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

[otto.f]

Try Cinestill BxXX. Very sympathetic film at 250. At Flickr you can find examples. Pushing 100 films is per film different, I would do it with Delta 100 sooner than with FP4+ for instance and Tmax 100 is the last to think about. I’d rather take TriX at 200 and use Perceptol

 

[Ivo Stunga]

To me it's simple: it's better to pull and have more details to work with rather than push and risk having everything crushed. Although both have place in cookbook.
BUT - without the respective development adjustment to land contrast where you want it, I see this practice of blind underexposing or overexposing being very questionable at best.

Superpan 200 = Aviphot 200 = pictorial contrast of it lies somewhere @100.
This differs from what I stated above as it shouldn't have been marketed as a 200 film in the first place. Therefore rating it at 100 isn't blind/uninformed, quite the contrary - and pushing/pulling would start with deviation from 100.

People, myself included, tend to become strange around numbers. I'd suggest using different aperture/shutter settings instead of hunting for a rare dinosaur

EDIT: maybe you could find a ND filter useful with a 400 film?

 

[qqphot]

hesitate to comment here since it seems like a pretty hostile thread, but whatever. I spend a fair amount of time playing with cameras without fast shutter speeds, so a lot of the time I want something with an effective speed (for my purposes) of EI 200. 5222 fits the bill pretty well without any pulling or pushing. HP5+ (esp since you can get it fresh in 46mm width for rerolling into 127 rolls) or TMY exposed a stop slower than usual, and with slightly reduced development, both give good results and retain nice shadow detail. Trying to squeeze more speed out of slower films is harder in that respect of course. ND filters work too, naturally, or just a strong yellow for b&w is sometimes ok.

 

[runswithsizzers]

OK, I am done with the idea of pushing one the ISO 100 films. Thanks for setting me straight on that idea.

And thanks to @MultiFormat Shooter, @otto.f, and @qqphot for the recommendations to try Kodak 5222.

Is there any advantage to paying $14(US) for CineStill Film BwXX from B&H, compared to $9 for Kodak 5222 Double-X from Photo Warehouse?

I will need to decide how I want to process it. I have been using Xtol/Eco-Pro (presently none on hand), and I have a bag of Kodak D-76, but since I am ordering the film it is a good time to get more developer. Apparently, Kodak recommends D-96 for this film? But is there enough difference between D76 and D96 to justify buying the D96, which may or may not be suitable for my other b&w negatives?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

OK, I am done with the idea of pushing one the ISO 100 films. Thanks for setting me straight on that idea.

I wouldn't reject that possibility. As I mentioned, Ilford's FP4+ is a film that works well at 200, a fact acknowledged by Ilford in its data sheet: "Best results are obtained at EI 125/22, but good image quality will also be obtained at meter settings from EI 50/18 to EI 200/24."

Ilford also gives development times for EI 24/200 on its data sheet, but nothing further, while they give times all the way to 3600 for HP5+. Ilford knows what their films can and cannot do.

There are many situations where FP4+ @ 200 will come out better than Tri-X @ 200. The reverse is also true.

 

[faberryman]

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.

How did you arrive at your data? Do you keep a record of shutter speed and aperture for every exposure you make? And why are you asking about pushing an ISO 100 film or pulling an ISO 400 film if you are shooting film at EI 250?

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Re Kodak Double-X... It is a gorgeous emulsion, and it comes out just fine in D-76. And apparently with many other developers too, see:

FilmDev | 73 recipes found that contained the phrase 'double-x'

Develop your own black and white film then link the results to your photos on Flickr

filmdev.org

I use Film Photography Project's version of Eastman 5222, "X2", because it comes in 24-exp rolls... and I'm shooting it in a Pen F half-frame, typically yielding 54 exposures. Here are some samples, Double-X shot at "200" (but I'm mostly just estimating exposure, not metering), developed in D-76 1:1, 2400dpi scans:

 

[runswithsizzers]

I wouldn't reject that possibility. As I mentioned, Ilford's FP4+ is a film that works well at 200, a fact acknowledged by Ilford in its data sheet: "Best results are obtained at EI 125/22, but good image quality will also be obtained at meter settings from EI 50/18 to EI 200/24."

Ilford also gives development times for EI 24/200 on its data sheet, but nothing further, while they give times all the way to 3600 for HP5+. Ilford knows what their films can and cannot do.

There are many situations where FP4+ @ 200 will come out better than Tri-X @ 200. The reverse is also true.

I will try that too. I have shot only 2 rolls of FP4+ and I like the results a lot. If I can shoot FP4+ at EI 160 or 200, I think that it could become a favorite. Do you have an opinion about Xtol compared to Microphen for FP4+ at EI 200?

 

[runswithsizzers]

How did you arrive at your data? Do you keep a record of shutter speed and aperture for every exposure you make? And why are you asking about pushing an ISO 100 film or pulling an ISO 400 film if you are shooting film at EI 250?

Yes, while I am in the process of evaluating different films, I do record the aperture and shutter speed for every shot.

The only time I used the word "pulling" was in my opening post, when I said, "...shooting at EI 160-200, perhaps pulling development times a little (or not)" So far, I have not been reducing my development times when shooting ISO 400 films at EI 250, but some of my negatives may be a little/dense or contrasty, so that might be something I'd want to try(?)

Several people have been having trouble with my question (myself included ;-) - so maybe I should rephrase my qiestion this way:
If I want to shoot some b&w film in bright contrasty conditions, and if I want to keep contrast and grain on the low side of the range, and if I want to meter at EI 160-200 -- then what combination of commonly available film and developer would you recommend?

Does that make any more sense?

 

[faberryman]

Several people have been having trouble with my question (myself included ;-) - so maybe I should rephrase my qiestion this way:
If I want to shoot some b&w film in bright contrasty conditions and if I want to keep contrast and grain on the low side, and if I want to meter at EI 160-200 -- then what combination of commonly available film and developer would you recommend?

Does that make any more sense?

Not really. Why do you want to meter at EI 160-200? You seem obsessed with one side of the exposure triangle to the exclusion of the others.

 

[MattKing]

I too find the desire to limit the exposure choices somewhat unusual, except for very special uses - such as needing a particular motion stopping result with moving subjects.
I would use T-Max 400, meter at 250, and choose a developer, agitation and time that made it easy to avoid over-development. Delta 400 should work well too.
My normal developer - replenished X-Tol - should work fine.

 

[qqphot]

OK, I am done with the idea of pushing one the ISO 100 films. Thanks for setting me straight on that idea.

And thanks to @MultiFormat Shooter, @otto.f, and @qqphot for the recommendations to try Kodak 5222.

Is there any advantage to paying $14(US) for CineStill Film BwXX from B&H, compared to $9 for Kodak 5222 Double-X from Photo Warehouse?

I will need to decide how I want to process it. I have been using Xtol/Eco-Pro (presently none on hand), and I have a bag of Kodak D-76, but since I am ordering the film it is a good time to get more developer. Apparently, Kodak recommends D-96 for this film? But is there enough difference between D76 and D96 to justify buying the D96, which may or may not be suitable for my other b&w negatives?

There's a pretty extensive thread on 5222 on rff: 5222 thread

It's fine in most developers, D76 works well, and Xtol is fine too. IMO there's no need to get obsessive and use D96 or other weird stuff. It's not a modern film, but it's readily available from multiple sources including bulk rolls from the manufacturer, and has a nice look for many uses.

 

[Bill Burk]

OK, I am done with the idea of pushing one the ISO 100 films. Thanks for setting me straight on that idea.

And thanks to @MultiFormat Shooter, @otto.f, and @qqphot for the recommendations to try Kodak 5222.

Is there any advantage to paying $14(US) for CineStill Film BwXX from B&H, compared to $9 for Kodak 5222 Double-X from Photo Warehouse?

I will need to decide how I want to process it. I have been using Xtol/Eco-Pro (presently none on hand), and I have a bag of Kodak D-76, but since I am ordering the film it is a good time to get more developer. Apparently, Kodak recommends D-96 for this film? But is there enough difference between D76 and D96 to justify buying the D96, which may or may not be suitable for my other b&w negatives?

The “proper” developer for 5222 is D-96 in automated processor at higher temperatures. It creates a slightly more attractive grain than any other development.

But I am sticking with D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F in small tank with “Kodak” agitation. It’s a “path of least resistance” because I had trouble trying to get D-96 (sure Photographic Formulary and Cinestill options exist).

I got random eBay rolls when first trying it and liked it enough that I got a hundred foot roll from a Photrio seller.

I wanted finer grain than TMY2 which I was well familiar with. I always set the meter at 250 with TMY2 and the results are excellent. I just want a little less grain.

TMAX100 has the right grain for my wants, but it is not always fast as I would like. I do not push film because I always want excellent prints. I should, by my own logic meter it at 64. (But I often meter it at 100)

If I did push TMAX100 I would meter at 125.

With 5222 by my logic I would meter at 160, but I typically meter at 200.

 

[Agulliver]

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

I must be very desperate, in that case. Because I prefer to push HP5+ than to shoot Delta 3200. I'm also friends with my exes, so perhaps I am just not typical?

If I were wanting to shoot B&W at 200, I'd probably shoot Fomapan 200. However, second choice would be to pull HP5+

 

[runswithsizzers]

Not really. Why do you want to meter at EI 160-200? You seem obsessed with one side of the exposure triangle to the exclusion of the others.

I could say it is a personal idiosyncrasy. I could say, it's because under my normal shooting conditions, an EI of 160-200 lets me use the shutter speeds and apertures which I preffer. In fact, I did say that in my opening post and again in post #24. So I don't know why you keep asking me why.

Is wanting to find a film+developer combination that lets me use my preferred camera settings really such an out-of-the-ordinary thing idea that it is hard to understand, or deserves to be challenged?

I too find the desire to limit the exposure choices somewhat unusual, except for very special uses - such as needing a particular motion stopping result with moving subjects.

And what about moving cameras? At my age, my days of handholding at 1/30th sec are over. Even at 1/60th I have seen some motion blur in some of my shots. So I consider 1/125th to be my floor, and for a generous safety margin, I prefer 1/250th. Yes, I do have a tripod, and no, I'm not going to carry it around all the time.

As for apertures, unless the scene requires something else, I prefer f/8 (or there abouts). My lenses perform well around f/8. And f/8 gives me enough depth-of-field to allow for slight focusing errors. Again, I don't believe my preference for shooting around f/8 is unusual, or something I should have to defend.

I do use f/5.6 or wider when the subject benefits from the reduced depth of field, but I want that to be my choice, and not something imposed on me by an EI of 80 or 100. Likewise, I don't want to be forced to use f/13 or f/16 by an EI of 250 or greater. Sure, I can always put on a filter (I carry yellow, orange, polarizer, and ND filters). But when my meter at 250 keeps coming up f/11 and f/13, I got the idea that maybe I should look for a film I can shoot at EI 160-200.

But after reading some of the replies I am getting on Photrio, I guess that must have been a pretty crazy idea. :-(

 

[qqphot]

I could say it is a personal idiosyncrasy. I could say, it's because under my normal shooting conditions, an EI of 160-200 lets me use the shutter speeds and apertures which I preffer. In fact, I did say that in my opening post and again in post #24. So I don't know why you keep asking me why.

Is wanting to find a film+developer combination that lets me use my preferred camera settings really such an out-of-the-ordinary thing idea that it is hard to understand, or deserves to be challenged?


And what about moving cameras? At my age, my days of handholding at 1/30th sec are over. Even at 1/60th I have seen some motion blur in some of my shots. So I consider 1/125th to be my floor, and for a generous safety margin, I prefer 1/250th. Yes, I do have a tripod, and no, I'm not going to carry it around all the time.

As for apertures, unless the scene requires something else, I prefer f/8 (or there abouts). My lenses perform well around f/8. And f/8 gives me enough depth-of-field to allow for slight focusing errors. Again, I don't believe my preference for shooting around f/8 is unusual, or something I should have to defend.

I do use f/5.6 or wider when the subject benefits from the reduced depth of field, but I want that to be my choice, and not something imposed on me by an EI of 80 or 100. Likewise, I don't want to be forced to use f/13 or f/16 by an EI of 250 or greater. Sure, I can always put on a filter (I carry yellow, orange, polarizer, and ND filters). But when my meter at 250 keeps coming up f/11 and f/13, I got the idea that maybe I should look for a film I can shoot at EI 160-200.

But after reading some of the replies I am getting on Photrio, I guess that must have been a pretty crazy idea. :-(

I've had a look at some of your galleries on smugmug and I quite like your work, so crazy or not you seem to produce good and interesting photographs, and don't appear to be held back by technique.

 

[MattKing]

But after reading some of the replies I am getting on Photrio, I guess that must have been a pretty crazy idea. :-(

Not a crazy idea, but maybe not the best or easiest way to get where you want to be. For most people, in many/most circumstances/light conditions, with a fine grained ISO 400 film there are several usable aperture choices available that all ensure a sufficiently fast shutter speed for handholding. And for the relatively few situations when limited depth of field is required, being able to use a filter solves the problem.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Do you have an opinion about Xtol compared to Microphen for FP4+ at EI 200?

Haven't tried either. That said, I liked it at 200 in D-23 but did not in DD-X—the latter being closer to Microphen than to Xtol. I believe DD-X and Microphen shine when pushing at a much higher level than that.

D-76/ID-11 would probably be a safe bet, but I will one day try it in Rodinal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I must be very desperate, in that case. Because I prefer to push HP5+ than to shoot Delta 3200. I'm also friends with my exes, so perhaps I am just not typical?

If I were wanting to shoot B&W at 200, I'd probably shoot Fomapan 200. However, second choice would be to pull HP5+

So exs are better than others. My girl friend is someone else's ex and I have never had a problem with her.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Not a crazy idea, but maybe not the best or easiest way to get where you want to be.

Well, if I wanted to take the easy way, I'd just shoot digital, but where is the fun in that? ;-)

 

[runswithsizzers]

The “proper” developer for 5222 is D-96 in automated processor at higher temperatures. It creates a slightly more attractive grain than any other development.

But I am sticking with D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F in small tank with “Kodak” agitation. It’s a “path of least resistance” because I had trouble trying to get D-96 (sure Photographic Formulary and Cinestill options exist).

I got random eBay rolls when first trying it and liked it enough that I got a hundred foot roll from a Photrio seller.

I wanted finer grain than TMY2 which I was well familiar with. I always set the meter at 250 with TMY2 and the results are excellent. I just want a little less grain.

TMAX100 has the right grain for my wants, but it is not always fast as I would like. I do not push film because I always want excellent prints. I should, by my own logic meter it at 64. (But I often meter it at 100)

If I did push TMAX100 I would meter at 125.

With 5222 by my logic I would meter at 160, but I typically meter at 200.

This is very interesting, and for me, somewhat confusing (but in a good way). Are you saying you are getting finer grain with 5222 than what you were getting with T-Max 400?

So far, I have shot only 4 rolls of T-Max 400 (aka TMY2?). The first 3 rolls were metered at either EI 250 or 320 and developed in either Xtol or Eco-Pro at 1+1. In those rolls, the grain was very minor, almost non-existent. Examples: rolls <1> <2> <3> The fourth roll was shot at EI 250 and processed in Ilford Ilfosol 3, and I did see significant grain in that roll <4>. Based on my previous experience with Xtol/Eco-Pro, I assumed that kind of grain was an anomaly due to some kind of incompatability T-Max 400 and Ilfosol 3.

I have not yet shot any 5222, but the majority of examples of 5222 I have seen online do appear to have moderate-to-significant grain, which is a concern for me. So if you are seeing grain in 5222 that is anywhere near what I have seen with T-Max 400 (in Xtol), that would be very encouraging!

 

[runswithsizzers]

I've had a look at some of your galleries on smugmug and I quite like your work, so crazy or not you seem to produce good and interesting photographs, and don't appear to be held back by technique.

Thank you. It is very kind of you to say so.

 

[Bill Burk]

@runswithsizzers.

TMAX400 (TMY2) is an amazing film. I get grain like your fourth roll, good for most purposes but I prefer finer grain/higher resolution.

TMAX100 replaced my favorite Panatomic-X (32) with about the same resolution.

I expect 5222 and TMY2 to have about the same grain/resolution. But I am still exploring and haven’t yet formed an opinion. I think it’s going to be like the difference you see with TMY2 in Xtol vs D-76

 

[oxcanary]

What about using a 400 speed film that has a dubious speed rating. I.E one that does not reach 400 speed in conventional developers. Thus my need for a 200 speed film is filled by Fomapan 400 developed in FX39.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Here's an idea: when you hunt for film based on ISO, you inevitably will lock yourself into:
- a particular look/rendering;
- limited range of scene illumination.


To avoid this and if you process film yourself, I'd suggest just rating different films at different ISO's according to the situation and process with the respective development compensation.

This way you can have ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600... film on demand and a plethora of renderings to choose from based on the look of final product instead of compliance with particular range of settings.