Slow Speed Films

nickandre · Apr 5, 2008

What is it with everyone and fast speed films? What advantage do they give you? Fuji still references it's 100 as a medium speed film but that's the slowest print film they've got! Why would anyone want a 64 ASA Kodachrome over a 25 ASA when you get better quality moving from one slow speed to another? I love slow speed films, but they're getting chopped one by one in favor of 800 speed films that you have to stop down to F22 or 1/4000 to make use of. At least my photo paper has an ASA of 8. I swear I'm going to get a 400' roll of that in 3.5 inches and run that through my 122 roll film camera.

One would think that as people lost interest in films the high speeds would get the ax because all the consumers used the 800 speed for their zooms. One would think that all the nice high quality professional films with fine grain that happened to be slow would stay around because people want the quality and don't need 80 times the speed. I don't think anybody not shooting a tele-zoom would need above 100 ASA. Sure in the dark or for people when there's action you might want a fast film, but you lose the quality with that so one would only use that when necessary or else use ye old tripod. All the photographers shoot 50 ASA velvia but there's like one film left that slow in B+W. All the people shooting landscapes have NO REASON to need a film faster than 25 ASA (ok, you might lose the tree sway, one might argue it's less distracting if blurred over a longer period of time for 30' compared to 1').

If I had been over 8 years old when they were still running Royal Gold 25 I would have shot that. I want to have grain-less prints in the darkroom not have to stop down to F22 in camera to get grainy color garbage for 800 speed films.

I swear that april fools panatomic X run thread almost had me out of my mind. Not funny. I've seen all the pictures from my grandmother on that stuff and it was amazing. Unless someone has some Ektar 25 and Panatomic X on hand they are desperate to give to me I think I'm stuck. What can you do?

PS-Anyone tried EFKE 25? PanF?

I don't know why I wrote this...

mabman · Apr 5, 2008

Horses for courses - depends what you're shooting.

For example, indoor available-light shots might not work very well with film slower than 400 ISO. Outside, slower might be just fine.

As you mention, slower film is available if needed - Plus-X, FP4+, PanF+, Efke/Adox 25, Rollei Pan (Agfa) 25, etc. Choice is good

haris · Apr 6, 2008

Technology going forward. So if todays 400ASA films are same grain size and tonal range as yesterdays 100ASA films it is nice to have those 2 stops if needed. Of course if todays 100 or 50 or 25 ASA films are even "better" than there is no reasnos not to use them

Free world, use what you like

PhotoJim · Apr 6, 2008

Technology going forward isn't always good.

There are other advantages to using a slow film, even if the quality of medium-speed films is increasing. For example, it's easier to control depth of field with a slow film than with a fast one.

I've always been one to shoot slower films a lot more than faster ones. I shoot 25-speed film far more often than I shoot 800.

nickandre · Apr 6, 2008

PhotoJim said:
Technology going forward isn't always good.

There are other advantages to using a slow film, even if the quality of medium-speed films is increasing. For example, it's easier to control depth of field with a slow film than with a fast one.

I've always been one to shoot slower films a lot more than faster ones. I shoot 25-speed film far more often than I shoot 800.

That's exactly my point. With a 400 speed film on a bright day you can't stop down below F8. If one can shoot ASA 10 Kodachrome perfectly sharp why would you need a faster film for landscapes?

haris · Apr 6, 2008

Just to say, I used regullary EFKE 25 and 50 asa in 35mm with 20 and 40 ASA in 120 format...

arigram · Apr 6, 2008

To borrow and twist a quote from the fashion industry:
"Go as slow as you can, baby!"
Use the slowest film that lightning and subject conditions will let you.
When I am in my studio or using a tripod for static subjects outside, I use PanF+.
When I am shooting street, its either FP4+ or HP5+, depending on the amount of light outside.

Bruce Watson · Apr 6, 2008

tiberiustibz said:
What is it with everyone and fast speed films? ...

...I want to have grain-less prints in the darkroom not have to stop down to F22 in camera ...

Personally I want all the speed I can get. Then again, I'm shooting 5x4 and f/22 is one of my primary apertures; I seldom ever shoot anything with an aperture bigger then f/16.

To answer your question, I use high ISO films to get my shutter speeds up. I use 400 ISO negative films for everything, and still have spent way too much time shivering in an icy breeze waiting for a lull that will let me make a 1/4 second exposure without motion blur.

If grainless prints are what you are after, you might want to consider moving up in film size. Graininess is the least of my problems now that I've got 20 sq in of film to work with ;-)

nickandre · Apr 6, 2008

Bruce Watson said:
If grainless prints are what you are after, you might want to consider moving up in film size. Graininess is the least of my problems now that I've got 20 sq in of film to work with ;-)

Depends if you blow it up to 4x5 feet I shoot TMAX 100 4x5s, cuz that's what my school has. If your film is slower, it really won't make any difference in terms of motion (a more pleasing blurred effect than a shorter shutter speed) and it will give you less grain. I see no advantage. If you're doing action shots with your 4x5 then it might be of assistance

Curt · Apr 6, 2008

Pan F is a great film, when it comes out in large format it will be fantastic. It's still April isn't it?

PhotoJim · Apr 6, 2008

Curt said:
Pan F is a great film, when it comes out in large format it will be fantastic. It's still April isn't it?

I'd buy a box of Pan-F in 4x5 from time to time. I sure like this film in 35mm, and I just got a bunch in 120 and I'm sure I'll like it just as much.

cotdt · Apr 6, 2008

from time to time i shoot Adox CMS20 film at EI16. amazing quality.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 6, 2008

With large format subject motion can be a problem. Faster films help with this.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Apr 7, 2008

Is this a complaint that there isn't enough slow speed film on the market, or just wondering about the popularity of fast film?
Personally I think there's plenty of both. There seem to be a fair ammout of odder slow fine grain emulsions coming to the market from europe now and then, and Pan F+...well, I have 53 rolls in my room right now. We have a massive diversity in film these days, and apart from the odd bit of pining for emulsions past, we have it pretty good.

Tim Gray · Apr 7, 2008

I personally like the look of fast film, and it tends to suit my subjects/environments. Periodically, I do a roll of PanF+ or Kodachrome. I think 100 or 125 is about as slow as I can go and not feel too limited - if I don't burn through that roll of PanF+ in a day, then it tends to sit around in the camera...

cotdt · Apr 7, 2008

i wouldn't consider Panf+ a slow film. it's ISO50 after all, and doesn't have the resolution of the true slow films like TechPan. Panf+ has about the same grain and resolution as ISO100 films like TMX and Delta100, nothing impressive there, but I do like its look very much.

PhotoJim · Apr 7, 2008

cotdt said:
i wouldn't consider Panf+ a slow film. it's ISO50 after all, and doesn't have the resolution of the true slow films like TechPan. Panf+ has about the same grain and resolution as ISO100 films like TMX and Delta100, nothing impressive there, but I do like its look very much.

See, I wouldn't consider Tech Pan to be a true slow film either. It's a document film that can be used for pictorial photography by development tricks, which limit its ISO.

Traditional emulsion films like Agfapan 25 and Kodak Panatomic-X (32) fit this category to me. Ilford Pan-F Plus is in this category too although it's a modernized emulsion. Like its cousins, it tends to be a bit contrasty. (Well, APX 25 is certainly contrasty. I haven't shot Pan-X since I was a child so I can't give a meaningful opinion about it.)

Colour films like Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 fit the category as well because they are designed for pictorial photography, like APX 25, Pan-X and Pan-F Plus.

You can certainly accuse document films of being slow (I shot my Tech Pan at EI 6), but to my mind, they aren't really films for general photography because they are designed for a different purpose.

Tim Gray · Apr 7, 2008

I'd categorize anything slower than 100 as a slow film. Maybe thats just me.

Kodachrome 64, 25, PanF+, all those 3rd tier ISO 25/50 films that I've never shot.

I do have a ton of K64 + K25 that I'm going to start making my way through at some point...

nickandre · Apr 7, 2008

I'm looking for some K25 on ebay but whenever a brick comes by on ebay it sells for around $320-that's how much I spent on my color darkroom and chemistry for a month. If one could sell K25 for THAT MUCH wouldn't coating be economical? If kodak made a coating run of K25 they could make a small fortune-they'd have to keep quantities really low though.

To many people today 100 is a slow film. Fuji refers to it as a medium speed film. In the 40s it was supersonic. It all depends upon your point of perspective. My D50 doesn't even shoot 100, it craps out at 200 (the camera I use for unimportant stuff).

dpurdy · Apr 7, 2008

PhotoJim said:
Technology going forward isn't always good.

There are other advantages to using a slow film, even if the quality of medium-speed films is increasing. For example, it's easier to control depth of field with a slow film than with a fast one.

I've always been one to shoot slower films a lot more than faster ones. I shoot 25-speed film far more often than I shoot 800.

If you mean you like to sometimes work with a shallow depth of field and fast films won't let you open up, you can always use a filter. I like to use a polaroid filter or various colored filters and they will slow your speed right down to nothing. Try shooting Pan F real speed around 25 with polarizer even turned to have no affect brings speed down to 4 and put on a yellow filter which brings the speed down to 1. That aught to do it.

pgomena · Apr 7, 2008

I keep a 3-stop (0.9) neutral density filter in my kit at all times. I use it on occasion to slow my usual 100 speed film for those shots in broad daylight when I want to stretch the exposure a bit. That would bring the film speed down to EI 12.5 or maybe 6 depending on conditions. Brings 400ASA down to about 50. Very handy.

Peter Gomena

Jim Fitzgerald · Apr 7, 2008

I shoot Efke 25 in 8x10 all of the time. I like the look of the film and I have the development times nailed down for the way I work. I like to take a walk between exposures! I also have plenty of great old barrel lenses without shutters. The contact prints are great by the way!

Jim

bobwysiwyg · Apr 8, 2008

I hope I'm not hijacking here. Recently returned to film photography. My game plan is to choose one film and developer and stick with it for a while until I feel reaquainted enough.

I picked up some T-MAX 100. To give you some idea how long it has been, I noticed the data sheet is no longer a separate sheet, but printed on the inside of the box. Presumably cost savings?? Anyway, I noticed there are six developers listed; T-Max, D-76, T-Max RS, Xtol, HC-100, and Microdol-X. My plan was to use D-76, but I wondered what the characteristics of some of the others are that might come into play in making a decision as to which to use.

Curt · Apr 8, 2008

I too have a lot of Efke 25 in sizes from 2 1/4 3 1/4 to 8x10. I would consider Efke 25, Panatomic-X, and Agfa Pan 25 slow speed films.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 8, 2008

bobwysiwyg said:
I hope I'm not hijacking here. Recently returned to film photography. My game plan is to choose one film and developer and stick with it for a while until I feel reaquainted enough.

I picked up some T-MAX 100. To give you some idea how long it has been, I noticed the data sheet is no longer a separate sheet, but printed on the inside of the box. Presumably cost savings?? Anyway, I noticed there are six developers listed; T-Max, D-76, T-Max RS, Xtol, HC-100, and Microdol-X. My plan was to use D-76, but I wondered what the characteristics of some of the others are that might come into play in making a decision as to which to use.

I'd recommend D76 1+1. It's a great developer, and it's what everything else is compared to. Once you know it well, you can decide on what different attributes you might like, if you find any, and you can then go looking for something else to compare with the D76.

Slow Speed Films

haris

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency