What's your favourite medium format film for overcast handholding at ISO800?

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

Hello, I just got enough TMY for my rangefinders and Hasselblad, and enough FX-39 for a couple of years too... So, that'll be my road now...
That's what I prefer for 35mm: sharp grain.
I'm not sure if TMY/FX-39 in 120, will imply too little grain compared to my 35mm prints, because I haven't used MF TMY in fx-39 yet...
I guess I have four main options:
TMY @ 400, TMY @ 800, Delta @ 400, and Delta @ 800. That, leaving traditional films alone, and I'm not sure about that either, being MF...
I have very little experience with handheld 120, and, contrary to my stopped-down 35mm shooting, I plan to use my 6x6 at 1/250 and 1/500, and just set f-stop...
And, I have zero experience printing handheld 120... So I'll just take your words and advice without saying a word: I just know nothing about this...
All I imagine, but I could be in a huge mistake, is Delta400 might be a bit faster than TMY and possibly it has a little more grain: perhaps both facts can serve me well for more visible sharp grain in 120...
So, not sure about which film, and not sure if pushing or not... I'm sure about seeking sharp grain, and about not using direct sunlight...
What would you try? Thanks!

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2020

So our choice like yours has to be confined to either TMY400 or Delta 400 but in either case you need users who have underexposed both by one stop?

I ask this as there is little point in respondents mentioning other films if the above two films are the only options you either have or wish to consider

Based on my assumptions I can only give half an answer. I have used TMY at 400 and 800 and if the light conditions called for 800 I would have no hesitation in underexposing by a stop. I have only ever used Delta in 400.

Both are fine films and given the increase in TMY prices this now tips the balance in favour of Delta.

In 120 could I tell the difference between the two at 400 properly exposed and developed? I doubt it.

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Apr 22, 2020

I prefer traditional grain film, however I do use Delta 3200 when I am using the f/8 C 500mm Hasselblad lens with or without the 2XE extender. I always use box speed and if I want more shadow detail I will use the Zone System for exposure calculation.

As far as overcast skies, I have never found a filter that helps that. If you find one, let me know where to buy it and how to order it.

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
I prefer traditional grain film, however I do use Delta 3200 when I am using the f/8 C 500mm Hasselblad lens with or without the 2XE extender. I always use box speed and if I want more shadow detail I will use the Zone System for exposure calculation.

As far as overcast skies, I have never found a filter that helps that. If you find one, let me know where to buy it and how to order it.

Yes overcast skies are the great equaliser between B&W and colour. No filter works and both look much the same

pentaxuser

MattKing · Apr 22, 2020

I love overcast skies.
The light is directional, but diffused.
It models people and things wonderfully!
Where the OP and I disagree is in his desire to under-expose his film - I just don't like doing that.
With TMY, I expose normally and just increase my developing time.
This is TMY (IIRC) on a heavy overcast/foggy day:

Adrian Bacon · Apr 22, 2020

Juan Valdenebro said:
Hello, I just got enough TMY for my rangefinders and Hasselblad, and enough FX-39 for a couple of years too... So, that'll be my road now...
That's what I prefer for 35mm: sharp grain.
I'm not sure if TMY/FX-39 in 120, will imply too little grain compared to my 35mm prints, because I haven't used MF TMY in fx-39 yet...
I guess I have four main options:
TMY @ 400, TMY @ 800, Delta @ 400, and Delta @ 800. That, leaving traditional films alone, and I'm not sure about that either, being MF...
I have very little experience with handheld 120, and, contrary to my stopped-down 35mm shooting, I plan to use my 6x6 at 1/250 and 1/500, and just set f-stop...
And, I have zero experience printing handheld 120... So I'll just take your words and advice without saying a word: I just know nothing about this...
All I imagine, but I could be in a huge mistake, is Delta400 might be a bit faster than TMY and possibly it has a little more grain: perhaps both facts can serve me well for more visible sharp grain in 120...
So, not sure about which film, and not sure if pushing or not... I'm sure about seeking sharp grain, and about not using direct sunlight...
What would you try? Thanks!

delta 3200 shot at 800-1000 in 120 is pretty nice.

Sirius Glass · Apr 22, 2020

MattKing said:
I love overcast skies.
The light is directional, but diffused.
It models people and things wonderfully!
Where the OP and I disagree is in his desire to under-expose his film - I just don't like doing that.
With TMY, I expose normally and just increase my developing time.
This is TMY (IIRC) on a heavy overcast/foggy day:
View attachment 244508

Under exposing film is a nice way of saying: Lets blindly get rid of detail because I do not understand what Ansel Adams wrote.

grain elevator · Apr 22, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
Under exposing film is a nice way of saying: Lets blindly get rid of detail because I do not understand what Ansel Adams wrote.

That, or valuing sharpness over shadow detail when working hand-held in little light. I think that may be the OP's intention as he specifically talks about MF where one runs out of light faster than in 135.
Edit: I re-read and you're right, he's planing to use 1/250 and 1/500.
OP, why don't you look at, or make, smaller prints form 135, at the magnifications you'll print MF? The grain will be the same.

Sirius Glass · Apr 22, 2020

grain elevator said:
That, or valuing sharpness over shadow detail when working hand-held in little light. I think that may be the OP's intention as he specifically talks about MF where one runs out of light faster than in 135.

The OP must have some real problems because I do not run out of light faster using my Hasselblads. The last time I checked an f/stop is still and f/stop regardless of format.

Tom Kershaw · Apr 22, 2020

"push" processing can often lead to dissapointing results in my experience. However TMY-2 in the right developer e.g Microphen / DD-X / T-Max has given me good results at 1600 speed when I've needed it (800 will be better if you can manage it). I've not used enough Delta 3200 to give any kind of expert commentary.

grain elevator · Apr 22, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
The OP must have some real problems because I do not run out of light faster using my Hasselblads. The last time I checked an f/stop is still and f/stop regardless of format.

With MF, one often needs to stop down more than in 135 because a) dof is less at the same apertures and b) lenses are slower. And one might want to use faster shutter speeds, too, if one makes larger prints than one would from 135, but that of course depends also on abilities, ergonomics and stuff.
But that doesn't seem to be the OPs issue.

Pioneer · Apr 22, 2020

TMY400 pushes one stop very easily with little or no loss of detail in the shadows. Kodak doesn't even recommend different developing times for EI400 or EI800. In my opinion TMAX Developer is a great solution for those who intend to expose TMY400 at EI800. XTOL is another great option. Of course if you like grain you may want to try developing some of it with Rodinal but I doubt that you will see much increase in grain with this film even with that wonderful developer. For more information it is a good idea to download Publication F-4043 from Kodak and read their own recommendation, which is always a good start.

I could not comment on Delta 400 as I have never used any.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

pentaxuser said:
So our choice like yours has to be confined to either TMY400 or Delta 400 but in either case you need users who have underexposed both by one stop?

I ask this as there is little point in respondents mentioning other films if the above two films are the only options you either have or wish to consider

Based on my assumptions I can only give half an answer. I have used TMY at 400 and 800 and if the light conditions called for 800 I would have no hesitation in underexposing by a stop. I have only ever used Delta in 400.

Both are fine films and given the increase in TMY prices this now tips the balance in favour of Delta.

In 120 could I tell the difference between the two at 400 properly exposed and developed? I doubt it.

pentaxuser

Hi pentaxuser,
Indeed I implied traditional cubic grain films could possibly work, because format would make their bigger grain less intrusive... Thanks.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
I prefer traditional grain film, however I do use Delta 3200 when I am using the f/8 C 500mm Hasselblad lens with or without the 2XE extender. I always use box speed and if I want more shadow detail I will use the Zone System for exposure calculation.

As far as overcast skies, I have never found a filter that helps that. If you find one, let me know where to buy it and how to order it.

Hi Sirius... A filter? I don't get it...
I just said I won't need a developer/film for high contrast 'cause I don't photograph under direct sunlight. So all comments should be related to expansion. Thank you!

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

MattKing said:
I love overcast skies.
The light is directional, but diffused.
It models people and things wonderfully!
Where the OP and I disagree is in his desire to under-expose his film - I just don't like doing that.
With TMY, I expose normally and just increase my developing time.
This is TMY (IIRC) on a heavy overcast/foggy day:
View attachment 244508

Matt, that's a beauty!
By the way, I don't want to push... I use TMY @ 250 in Id-11, no push, and @ 400 in fx-39, no push either.
My question was, could D400 make a nicer 800 than TMY, as to produce a good negative for expansion? 800 in fx-39 is close to 500 in d-76, a developer I know works beautifully with TMY: it would be a really like push... Possibly OK for expansion, never for sun and contraction... Do you remember your EI and developer for that very well exposed and developed photograph? Thanks.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

A really mild push...

grain elevator · Apr 22, 2020

Pioneer said:
TMY400 pushes one stop very easily with little or no loss of detail in the shadows. Kodak doesn't even recommend different developing times for EI400 or EI800.[...]

Loss in the shadows will be one stop minus a tiny bit if push developed. There's no way around that.

MattKing · Apr 22, 2020

That shot was metered at box speed, and developed in replenished HC-110 dilution E. IIRC, I increased my development time by 10%

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
delta 3200 shot at 800-1000 in 120 is pretty nice.

That sounds great, Adrian...
Even though it's often said fx-39 is good for slow films only, Scarpitti's revised Patterson times recommend Delta3200 at 800 in fx-39... Definitely something to try: it may be as surprising as hp5+ @160, amazing tone and minimal grain for that film... Possibly a wonderful option for 800 120... Thank you very much!

MattKing · Apr 22, 2020

grain elevator said:
Loss in the shadows will be one stop minus a tiny bit if push developed. There's no way around that.

The push development won't affect the shadows - it just affects the highlights.
It is the combination of under-exposure plus push development that results in loss of shadow detail.
Kodak recommends no increase of development for TMY that is under-exposed by a stop because TMY retains shadow detail fairly well when one stop under-exposed, and, using Kodak's criteria, mid-tone and highlight rendition is better with normal development of the under-exposed film than with increased development.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

grain elevator said:
That, or valuing sharpness over shadow detail when working hand-held in little light. I think that may be the OP's intention as he specifically talks about MF where one runs out of light faster than in 135.
Edit: I re-read and you're right, he's planing to use 1/250 and 1/500.
OP, why don't you look at, or make, smaller prints form 135, at the magnifications you'll print MF? The grain will be the same.

My three lenses for the Hasselblad are f/2.8... The two speeds I plan to use are no problem at 800 nor at 400... Those speeds don't mean pushing... Again, 400-800 in a speed enhancing developer, are close to normal, required contrast for expansion.

grain elevator · Apr 22, 2020

MattKing said:
The push development won't affect the shadows - it just affects the highlights.
It is the combination of under-exposure plus push development that results in loss of shadow detail.
Kodak recommends no increase of development for TMY that is under-exposed by a stop because TMY retains shadow detail fairly well when one stop under-exposed, and, using Kodak's criteria, mid-tone and highlight rendition is better with normal development of the under-exposed film than with increased development.

I think we're in agreement, maybe I should have added a comma for clarity. Giving one stop less exposure gives one stop less shadow details. I just allowed for the possibility that push processing may already lift the curve a tiny bit down in the shadows, so people wouldn't argue that irrelevant point, and the opposite happened, oh well.

Juan Valdenebro said:
My three lenses for the Hasselblad are f/2.8... The two speeds I plan to use are no problem at 800 nor at 400... Those speeds don't mean pushing... Again, 400-800 in a speed enhancing developer, are close to normal, required contrast for expansion.

I agree with all the people here who have mentioned it, there's no need to underexpose and throw away shadow detail for expansion. Except that I recall from the other recent thread that you reject all facts about film speed anyway... maybe it works for you, setting your meter to 800; if your subjects for expansion have no deep shadows, it might be alright.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 22, 2020

grain elevator said:
Loss in the shadows will be one stop minus a tiny bit if push developed. There's no way around that.

That's right. And wrong. Right in d-76. Wrong in fx-39.

MattKing · Apr 22, 2020

grain elevator said:
I think we're in agreement, maybe I should have added a comma for clarity.

I think the biggest problem I see is with people who equate under-exposing film with pushing film.
IMHO, it is only the increased development that accompanies under-exposure that constitutes a "push".
Otherwise, increased development is done for the purpose of increasing contrast (expansion), and that isn't push development.

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2020

MattKing said:
That shot was metered at box speed, and developed in replenished HC-110 dilution E. IIRC, I increased my development time by 10%

It's a fine shot, Matt, but more to the point is: If she was your model did you pay her enough to replace those torn jeans? I had no idea things were that bad in Canada

pentaxuser

What's your favourite medium format film for overcast handholding at ISO800?

Juan Valdenebro

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

Adrian Bacon

Sirius Glass

grain elevator

Sirius Glass

Tom Kershaw

grain elevator

Pioneer

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

grain elevator

MattKing

Moderator

Juan Valdenebro

MattKing

Moderator

Juan Valdenebro

grain elevator

Juan Valdenebro

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

What's your favourite medium format film for overcast handholding at ISO800?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency