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

[MattKing]

I'm a big fan of T-Max 400, which I generally meter at 400, using incident metering when I can.
Scanned from a toned 11x14 print made from a 6x4.5 negative:

 

[Danner]

I regularly shoot HP5+ at ISO 400, developed in XTOL (1+1 for economy and stock for better looking grain in the higher mid-tones). The negatives are easy to print.

My 2¢

 

[Donald Qualls]

Cool beans! That's good to know. It's hard to beat the price of Kentmere/Ultrafine (specially if I start loading bulk film).

I regularly see bulk rolls of .EDU films for about the same price as Ultrafine Extreme -- and it's worth knowing that B&H carries .EDU Ultra, and it's just enough for a bulk roll to qualify for free shipping ($50 minimum) -- which means in total it's several dollars cheaper to buy Freestyle's house brand film from B&H...

 

[Danner]

I regularly see bulk rolls of .EDU films for about the same price as Ultrafine Extreme -- and it's worth knowing that B&H carries .EDU Ultra, and it's just enough for a bulk roll to qualify for free shipping ($50 minimum) -- which means in total it's several dollars cheaper to buy Freestyle's house brand film from B&H...

True enough about the Freestyle shipping cost. But I still send a fair bit of business to Freestryle. I view it as a premium I'm willing to pay for their commitment to film photography.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Kodak Hawkeye Surveillance 2215 (400 @ 400) T-grain in DK50. I dilute the dev 1+9 and use the times for FX55. I have no reason, but it works.

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/608655/44843822//in/album/981964

 

[Donald Qualls]

True enough about the Freestyle shipping cost. But I still send a fair bit of business to Freestryle. I view it as a premium I'm willing to pay for their commitment to film photography.

Oh, I buy stuff from Freestyle regularly too -- but when a $51 bulk roll costs $12 to ship from one vendor, and nothing from the other... Not to mention B&H is in New York, I'm in North Carolina, and Freestyle is in California, so B&H gets here days faster with standard shipping. Usually doesn't matter for something like a bulk roll, but still worth knowing...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Tmax 400 shot at ISO400:

35mm: Removing ground brush with fire - 35mm Tmax 400 | Flickr
4x5: Craig House 2 | Chamonix 45H-1, 90mm, Tmax 400, Epson V850 S… | Flickr

 

[Foto Ludens]

Kodak Hawkeye Surveillance 2215 (400 @ 400) T-grain in DK50. I dilute the dev 1+9 and use the times for FX55. I have no reason, but it works.

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/608655/44843822//in/album/981964

Cool!

Tmax 400 shot at ISO400:
35mm: Removing ground brush with fire - 35mm Tmax 400 | Flickr
4x5: Craig House 2 | Chamonix 45H-1, 90mm, Tmax 400, Epson V850 S… | Flickr

Very cool. Looks like plenty of shadow detail at ei 400...

 

[AZD]

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.

That's what I want as well. Your shot shows exactly what I like about K100 (or closely related Ultrafine Extreme 100).

At various times I have achieved something similar with both Tri-X and HP5. One example was partially by mistake, but makes sense. I had a roll of HP5 I intended to shoot at 250. Bright light, building made of white painted brick. The idea was to pull in the highlights. Well, plan went astray after exposing a dozen frames or so, and I found myself shooting events in evening light, then after dark with only artificial light better suited to a pushing situation. The first 12 shots could be recreated while the last 24 couldn't. I decided to extend development to push, but significantly reduce agitation to perhaps save the12 anyway. It worked great. They were overexposed some, but the brick walls still held plenty of detail with a sense of bright light. The penalty was grain in the sky, but I can live with that. The last 24 had excellent shadows, with the penalty of lower contrast than I normally prefer. Once again, an acceptable compromise.

I think exposure and development are really the key regardless of which film you choose. Tri-X, HP5, Kentmere, Foma, they're all good products. But I did just buy a 100' roll of HP5, so that's my answer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Any of Tri-X, HP5+, TMax 400 or Delta 400 will do this just fine. And you don't need any 'special' developers using a poisonous ingredient (pyrogallol) that you really shouldn't be using unless you absolutely need to. D-76/ ID-11 are fine - but Microphen or DD-X or Xtol or Adox XT-3 can all potentially give a slight shadow speed boost of 1/3-2/3 stop over nominal ISO (which is usually determined under strict test conditions with D-76 or similar). All you need to do is deliver adequate exposure into the shadows (exposure should be keyed to the shadows - the metering patterns of some camera meters don't help here) and processing cut back a little. Use of a low end scanner may also give a misleading impression of actual highlight density.

 

[mrosenlof]

I normally shoot them at 200, but if I had a need for 400 or 500, I would not hesitate to use either HP5 or Delta 400. Or Tri-X, for that matter.

Rodinal would not be my first choice, I would probably pick HC-110, or PC-glycol for homebrew. I don't know about PMK.

 

[Foto Ludens]

I think exposure and development are really the key regardless of which film you choose. Tri-X, HP5, Kentmere, Foma, they're all good products. But I did just buy a 100' roll of HP5, so that's my answer.

That was helpful. Thanks!

 

[Foto Ludens]

Any of Tri-X, HP5+, TMax 400 or Delta 400 will do this just fine. And you don't need any 'special' developers using a poisonous ingredient (pyrogallol) that you really shouldn't be using unless you absolutely need to.

Thanks!

For what it's worth, I use PMK or 510 Pyro for a couple of reasons.

First, I live in Texas, and my tap water is very warm (80°F or higher is not uncommon). PMK has allowed me to develop in those temperatures without any visible damage to the images. In the past, I used 510 in similar temperatures with no problems.

Second, I like how easily staining developers handle highlights. Sure, by carefully controlling temperature (something I cannot do), agitation, and time, I might be able to achieve similar results with "standard" developers. But PMK/510 allow me to achieve excellent results without having to carefully adjust each variable to suit each exposure.

Third, when I do need even more compression of highlights (or, somewhat paradoxically, more accutance for low contrast scenes), I can stand develop with 510 pyro in 1:500 dilution. Rodinal allows for stand development as well, but it's more temperature sensitive, and once you get past a certain dilution (1:333 was already too dilute when I tried it in the past), you risk getting dichroic fog in the negatives. No such risk with 1:500 510 pyro. Check out my gallery for examples of what I was doing some 15 years ago.

As for the toxicity of concentrated pyrogallol developers: that is indeed a consideration, as it is for many other chemicals we typically use. I wear gloves, and am careful when handling any chemical. I don't have children, and my chemicals are out of reach for my dogs. I find this all mitigates the risk sufficiently.

 

[Foto Ludens]

I normally shoot them at 200, but if I had a need for 400 or 500, I would not hesitate to use either HP5 or Delta 400. Or Tri-X, for that matter.

Rodinal would not be my first choice, I would probably pick HC-110, or PC-glycol for homebrew. I don't know about PMK.

Yeah, both Rodinal and PMK tend to lose a bit of film speed. Thankfully I was told (in another thread) that Bostick & Sullivan carry 510 Pyro, which is a "full speed" developer I really like. I managed to buy one of their last 100 ml bottles yesterday, but was told that they'll have more mixed in a week or so.

My hope is that 510 will help getting e.i. 400 from Kentmere, HP5, or Tri-X

 

[Foto Ludens]

I'm a big fan of T-Max 400, which I generally meter at 400, using incident metering when I can.
Scanned from a toned 11x14 print made from a 6x4.5 negative:

Sorry I didn't reply earlier ; I thought I had. This does look very good. I'll have to add TMY to the list of candidates!

 

[Jonno85uk]

Either Delta 400 or hp5+ in DDX, though I prefer the latter pushed 1 stop.

Used to use tri-x and neopan 400 from 400-1600 in Rodinal ages ago with usually good success.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Either Delta 400 or hp5+ in DDX, though I prefer the latter pushed 1 stop.

Used to use tri-x and neopan 400 from 400-1600 in Rodinal ages ago with usually good success.

Yeah, I recently pushed TriX to 1600 by stand developing with Rodinal with good results. It's certainly doable, but you do lose shadow detail (as you do with any push). I'm placing my hopes on 510 Pyro to deliver true box speed with Kentmere or HP5. We'll see how that goes

 

[Danner]

Either Delta 400 or hp5+ in DDX, though I prefer the latter pushed 1 stop.

Used to use tri-x and neopan 400 from 400-1600 in Rodinal ages ago with usually good success.

I mis Neopan 400, that was a GREAT 400 speed film.

 

[Jonno85uk]

I mis Neopan 400, that was a GREAT 400 speed film.

Ditto.
Although I do have some expired (12yrs) rolls I got on eBay for £5.5 each sitting in my freezer. Slightly increased base fog but that's all.
On the one hand I want to use it. On the other I don't want to run out.

Also recently discovered 2 rolls (hand-loaded) of neopan 1600 in a box. They must be pushing 20yrs old now.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?
Kodak TriX and Ilford HP5 at EI 320 in D76 1+1 work for me.
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

 

[Foto Ludens]

So, I had a chance to give Kentmere 400 a try. I rated it at 400 on my Yashica Electro 35 CC, and burned through a 24 exposure roll trying to get a decent shot of my brother's dog. I developed it in PMK 1:2:100 (for 9'20" in 75 degrees Farenheit), as that developer seems to give me box speed for Kentmere 100. I meant to try this in 510 Pyro, but before I knew it I was measuring out the PMK...

I took a few outdoor shots, and those came out nicely exposed. Here's a sample outside shot (not a good picture, but it does seem to show that it is well exposed, with good detail in sun lit and shaded areas):

Most of my indoor shots, however, are underexposed. Here's one of the very few indoor shots that came out well (enough) exposed:

I wonder if the issue is not that the film did not deliver box speed, but rather that my camera's CdS meter is reading warmer indoor lighting as stronger than it should (the well exposed indoor shots had a fair bit of window lighting). Be that as it may, for my camera and developer Kentmere 400 does seem to deliver box speed in daylight, but seems closer to EI 200 indoors.

 

[BradS]

It never hurts to have a pretty girl (or dog) in the photograph.

Thanks for the test report on Kentmere400. I've got a few rolls in the fridge that I've been meaning to try. It looks very promising. I think I'll probably rate it at EI250 (makes sunny-11 easier to work out) and develop it in D-76 or D-23....someday.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So, I had a chance to give Kentmere 400 a try. I rated it at 400 on my Yashica Electro 35 CC, and burned through a 24 exposure roll trying to get a decent shot of my brother's dog. I developed it in PMK 1:2:100 (for 9'20" in 75 degrees Farenheit), as that developer seems to give me box speed for Kentmere 100. I meant to try this in 510 Pyro, but before I knew it I was measuring out the PMK...

I took a few outdoor shots, and those came out nicely exposed. Here's a sample outside shot (not a good picture, but it does seem to show that it is well exposed, with good detail in sun lit and shaded areas):

Most of my indoor shots, however, are underexposed. Here's one of the very few indoor shots that came out well (enough) exposed:

I wonder if the issue is not that the film did not deliver box speed, but rather that my camera's CdS meter is reading warmer indoor lighting as stronger than it should (the well exposed indoor shots had a fair bit of window lighting). Be that as it may, for my camera and developer Kentmere 400 does seem to deliver box speed in daylight, but seems closer to EI 200 indoors.

Dear Andre,
Very well exposed and very well developed indeed. Your tone is really enjoyable, thanks.
In recent years I used K400 in ID-11 and in Rodinal, trying to make it usable, testing it at 400, 640 and even 1600: I think the film was not made for pushing, so this week I got some more rolls and started a new metol only adventure with K400 in Perceptol: in a couple of days (if I go out) I'll develop my first roll, and I'll limit myself to 1+2 because I want sharp grain, and as I want it small and tight too, I'll do it at 200, even if Harman recommend 320 for 1+1: 200 will possibly control grain a little more, without being too much light as for image quality loss.
I see you've worked it very well both from the tone and the grain points of view. Congratulations.
It's interesting what you mention about indoors images being underexposed: in my testing I've seen when light is kind of weak outdoors, say 5 stops or 6 below direct sunlight (grayish overcast), my frames just prefer half a stop more light... And when light is weaker (but natural too) as for some indoors cases, a stop more light places things where they should be.
Some time ago I've been setting my EIs and development times based upon weak overcast light, and not upon bright overcast light, so I have more decent densities and tone for very soft light. Film seems to handle higher contrast scenes fine anyway.
Very good post, thanks! You made me want to go out!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

In the 400-500 range, for 35mm format, nothing that I've tried comes close to TMax400 in FX-39 (EI640) for street, or D-76 stock (EI320) for portraiture with less grain.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

What am I shooting at 500? Why, really past-dated and well fogged TMAX-3200.