What film are you shooting at e.i. 400-500?

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Hey all,

Since I'm still fresh in my return to film, and the range of available film stocks seems quite different from what I remember, I'm curious: what (if any) B&W films in production today are you shooting at E.I. 400 or so?

It's not hard to find what 400 iso options are available, but I expect that most should be shot at E.I. 200 or lower, and I'd love to have something that can reliably be shot at 400 or 500 (the upper limit for my "new" Yashica Electro 35 CC).

Bonus points if you can name a film that achieves that E.I. with rodinal or pmk (or 510 pyro).

Would that E.I be better achieved by pulling Delta 3200?

Thanks,

André
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,306
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
If I just need a 400 speed film (and assuming B&W, since this is the B&W section), I grab either .EDU Ultra 400 (= Fomapan 400/Action 400), XP2 Super, or if I have some on hand, Eastman 5222 aka Double-X. Yes, the latter is rated at 250 for stills, but I've had very good results at 400 with it.

I'm not one of those who disbelieves box speed, and I'm happy with the shadow detail I get.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Thanks, Donald! I'm a big fan of Foma/.EDU films, but I do rate those films at half box speed. It might be the developers I use, or perhaps my in-camera metering (I'll see if they behave differently with an incident meter when shooting 6x6), but I haven't been able to rate them at box speed and get away with it...

Interesting about the double X, though; I have a couple of rolls of the way, and will make sure to test it at E.I. 400 and see what I get!
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
pentaxuser said:
HP5+ must come close to meeting your requirement.

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

You know, for some reason I never gave HP5 (or FP4) a fair shot. I'll have to get a couple of rolls and see what E.I. I get... Thanks!
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,120
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
The obvious choices are:
-- Ilford HP5
-- Kodak Tri-X **
-- Kodak Tmax 400
all of which have been continuously available for decades.


** Ok, I confess, I rate Tri-X at 250
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
BradS said:
The obvious choices are:
-- Ilford HP5
-- Kodak Tri-X **
-- Kodak Tmax 400
all of which have been continuously available for decades.


** Ok, I confess, I rate Tri-X at 250
Click to expand...
Thanks! And yes, Tri-X is E.I. 200 or so in my experience, unless I'm pushing it and not counting on much shadow detail anymore. I probably should give T max another try, but I recall disliking it when I tried it 15+ years ago.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,711
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have used Ultrafine 400 and Kentmere at box speed, developed in MCM 100 or D76, now I use Clayton F76+, but when shooting with a point and shoot or when traveling I use Tmax 400, fine grain, sharp, and forgiving, can be shot at 800 without push and only slight of shadows. I tired Bergger Pancro 400, but found for my developers that that it really a 200 speed film
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,306
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Andre R. de Avillez said:
I'm a big fan of Foma/.EDU films, but I do rate those films at half box speed. It might be the developers I use, or perhaps my in-camera metering
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm doing anything special. I've developed (over the years) in various dilutions of HC-110, Parodinal 1:25 and 1:50, D-23 (replenished), Xtol (replenished), Diafine (at EI 800) and even Dektol 1+9, metered in camera, with reflected, incident, and spot meters as well as Sunny 16 -- and I virtually always developer at Massive Dev Chart times (except in Parodinal; I extended time and reduced agitation to push up the toe without increasing overall contrast).

Maybe I just have lower standards, or maybe I need to print more and scan less (still trying to find time to finish putting my enlarger back in service, now with a color head).
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,946
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
Andre R. de Avillez said:
I expect that most should be shot at E.I. 200 or lower, and I'd love to have something that can reliable be shot at 400 or 500
Click to expand...

Anything from Kodak or Ilford will deliver at least a meaningful 400 if metered correctly. Ilford state that in DD-X or Microphen, Delta 400 is an effective 500 when developed to their standard 0.62(G-Bar) contrast.

Andre R. de Avillez said:
Would that E.I be better achieved by pulling Delta 3200?
Click to expand...

No. Because of the specific curve that Delta 3200 has (designed to crush shadows but leave highlights more readily printable) it isn't necessarily a good idea to 'pull' it.

Andre R. de Avillez said:
Bonus points if you can name a film that achieves that E.I. with rodinal or pmk (or 510 pyro).
Click to expand...

Microphen, DD-X, Xtol, XT-3 are all better options if you want to maximise film speed.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
Maybe I just have lower standards, or maybe I need to print more and scan less (still trying to find time to finish putting my enlarger back in service, now with a color head).
Click to expand...
I doubt you have lower standards! I think there are enough variables in each person's practices to account for differences in what E.I. works for each of us (for any given film). And for what it's worth, I'm also scanning at the moment (I do not have a darkroom, nor the space for one). I am curious to see what Kodak XX is like at 200, 250, and 400, though! And I might just pop a Kentmere 400 in my waterproof P&S and see how that goes (I have shot Kentmere 100 @ 100 with great results, so there's reason to be optimistic there).

Lachlan Young said:
No. Because of the specific curve that Delta 3200 has (designed to crush shadows but leave highlights more readily printable) it isn't necessarily a good idea to 'pull' it.
Click to expand...

Interesting, good to know!
 
Last edited:

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
If I ever find a 400 ISO film that is actually a 400 ISO film, I'll let you know. So far, everything I've shot works better at 200-320, including the Foma 400. Of course, w/ Tri-X, it don't really matter. Whatever ISO you use, it will still probably look fine.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,306
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
momus said:
Of course, w/ Tri-X, it don't really matter. Whatever ISO you use, it will still probably look fine.
Click to expand...

I've shot Tri-X at EI 5000. Takes a developer aggressive enough to develop out *everything*, develop to completion -- but that's about what it gets. Back in the day, PJs would use HC-110 Replenisher, diluted from the bottle (not as added to tank solution) to get that.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
I should have said: I recently shot a roll (120) of Bergger Pancro 400 at 400, and got good shadow detail (though the film has tons of base fog, and the grain was pretty big even in 6x6 format). But unfortunately that film doesn't seem to be available anywhere in 35mm format, and I still got the impression (from the scans), that the film would look better (smoother tonality) if shot at 200... But, hey! That's a 400 iso film that can be shot at 400...


I'm a big fan of Tri-X at 1600, and have seen reports of it pushed to 25000! But my understanding is that, when pushing it, shadows are gone (though mid-tones and highlights will look good).
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
First, welcome back Andre! VERY long time no see in these parts.

I've had terrific results with Tri-X at 400. Develop in Pyrocat HD, 1:1:100 14 minutes at 75F (23.8C).


Not 35mm, but still Tri-X 400.

As to Bergger 400, I had nothing but bad experiences with it as a film and with Bergger as a company.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,391
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Black & white: first choice is Kodak Tri-X 400 @ 400, second is Ilford HP5 @400.
Color: Kodak Portra 400 @ 400.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Thanks! And interesting to hear. I guess I'll have to give Tri-X at 400 a solid try...

Sirius Glass said:
Black & white: first choice is Kodak Tri-X 400 @ 400, second is Ilford HP5 @400.
Color: Kodak Portra 400 @ 400.
Click to expand...

Thanks! So Tri-X and HP5 seem like solid choices. I'll have to get a few rolls of each and give them a go.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,522
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
I've been having a lot of fun recently shooting Tri-X @ 400 souped in Rodinal, both 1+50 normal development and 1+100 semi-stand development.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
For what it's worth, here are a couple of photos taken with Bergger Pancro 400 shot at 400 (incident metering, shot with a Flexaret Va, developed in PMK 1:2:100, scanned with an EPSON V600):





It's really not bad, though it's grainier than I'd expect for a medium format film. But no highlights are blown (you can still see the fabric of the soft light in the 2nd shot, if you adjust the brightness of the scan accordingly), and no shadows are blocked up. Honestly, I'd use it at E.I. 400 again, and I'd give it a try in 35mm format if I could find it.

And just for giggles, here's a shot taken with 35mm Kentmere 100 at E.I. 100 (taken with a Canon Sure Shot A-1, developed in PMK 1:2:100):


My goal is to find an E.I. 400 35mm film that can handle a shot like this without blocking up the shadows or blowing the highlights. For what it's worth, this is a bright white surfboard in late morning Texas sun, so the exposure latitude here is pretty big. I have some Kentmere 400 on hand, so I'll have to try it and see if it can match the performance of its 100 sibling at box speed.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,306
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
You might have to print with lots of yellow and not much magenta (or dial down your scan slope), but I'm pretty sure Ultra 400 would keep detail in that shot. I haven't seen much tendency to block up.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
You might have to print with lots of yellow and not much magenta (or dial down your scan slope), but I'm pretty sure Ultra 400 would keep detail in that shot. I haven't seen much tendency to block up.
Click to expand...
Cool beans! That's good to know. It's hard to beat the price of Kentmere/Ultrafine (specially if I start loading bulk film).
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,522
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
Andre R. de Avillez said:
Cool beans! Are you shooting it at 400?
Click to expand...

Yes. Can't post now as I don't have access these days to a scan or a dark room. I will send the negs to a lab for scanning. I'll post a few when I get them back.
 
OP
OP

Foto Ludens

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,121
Format
Multi Format
Alex Benjamin said:
Yes. Can't post now as I don't have access these days to a scan or a dark room. I will send the negs to a lab for scanning. I'll post a few when I get them back.
Click to expand...
That's great to hear. I'll definitely get a couple of rolls of HP5 next time I buy film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…