Maximum ISO

[Ko.Fe.]

Why?
In 1957...Kodak Tri-X... Twenty exposures were 85 cents, and a 36 exposure roll was $1.15.

Allowing for inflation, film is cheaper today than ever!

$1.15 in 1957 → $10.14 in 2018

Simple. In 1957 they have nothing but this film. Now where are other films and digital. If I could get ISO3200 for less, why I have to pay more?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Simple. In 1957 they have nothing but this film. Now where are other films and digital. If I could get ISO3200 for less, why I have to pay more?

Higher ISO films are harder to produce because those films are more perishable. You get what you pay for.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Higher ISO films are harder to produce because those films are more perishable. You get what you pay for.

Emulsion and maybe. Harder. Not the film, coating part, I guess.

And I think, you pay for low quantity product as the main reason for higher price.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Simple. In 1957 they have nothing but this film. Now where are other films and digital. If I could get ISO3200 for less, why I have to pay more?

I don't understand your question. Tri-X should cost more today than Tmax 3200. It doesn't! the film is quite cheap, actually.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Higher ISO films are harder to produce because those films are more perishable. You get what you pay for.

Emulsion and maybe. Harder. Not the film, coating part, I guess.

And I think, you pay for low quantity product as the main reason for higher price.

My point is that for example HIE was more expensive because the materials in the emulsion are more perishable than most other films.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have an old Kodak guide to Professional Black and White Films, 1990, the highest ISO listed is 25,000 70 degrees 15 1/2 in TMAX developer 16 in TMAX RS. to 6400 is listed for D76 and HC 110. I would guess that 25,000 was the limit and results are marginal as best. I have pushed P3200 to 3200 and 6400 in HC 110, 3200 is a push, 6400 can be useful in a pinch.

 

[AgX]

There only is ONE ISO-rating for a film.

I would like to see that Kodak guide that says different. I have mine not at hand to check.

Today at least these guides either state EI (exposure index) or say expose as that ISO.

 

[trendland]

Why?
In 1957...Kodak Tri-X... Twenty exposures were 85 cents, and a 36 exposure roll was $1.15.

Allowing for inflation, film is cheaper today than ever!

$1.15 in 1957 → $10.14 in 2018

Not if you earn the same in job as within decades far behind.
with regards

PS : "Inflation" has to optain allways the individual sight.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't understand your question. Tri-X should cost more today than Tmax 3200. It doesn't! the film is quite cheap, actually.

Why it has to do anything with Kodak if I push HP5+ @3200 for something like 3$?

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Why it has to do anything with Kodak if I push HP5+ @3200 for something like 3$?

Opaque question. No 400 speed film can equal a 1000 speed film.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Not if you earn the same in job as within decades far behind.
with regards

But you don't.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Opaque question. No 400 speed film can equal a 1000 speed film.

If I remember correct, Kodak quit from 3200 by saying - push 400 it is equal enough.

 

[Craig]

If I remember correct, Kodak quit from 3200 by saying - push 400 it is equal enough.

The usual Kodak wording is "suggested replacement", which does not mean equal.

 

[trendland]

But you don't.

Michael Moore gave some examples of general prosperity in the 50th in a documentary. The period as his father worked at general motors and produced spark plugs, his mother was at home, they lived in a nice house had two big cars a.s.o.
Today most of that normal working people can´t afford a nice house, two cars with just one income.
So films in general were extreem cheap within the 50th in relation. The first bw film I remember from my grandpa was priced with $ 0,60 in 120 ( 1967 ). but it can´t have been Tri - x.
The smaler income at this time ( midt 60th ) was around 600 bucks/ month I would just gues.
That is around factor 1000 of a simple single film. Factor 1000 of a simple bw film today with $ 10,14 is USD 10.140,- .
Well you woul´n´t like to state the minimum income of normal working people is around 10,000 bucks/montly in the US ????
So the relation of costs with films were minimum factor 10 - factor 15 cheaper in the 50th.

with regards

PS : Nevertheless the min. income of CEO´s of General Motors have increased more like Michael Moores father`worked there. And it shoud be factor 10 on basis of $,10.000,-/month
So we may state with an income of min. USD 1.200.000,-/year films today are most cheap ever - but that is relative to CEO´s......

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Opaque question. No 400 speed film can equal a 1000 speed film.

Not completely true. There is no need to use an A Bomb to kill a gnat. In other words if you don't need ISO 1000 don't use it. Sadly some people use things not because they need to but for the wrong reasons like thinking "Its cool." Too many APUGers fall into this trap.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Not completely true. There is no need to use an A Bomb to kill a gnat. In other words if you don't need ISO 1000 don't use it. Sadly some people use things not because they need to but for the wrong reasons like thinking "Its cool." Too many APUGers fall into this trap.

I think you misunderstood me. If you need more speed than 400, use a faster film, rather than trying to 'push', which really doesn't work, anyway. That's all I was saying. Tmax P3200 is fine-grained enough to use as a general-purpose film when exposed at 800 or so. As I said earlier, most experienced B&W workers give more exposure than the minimum, and thus rate 400 ISO films around 200-320.

I had used Tmax P3200 only a few times before it was discontinued, but I did find it quite acceptable. I shall get some soon, once it becomes available.

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak considers Tmax 400 shot at 800 to be within normal limits and not a push. I have shot Tmax 400 at 800 and developed in D79 or HC 110 at standard temperature and time with good results. P3200 is an odd film, true ISO 800, Dx coded at 3200 still pushable to 25,000 in TMAX developer. Don't have any idea why they would DX code for a 2X push. I have shot Tmax 3200 at 1600 and 3200 in low light, happy with the results, but if all I need is 400 to 800 will use Tmax or Delta 400.

 

[Bill Burk]

400 can be pushed to 1600 OK but why not push 800 to 1600 - it will put less pressure on the film to perform.

The idea to keep in mind is that if you know the characteristic curve of the film, be realistic and don't expect to obtain density above and to the left of the curve for a given point of exposure.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Zombie photographer stumbles across the landscape screaming out "Grains! Grains!"
I do love me some grain.
So I ordered a few to give it a try.

 

[trendland]

Zombie photographer stumbles across the landscape screaming out "Grains! Grains!"
I do love me some grain.
So I ordered a few to give it a try.

....in two hours I have a shooting in the habour. I will look at - perhaps I will meet some of those "Zombie Shooters"

with regards

PS : Don't let them see higher speed films - my defense is possible my tripod.
And when some will come around me I will say : "I am shooting ISO 6 bw"
Perhaps they will let me go?

 

[trendland]

Not completely true. There is no need to use an A Bomb to kill a gnat. In other words if you don't need ISO 1000 don't use it. Sadly some people use things not because they need to but for the wrong reasons like thinking "Its cool." Too many APUGers fall into this trap.

The best pushing method is coming from the begining of photography : 1/30 ( Push 1), 1/15 (Push 2), 1/8 (Push 3), 1/4 (Push 4), 1/2 (Push 5).....a.s.o.
What about exposure of 30 sec. ?

with regards

PS : Handheld shots may indeed need higher ISO.
BUT TO 80% THERE IS NO NEED OF HANDHELD - just from my point.

 

[David Lyga]

I believe that PE said that Kodak had developed a 25,000 speed film, but the keeping properties were too poor for practical commercial sale. Being able to do something in a lab and being able to do it survive the typical distribution and sale delays is another.

Please also tell PE that 'keeping properties' for Kodak's TMZ 3200 is ALSO too poor for practical commercial sale unless used within months of taking it out of the salt mine for commercial sale. Maybe that is why it was discontinued. - David Lyga