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

[Foto Ludens]

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

HP5+ must come close to meeting your requirement.

pentaxuser

 

[Foto Ludens]

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!

 

[Foto Ludens]

HP5+ must come close to meeting your requirement.

pentaxuser

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]

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

 

[Foto Ludens]

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

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]

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]

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'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]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

 

[Foto Ludens]

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).

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).

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.

Interesting, good to know!

 

[gone]

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]

Of course, w/ Tri-X, it don't really matter. Whatever ISO you use, it will still probably look fine.

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.

 

[Foto Ludens]

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.

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'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.

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]

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).

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]

Black & white: first choice is Kodak Tri-X 400 @ 400, second is Ilford HP5 @400.
Color: Kodak Portra 400 @ 400.

 

[Foto Ludens]

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).

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

Thanks! And interesting to hear. I guess I'll have to give Tri-X at 400 a solid try...

Black & white: first choice is Kodak Tri-X 400 @ 400, second is Ilford HP5 @400.
Color: Kodak Portra 400 @ 400.

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]

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.

 

[Foto Ludens]

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.

Cool beans! Are you shooting it at 400?

 

[Foto Ludens]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wouldn't hesitate to use HP5. I was pretty impressed with it pushed out to 800.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[Foto Ludens]

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.

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]

Cool beans! Are you shooting it at 400?

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.

 

[Foto Ludens]

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.

That's great to hear. I'll definitely get a couple of rolls of HP5 next time I buy film.