Medium format - ISO 100 or 400?

rayonline_nz · May 13, 2016

I am going to be importing some films from Freestyle with their FIM postal method so I am going to max out the rolls I can get and films are so expensive here where I am.

I am going to get some Fuji Acros 100 and there is a lack of reciprocity and I read that people really like it and it is cheaper than both Ilford and Kodak. Love to get some before Fuji's only b/w film disappears for good who knows.

Next - Fuji aside, why would one shoot 400 ISO B/W film with medium format? It's not a rangefinder and I am not shooting portraits or streets. Most times it's going to sit on a tripod. So should I just stick to Delta 100 instead Delta 400 / HP5+. I know that HP5+ is even available on large format. Reasons for this? Do they like that different look?

Thanks.

BrianShaw · May 13, 2016

I shoot 100 - 200 film almost all of the time: Portra 160 and FP-4. But I always keep some 400 (Portra 400, Tri-X and HP-5) on hand for shooting in dismal weather or indoors. For me, the 400 film tends to grow old.

And as mentioned below... 400 when filters are in use.

MattKing · May 13, 2016

If you like shooting things that might move around a bit - like when the wind is around - but still want lots of depth of field, the faster film is very useful.

If you like using filters like a polarizer or a deep red, the faster film is very useful.

If you are doing high magnification work, the faster film is very useful.

rayonline_nz · May 13, 2016

MattKing said:
If you like shooting things that might move around a bit - like when the wind is around - but still want lots of depth of field, the faster film is very useful.

If you like using filters like a polarizer or a deep red, the faster film is very useful.

If you are doing high magnification work, the faster film is very useful.

Thanks, yes I just thought about the wind.
Re: filters and magnification, one could just lock it under a tripod? Handhold use can be useful yes certainly though ...

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2016

I use ISO 400 films at box speed for 135, MF and 4"x5" for color print and black & white. I have some ISO 100 to ISO 160, ISO 800 and ISO 3200 for special situations, but since I can swap MF film backs I am not held back from using them.

Bill Burk · May 14, 2016

I'm only ever slightly disappointed by the grain of 35mm Tri-X... when I wish for more detail. I made an 11x14 print from 35mm Tri-X last night of a friend and his dad and I wanted more detail than I got.

For me, 100 speed film for 35mm is a must except for the casual or otherwise "fault tolerant" work.

But once I step up in size to medium format and beyond, the grain of a 400 speed film is no longer objectionable to me. So that's why it might be OK to use 400 speed film for medium format, while you might need the finer grain of 100 speed film for 35mm.

Of course 100 speed film on medium format can be beautiful

Ian Grant · May 14, 2016

Like others I shoot mostly 100 ISO B&W films in MF, mostly Delta 100 but sometimes Fomapan 200 at 100 EI, I also have some Delta 400 for low light use. I tend to shoot MF hand held becuase I'm normally shooting alongside LF.

The OP asks why HP5 (and no Delta 400) in LF, Ilford found the market for 400 ISO B&W LF films was too small and HP5 was their higher selling 400 ISO film. They used to manufacture Delta 400 and XP2 LF sheet films both were withdrawn because sales were too low.

Ian

Oscar Carlsson · May 14, 2016

When enlarging, I really like the quality of ISO100 film in MF (I mostly shoot 6x6). ISO400 is good but simply not that exciting, and while there is no grain even on 30x30 cm from ISO400 I just like the better detail of ISO100 in the same size. I'm not even sure there is more visible detail in my ISO100 prints, but still...

If I was shooting TMY-2 the situation might have been different. If it wasn't so expensive in 4x5" maybe I would have shot it in all formats...

RalphLambrecht · May 14, 2016

rayonline_nz said:
I am going to be importing some films from Freestyle with their FIM postal method so I am going to max out the rolls I can get and films are so expensive here where I am.

I am going to get some Fuji Acros 100 and there is a lack of reciprocity and I read that people really like it and it is cheaper than both Ilford and Kodak. Love to get some before Fuji's only b/w film disappears for good who knows.

Next - Fuji aside, why would one shoot 400 ISO B/W film with medium format? It's not a rangefinder and I am not shooting portraits or streets. Most times it's going to sit on a tripod. So should I just stick to Delta 100 instead Delta 400 / HP5+. I know that HP5+ is even available on large format. Reasons for this? Do they like that different look?

Thanks.

I shot Ymax 400 for

rayonline_nz said:
I am going to be importing some films from Freestyle with their FIM postal method so I am going to max out the rolls I can get and films are so expensive here where I am.

I am going to get some Fuji Acros 100 and there is a lack of reciprocity and I read that people really like it and it is cheaper than both Ilford and Kodak. Love to get some before Fuji's only b/w film disappears for good who knows.I shot Tmax400 for the beautiful skin tones.

Next - Fuji aside, why would one shoot 400 ISO B/W film with medium format? It's not a rangefinder and I am not shooting portraits or streets. Most times it's going to sit on a tripod. So should I just stick to Delta 100 instead Delta 400 / HP5+. I know that HP5+ is even available on large format. Reasons for this? Do they like that different look?

Thanks.

M Carter · May 14, 2016

I'm a big fan of Ilford FP4+ - great tonality and it really can pack a lot of info into a neg, though I shoot it well under the rated 125. I tend to load HP5+ if I'm traveling with 35mm.

Lately I'm becoming a big fan of Rollei IR400. Very nice fine-grain for a 400; skies and trees and buildings look really lovely with a tri-red filter. (Haven't tried it full-IR, to me the "wood" look is just too "me-too", very few people seem to do wonderful stuff with that - when you've see one white tree you've seen 'em all I guess). I do need to seriously test this film for ISO and processing as a straight film and filtered, but really, really digging it and it could be a great all-purpose film for trips. Want to shoot some nudes with it this summer.

ColColt · May 14, 2016

I'm a big fan of Ilford FP4+ - great tonality and it really can pack a lot of info into a neg, though I shoot it well under the rated 125. I tend to load HP5+ if I'm traveling with 35mm.

I loved FP-4 from the first time I tried it back in the late 70's...still do and use it with Rodinal. Great tones and sharpness that may only be second to the ASA 50 films but you need plenty of light for those. When the light level is low, Tri-X or HP-5.

frank · May 14, 2016

I've settled on iso400 speed film for 35, 120, and 4x5. HP5+ or Tri-X.

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
I use ISO 400 films at box speed for 135, MF and 4"x5" for color print and black & white. I have some ISO 100 to ISO 160, ISO 800 and ISO 3200 for special situations, but since I can swap MF film backs I am not held back from using them.

frank said:
I've settled on iso400 speed film for 35, 120, and 4x5. HP5+ or Tri-X.

I like having all the film backs and film holders with the same box speed. ISO 400 gives me that and apertures that are near the sweet spots for the lenses.

RSalles · May 14, 2016

Dont forget the wind...
There are situations where you can make your gear steady with a tripod but not the scene. These can come blurred without the 2 or 3 f-stops a faster film could capture.

Medium format - ISO 100 or 400?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency