lack of high speed 35mm b&w films

Andrew O'Neill said:

Sorry, but what film did Ilford introduce in 2009? Thanks!

Click to expand...

The Kentmere range.
Just do a search in this forum and you'll find the relevant posts including one form Simon about its introduction, first in the American markets, then in the domestic and European markets.

P.S. Here is what Simon wrote: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
The entire thread is a good read.

I have had very good results with 3200 Delta in Ilfotech DD-X. I have even pushed it to 12,500 and though the grain was obvious at that speed it was still pleased with the results. This was 120 roll film though not 35mm. Picture is Ilford Delta 3200 @ 12,500 in DD-X taken on an 1936 Zeiss folder indoors with ambient light (8"x10" print). Ilford recommends DD-X for their tabular grain films. It is expensive but consistent and easy to use.

High speed films are I think the preserve of arty-abstract type photography where development is considered to either maximise grain or contrast or both. That's certainly what I do pushing Delta 3200 to EI 12,800 (dev=Microphen). This was also standard with the now-gone TMax P3200 film. Both films are beautifully flexible in their final appearance, depending how you rate and expose them. Some viewers think my EI 12,800 images on pinhole were Delta 100.

There is some truth in the statement that films cannot really be pushed or pulled, unless that treatment is specifically recommended. I certainly never do not push or pull the sensitive low-speed transparency films of Fuji, but I commonly push high speed B&W films because that capacity for stretching and contracting them is built in. For many other films, it is a compromise, and often a disastrous one.

I guess what's really going on for me is that I'm getting picky about grain. I want grain, lots of it. But only if I find the grain structure pleasing. There's another post on APUG about how trying out various film/developer combos nearly ruined that individual's photography. To a certain extent, I absolutely agree with that.
On the other hand, I feel like I'm still developing my own signature through my photos, and part of that is nailing down a routine.

I said before I shoot a lot of tri x. I throw it all through d 76, but I've wanted to try rodinal and xtol (perhaps a little bit of both together). Perhaps I should develop the film at temperatures around or slightly higher than 72 to see what qualities I can coax out of the grain with d76 before I start flipping through combos.

I push tri x in low contrast situations 1 or 2 stops with no problems. I also push 1 stop in the late afternoon when the sun is still out. In NYC there is typically a sunny side of the street and a shadowy side, and all of the cross streets are usually in medium to heavy shade--when I shoot film at box speed I tend to stick to the sunny side, or on the corners where the light hangs around for a while. There are a few great corners in Chelsea and the East Village, a couple near Penn Station. If I know that I want to work in the shadow of the cross streets I'll push my film 1 stop. All of this is fine, I'm getting good enough results.

Still, my current routine is about minimizing grain rather than accentuating it to find a good balance between detail and atmosphere. That's what I'm after... detail and atmosphere.

Anyway... this is just me getting picky about achieving perfect grain, and then getting A LOT of it.

If you're using the D-76 straight, diluting it 1 to 1 will give you a little more grain. Rodinal has little or no solvent action, so it will increase the appearance of the grain by a lot, compared to the D-76. A lot of people like that "look", and a huge volume of Tri-X has been processed in Rodinal because of that.

HP5+ pushes very well, I know what you mean with the grain in D3200 and I actually prefer the HP5+ pushed to 3200 vs Delta3200 (which is 1000 speed ISO not 1600 like someone said) pushed to 3200.

Examples... All HP5+ in DD-X @3200

In a coffee shop



In a dimly lit basement with 1 CF light bulb



In a science classroom

If you want to use Delta 3200 but eschew the grain you could try to expose it at 1200 iso and develop in Perceptol, full strength. I have not tried that myself but It may serve your purpose...

David Allen said:

To answer the OP directly, if you view any of the recent market reports you will see that iso400 films outsell all the others by a long margin.

Click to expand...

David, where can I find market reports like the one you mentioned?

jojoman2 said:

All we need is some billionaire to suddenly become interested in film photography...

Click to expand...

Oh yes! I can already hear him shouting "I will make film photography GREAT AGAIN!"

"According to PMA Market Research, roll film sales have plunged from a high of 948 million rolls in 2000 to just 31 million in 2014. Fujifilm continues to scale back its roll film offerings and raise prices, repeatedly saying that demand is drying up."

As I remarked a shrinking market. Hopefully sales will eventually stabilize before all of the film manufacturers go out of business. So it is not a friendly market for new offerings.

Slixtiesix said:

If you want to use Delta 3200 but eschew the grain you could try to expose it at 1200 iso and develop in Perceptol, full strength. I have not tried that myself but It may serve your purpose..."

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see examples if they exist within APUG of D3200, exposed at 1200 in Perceptol stock. I would have thought that if D3200 is in reality EI 1200 film at best and Perceptol stock reduces most film speed by a stop then for a full range of tones in Perceptol stock I'd have thought that the D3200 speed has to be about 600.

So the trade-off for Perceptol stock and lower grain is a reduction in speed to not much more than half a stop better than HP5+ gives

I put a lot of store in the truth of the saying: "There is no such thing as a free lunch"

However I have to say that I have seen pictures in the Gallery which look good in D3200 at EI 12,500, albeit the negs were 120 not 35mm

pentaxuser

Svenedin said:

I have had very good results with 3200 Delta in Ilfotech DD-X. I have even pushed it to 12,500 and though the grain was obvious at that speed it was still pleased with the results. This was 120 roll film though not 35mm. Picture is Ilford Delta 3200 @ 12,500 in DD-X taken on an 1936 Zeiss folder indoors with ambient light (8"x10" print). Ilford recommends DD-X for their tabular grain films. It is expensive but consistent and easy to use.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Ilfotec DD-X really works well with Delta 3200. I love it in acutance developers like Rodinal and FX-39 though, to really emphasize the grain, so that works for me too. What's cool about Delta 3200 is that in spite of its grainy qualities, it has surprisingly good resolution! I've printed 35mm D3200 negs to 16x20 print size, and I see the a similar amount of detail that I see with FP4, believe it or not.

I've made 12x12 prints with D3200 shot at 3200 that didn't show much grain.

That was also souped in DD-X not perceptol.

Also, again, D3200 is 1000 speed, not 1200 or 1600.

For another 'fast' film to exist commercially it would need to be faster, smaller grain than Delta3200, and cheaper.

Kodak stopped Tmax3200 cause it was not selling in volume.

Foma stoppped 800 ditto...

Fuji...

If Adox could with their new coater they might, but there are better opportunities?

It is do we either lose another coater first or get a fast film first. If you put money on horsies noses...

jojoman2 said:

I've tried delta 3200 in d76 1:1 and didn't like the popcorn type grain.

Click to expand...

poisson du jour has a way of using 3200 its not popcorn grain and looks absolutely beautiful.

I still have a few rolls of 3200 that I stashed away, having been put off by the film. I'll give it another shot. I just bought some rodinal for fun.

To be honest, I'm really shooting much more color film nowadays and only shooting b&w when I need to push film. I like the poetry of color. Black and white absolutely has its uses, but I think the main strength of b&w is simply how graphic an image can be when stripped to bare essentials. b&w also pushes me to shoot differently. with color I find I hang back more while shooting b&w is typically more intense for me. I get closer. take more risks. I'm looking to shoot high speed b&w to accentuate the grittiness. It could be delta 3200 is what I'm really looking for but I just haven't wrangled in the grain yet in a pleasing way. I'll see if I can find a photo I've taken with 3200 to post.

Thanks all for weighing in

DDX is as good as any developer for D3200 IME.

Dead Link Removed

This is the last time I shot 3200. The grain isn't huge, but I don't find it particularly pleasing. D76 1:1

I hear you guys recommending DDX. Would rodinal have a similar effect?

Stone, this is 6x6?

For practical purposes, I would rather steer this conversation toward 35mm. Pushing 120 is a whole different ballgame than 35mm

jojoman2 said:

For practical purposes, I would rather steer this conversation toward 35mm. Pushing 120 is a whole different ballgame than 35mm

Click to expand...

I thought pushing was pushing, largely irrespective of the film size. Can you explain what you mean by the second sentence? Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I thought pushing was pushing, largely irrespective of the film size. Can you explain what you mean by the second sentence? Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

120 has smaller grain--I've pushed 120 tri x to 1600 and the grain is around the same size as shooting 35mm tri x at box speed. grain size and appearance is more apparent when pushing 35mm, in my experience

pentaxuser said:

I thought pushing was pushing, largely irrespective of the film size. Can you explain what you mean by the second sentence? Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

It is the same vregardless of format. Before Christmas I push processed some Hp5 sheet film exposed at approx 3200 EI and was amazed at the lack of grain on a significant enlargement.

jojoman2 said:

I hear you guys recommending DDX. Would rodinal have a similar effect?

Click to expand...

No, sometimes a film/developer combination is less than ideal for keeping grain under control, D3200 gives it's best in DDX amd will be much grainier in Rodinal.

Ian

it's a flawed comparison, but... Both are developed in D76 @ 68 degrees for 12 minutes

35mm tri x @ 1600
Dead Link Removed

120 tri x @ 1600
Dead Link Removed

jojoman2 said:

120 has smaller grain--I've pushed 120 tri x to 1600 and the grain is around the same size as shooting 35mm tri x at box speed. grain size and appearance is more apparent when pushing 35mm, in my experience

Click to expand...

The grain is similar in 35mm, 120 and sheet film for the same emulsion, you're confusing the degree of enlargement needed to make the same sized prints. The print from my HP5 LF negative pushed to 3200 was a section from a 30x24 enlargement equivalent to roughly a 10x8 print from 35mm.

Ian

jojoman2 said:

120 has smaller grain--I've pushed 120 tri x to 1600 and the grain is around the same size as shooting 35mm tri x at box speed. grain size and appearance is more apparent when pushing 35mm, in my experience

Click to expand...

I believe you are ignoring the difference in magnification used to produce a 6x6 format print and a 35mm one. Tri-X is the same emulsion whether supplied on 35mm base or 120 base.