Low light exposure

[Gary Holliday]

I'm probably asking a really stupid question, but here goes.

I've started using Delta 3200 @EI 1000; took some photos inside a church with natural light and the shots look great.

If I had used Delta 100 for example for the same shot, would the 100 ISO film record the same amount of shadow detail or is the 3200 Delta better at picking up those subtle shades in the darker areas?

Which film records the widest range of tones in dark areas?

 

[JBrunner]

I'm probably asking a really stupid question, but here goes.

I've started using Delta 3200 @EI 1000; took some photos inside a church with natural light and the shots look great.

If I had used Delta 100 for example for the same shot, would the 100 ISO film record the same amount of shadow detail or is the 3200 Delta better at picking up those subtle shades in the darker areas?

Which film records the widest range of tones in dark areas?

While it could be possible in the right hands, I don't think you're going easily beat the performance of Delta 3200 at 1000 with a 100 speed film. At 1000 the 3200 is actually being slightly overexposed for the speed it actually performs at. (about 1600 for me)

 

[Claire Senft]

I have no idea of the light level in the church. Delta 100...or others of the same speed...could have been used with a tripod if there was nothing that required motion stopping. It is also quite possible that the light level in a church could have required increasing the exposure for reciprocity requirements...at a certain point films response to additional time is no longer linear and requires compensation thru additional exposure.

Pushing 100 film speed to higher speeds, in this example 10x higher, could have given really ugly results. The other question is about the appearance of grain...the grain from the fast film could be viewed as an enhancement.