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

[Juan Valdenebro]

No, because you are saying that it is slower than other ISO 400 films.
And it isn't - it is a full ISO 400 film.
If you change the measuring criteria to one that builds in a 2/3 stop change, like Zone System criteria, it is a full EI 250 film.
Other 400 ISO films might be designed to rate higher using Zone System criteria, but that won't help you in most circumstances with roll film shot in varying circumstances, where ISO metering is most beneficial.

Many people disagree with that... All those of us who find HP5+ reaches 400 with normal contrast in ID-11 but TMY doesn't... Anyway, I'm fine with you thinking your way... Thank you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMY is faster because it has a longer straight line down into the toe, making threshold shadow gradation feasible at less exposure. But you obviously forfeit a full stop of shadow value by shooting it at 800 (and I do consider TMY to be a true 400 film). "Pushing" it is not an ideal form of phrasing. TMax films are especially amenable to higher gamma (contrast) using stronger development. But that won't give you back any lost shadow value due to underexposure. In Zone System talk, you can realistically launch off black around Zone 1 provided you carefully meter the shadow values and rate it at 400.That's a full stop more range down there than many films. But on an overcast day, you're not likely to have great contrast anyway, so shooting it at 800 instead will not carry a significant penalty like in open sun. But the ZS mantra of basing shadow values on Z3 is a good way to get into trouble with TMax films due to overly dense, hard to print highlights.

Hi Drew, I agree about TMY's straight toe and shadow separation... That's why I chose it as my #1 for the next two years as I said in my first post... But at box speed I like it in FX-39 and not in D-76... Every member can use their own words to say that, or deny it: that's society... Good night!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Tmax400

Hi Ralph,
The question was at which ISO, and why do you prefer it to D400 for MF and overcast exclusively...
What do you think?
After words, the same image with both films equally exposed and developed, wet printed, and then the same at 800, seems to be the only true answer... I detect a bit of underrating attitude here towards D400... I certainly understand that towards myself, but films are innocent!
Good night!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I dev TMY, all formats 35mm to 8x10, in PMK pyro. The resultant proportional image stain gives better control over the highlights which ordinary developers do not. I have a lot of experience with HP5 too. Don't want to get into an argument with anyone at the moment, but I've done an awful lot of densitometer plotting too, with various developers, so have a pretty good idea of fact versus incidental opinion on this kind of topic.

 

[beemermark]

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.

Agree, I shoot with my Rolleiflex and pan F , lot of light all the way down to 1/60th and f8.

 

[Pieter12]

Agree, I shoot with my Rolleiflex and pan F , lot of light all the way down to 1/60th and f8.

True, but a normal lens on a medium format camera is longer focal length than for a 35mm, and in the case of an SLR, mirror shake is greater. And although f/8 is f/8, the depth of field is not the same on an 80mm lens as a 50mm lens, the normal lenses for those formats. All told, it is harder to hand-hold a medium format camera at the same EV than a 35.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I sure as heck wouldn't want to try handholding my Pentax 67 camera with any lens on it using Pan F, esp if a contrast filter was also involved. My Fuji 6x9 RF perhaps (though doubtful); and I've done it with 400 speed film in the P67.

 

[cjbecker]

Pretty much all of my medium format shooting has been handheld, and split in between fp4+ and hp5/tri-x. Have never really had an issue with not enough light. But when the light does get low, there are ways to meditate the mirror slap. On the Hasselblad, pre-release before the exposure, and or brace against something. 1/60 has never been an issue for me with a normal lens. On my TLR, I will comfortably shoot down to 1/25 without hesitation.

But i'm not sure this post is going to help out this wild discussion though.

I can tell ya, don't chase the mythical magic film and developer combo. Just get one that works and stick with it. Learn how to use it, and adjust for different situations.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd like to see some of those shots seriously enlarged, so remain a tad skeptical, esp about mirror lock-up apart from tripod use. I've resorted to things like fenceposts or car roofs in absence of a tripod. But I'm not young anymore either, so what I could once rely on doing at 1/30th sec now is more like 1/250 handheld. The Fuji 6x9 RF has been a bit of a game-changer for me, however. It handholds even better than my Nikon.

 

[cjbecker]

I'd like to see some of those shots seriously enlarged, so remain a tad skeptical, esp about mirror lock-up apart from tripod use. I've resorted to things like fenceposts or car roofs in absence of a tripod. But I'm not young anymore either, so what I could once rely on doing at 1/30th sec now is more like 1/250 handheld. The Fuji 6x9 RF has been a bit of a game-changer for me, however. It handholds even better than my Nikon.

You make a very valid point, and one that I often overlook.

The biggest I enlarge medium format too is 8”x8” so that might have something to do with it. Haha. Most of my medium format is enlarged to 4”x4” tho. Which is also the reason I'm shooting 4x5 now, just contact print all of my 4x5. 75%of my large format shooting is handheld.

There is no way it will be as sharp as putting the camera on a tripod, using a cable release, and mirror lockup. But its fine with me, in not making masterpieces, Im making memories.

 

[Sirius Glass]

True, but a normal lens on a medium format camera is longer focal length than for a 35mm, and in the case of an SLR, mirror shake is greater. And although f/8 is f/8, the depth of field is not the same on an 80mm lens as a 50mm lens, the normal lenses for those formats. All told, it is harder to hand-hold a medium format camera at the same EV than a 35.

Since I use the 45 degree prism, I am holding the camera with two hands and the eye piece is firmly against my head, thus providing three solid points for holding the camera. I normally use ISO 400 film so it is very rare that I would ever have to use 1/60 second during the day with my Hasselblad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One does what one must. A less than ideal handheld 6x7 image was once my most profitable. The light was simply changing way too fast to set up the tripod. But I won't enlarge the thing bigger than 11x14.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5

 

[DREW WILEY]

HP5 is way too grainy for me in any format smaller than 8x10. I've printed a lot of it. If I want a multi-format 400 film, it's TMY, which is capable of much more detail and contrast range. But for an even faster rainy day 120 film, Delta 3200 rated at 800 can deliver beautiful results with far more exposure forgiveness than TMY, nice for quickie snapshots pulling the camera out from under the rain parka.

 

[pentaxuser]

HP5 is way too grainy for me in any format smaller than 8x10. I've printed a lot of it. If I want a multi-format 400 film, it's TMY, which is capable of much more detail and contrast range. But for an even faster rainy day 120 film, Delta 3200 rated at 800 can deliver beautiful results with far more exposure forgiveness than TMY, nice for quickie snapshots pulling the camera out from under the rain parka.

Do you mean that HP5+ is too grainy in any film format less than 8x10 inch negatives or is this print size? In 120 film is D3200 at 800 less grainy than 120 HP%+ at 800 and if so at what enlargement in your experience?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

After checking lots of images, videos, comparisons, etc., here's what I think, finally:
1) I really don't find delta400 faster than TMY in any way, at all...
2) TMY's tone is, to my personal taste, much nicer than Delta's... Without scientific or precise testing, I would say there's a different tonal approach from both companies, and possibly it's spectral sensitivity what causes it... TMax makes a cleaner image, while some colors seem to be slightly depressed by Delta, making that film less alive when both films show the same subject...
3) Comparing both films have reminded me a lot about comparing hp5 and tri-x: kodak's take is a more dynamic one...
4) All that is enough to make me sure I don't want to try Delta in 120 for low contrast... It just seems the worst option, in my case... I'll use TMY in both formats.
5) TMY's impressive tone when well exposed, can easily vanish, as its tight grain and finest detail, when pushed to 800... I guess I'll keep it at 400 for 120 too, and just enjoy that marvel the way it should be used... The film is totally amazing.
Thanks everyone!

 

[warden]

Since I use the 45 degree prism, I am holding the camera with two hands and the eye piece is firmly against my head, thus providing three solid points for holding the camera. I normally use ISO 400 film so it is very rare that I would ever have to use 1/60 second during the day with my Hasselblad.

I agree using a prism helps but only so much. Sometimes you have to push when conditions demand it, or simply pass on making the image until conditions change.

If I need a large depth of field with MF I'd either need a tripod in my current conditions (not always an option) or a push in developing. I just held my light meter out the window into my back yard. Today is very overcast here. if I use iso400 and f16 I'm left with 1/15 sec which I wouldn't hand hold with a 35mm rangefinder much less my mirror slappy Hassy. Assuming I want to use the Hassy hand held while achieving maximum depth of field I'd need to expose at iso800 at f11 to get to 1/60 second exposure, which still sucks for hand holding a 150mm lens and is barely acceptable for an 80mm lens unless I'm making small prints or don't care about shake/blur on the print.

I hate pushing MF for all the accurate reasons Pieter12 states in post 56, but sometimes I have to. Anyway for Juan: if you're already settled on TMax for 35mm I'd just stick with it for MF too to keep things simple.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Drew, I don't find HP5 grainy at all, even in 120 when shot and pushed at EI 800. Not at all. It's been my main film for 25 years in all formats up to 8x10, in a multitude of developers.

 

[Pieter12]

I shoot and print 2-1/4 HP5+ all the time, but at 160. BTW, if you want a hand-held MF camera, you can't beat the SWC. No mirror, wide-angle is less affected by camera movement. You just have to like or learn the art of wide-angle photography.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, if not grainy in certain developers, HP5 can certainly look mushy in small format if enlarged much. It's not buckshot grain like traditional Tri-X, but neither is it remotely a fine-grained high acutance film like TMY. I'm aware of it's journalistic usages in 35mm. I'm not a journalist or street photographer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree using a prism helps but only so much. Sometimes you have to push when conditions demand it, or simply pass on making the image until conditions change.

If I need a large depth of field with MF I'd either need a tripod in my current conditions (not always an option) or a push in developing. I just held my light meter out the window into my back yard. Today is very overcast here. if I use iso400 and f16 I'm left with 1/15 sec which I wouldn't hand hold with a 35mm rangefinder much less my mirror slappy Hassy. Assuming I want to use the Hassy hand held while achieving maximum depth of field I'd need to expose at iso800 at f11 to get to 1/60 second exposure, which still sucks for hand holding a 150mm lens and is barely acceptable for an 80mm lens unless I'm making small prints or don't care about shake/blur on the print.

I hate pushing MF for all the accurate reasons Pieter12 states in post 56, but sometimes I have to. Anyway for Juan: if you're already settled on TMax for 35mm I'd just stick with it for MF too to keep things simple.

As a rule of thumb, YMMV, when the shutter speed is slower that 1/[lens focal length] one should use a tripod. That works of all formats. That is just the way it is.

 

[warden]

As a rule of thumb, YMMV, when the shutter speed is slower that 1/[lens focal length] one should use a tripod. That works of all formats. That is just the way it is.

I've found it to be so. I can stretch that rule only a little, and only if there is no mirror.

 

[cjbecker]

As a rule of thumb, YMMV, when the shutter speed is slower that 1/[lens focal length] one should use a tripod. That works of all formats. That is just the way it is.

I do follow that with 35mm, and it’s not something I can push the limits on if sharpness is important. But for larger formats, where less enlargement is involved, I can get away with less then 1x, but this is for ACCEPTABLE results in my eyes.

Some of my favorite pictures I have taken have been far from sharp. I shot a handheld picture of an otter. I had no time to set up so i sat down on the dock and layed the camera on my knees. The picture was at the min focus distance with a 300 2.8 at 1/60, 2.8. The picture is far from sharp but its a picture I really like. Here are the 2 frames I popped off. They are printed 8x10 from 35mm tri-x. They were underexposed a stop or 2 just to get a decent shutter speed. I compromised but knew there was not going to be much shadow detail.

 

[warden]

Some of my favorite pictures I have taken have been far from sharp.

Ain't it the case though? Same here.

I like to think that all this talk and thought about getting everything perfect improves your chances of pulling off a shot when conditions aren't very good.

And your otter shots turned out just fine to my eye. I especially like the top one. Great shot.

 

[cjbecker]

I like to think that all this talk and thought about getting everything perfect improves your chances of pulling off a shot when conditions aren't very good.

Thats a great way to put it.