely a contender.

- I shot a roll of Rollei Superpan 200 at EI 160, and those negatives were lacking in shadow detail. I have another roll to try, but based on previous results I am inclined to meter it closer to EI 100.

- Arista EDU Ultra 200 / Foma 200 seem to be more contoversial than average regarding ISO/EI. I exposed one roll of Ultra 200 at EI 160, and I thought the negatives were borderline for both shadow detail and highlight detail (almost too contrasty?).

Are there other commonly available ISO 200 b&w films I should try?

The Rollei Superpan, IR 400 and Retro 400 S are all likely to be Aviphot 200. There have been several extensive threads about these emulsions. But, in short, they are anomalous because they are aerial films. The stated film speed of aerial films is twice that of what it would be for pictorial use. Henning Serger says that the effective speed of these films is less than 100, potentially considerably less. So they are not true ISO 200 films.

 

[bluechromis]

What you could do is shoot a true 100 speed film like Delta 100 or Tmax 100 and use Microphen to develop them, and that will give you an extra 1/2 - 2/3 of a stop of usable speed. Gets you very close to 200 speed.

There are a number of developers that would also boost speed including Xtol, DDX, FX-39 & 37. Film speed is in the context of the developer. The increased speed provided by a speed-boosting developer is not a push.

 

[runswithsizzers]

General answer is pushing low iso films + more contrast, while shooting 400 iso films at 200 + less contrast. That said, you can process the low iso films in a low contrast developer if you want to tame the contrast. [...]

You have more control when shooting 400 films at 200. If contrast is too low, you can simply add development time to the point where contrast is what you like, or you can use a higher contrast developer. [...]

Thank you! That helps. I am generally shooting under contrasty light, so shooting 400 films at 200 sounds like the better way to go, for me.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I don't know what your favorite shutter speeds and f-stops are, but if it were me, I would shoot an ISO 100/125 film and open up one stop.

So, same as metering at EI of 50-64, right?

Unless the subject demands something different, my preferred settings would be: shutter at 1/250 or 1/500 and aperture at f/6.7-9.5. Using an EI of 250 in my typical scenes, I am able to stay in that range the vast majority of the time, tho I do see a fair few at f/11 or 1/1000. But EI 250 give me a little room to use a yellow or orange filter.

I don't have a lot of data at EI 100, but what I do have shows I used shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125 and aperture of 5.6 more often than I like. At those settings, I would think twice before putting on my orange filter which needs another stop.

 

[warden]

I'm pretty sure the final answer is either, "it depends" or "do your own tests" -- but I was afraid we might we running out of things to argue about, so...

Would one expect to get higher quality negatives from pushing films like Delta 100, T-Max 100, or FP4+ to EI 160-200 -- compared to shooting Delta 400, T-Max 400, or HP5+ at EI 160-200, perhaps pulling development times a little (or not)? For me, "higher quality" means reasonably sharp, not too contrasty, and low-to-moderate grain.

For context, I have been using 135 films on walkabout in sunny/contrasty conditions - mostly Ilford Delta and Kodak T-Max, but sometimes others like FP4+ and HP5+. At my preferred apertures and shutter speeds, I am finding the ISO 100/125 films to be too slow (especially if shot at EI 50 or 80) -- and the ISO 400 films are sometimes almost too fast. (None of my film cameras have shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec.)

So far, I have mostly been shooting the ISO 400 films at EI 250 and developing at recommended times for ISO 400 (Xtol @ 1+1). I believe my negatives are OK for shadow detail, but may be a little dense/contrasty? I have not tried pushing any of the ISO 100/125 films.

Thank you.

Pulling a fast film will always be my choice over pushing a slower film. I ended up doing it today shooting TMax400 in very bright conditions using a vintage camera. It’ll work out. It would have been better if I had slower film but I shot what I had.