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

[Sirius Glass]

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. View attachment 244612 View attachment 244613

That photograph is perfect! I have been attempting to get a good sea otter photograph close up with good eye contact. That is hard to do well done.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I just read a post by Sandy King, from some years ago... He was joining a few other members' opinion, about HP5+ being a terrible option for pushing... No matter the developer...
Yet Ilford have used the film for long as their flagship product for pushing, from the Microphen era to the DD-X era...
I have pushed it in ID-11, Rodinal, Microphen, DD-X and TMax for more than 20 years.
Sandy says the native low contrast in that film's design, to deal with pushing, makes that film go against a good expansion... HP5+ is a good film for direct sun, not for overcast, they say...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Now, not talking about real pushing, but about making a correct expanded negative for low contrast scenes, FP4+ is the right film they say...
Then the logical question was doesn't Ilford have an ISO400 film for expansion?
Wouldn't you think Delta400, with its clean look, could have been designed to fill that gap, and reach good tone at 800 for overcast, instead of being optimal at 200 for sun as HP5+?

 

[pentaxuser]

Juan, you have certainly reached a lot of conclusions about films and developer combinations in this thread. It might be worth contacting Ilford or Kodak to see what they have to say. On the other hand you may have reached some definite conclusions about the best combination or possibly combinations to achieve what you need and neither Ilford nor Kodak's information is required.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Juan Valdenebro HP5+ has a softer toe which does let you get away with some degree of underexposure without losing all details in the shadow as fast as a sharper toe film. When it's compared with something much sharper toed like TMax 400, the 'expanderists' seem to be trying to get a steeper gradient without affecting toe or shoulder behaviour too much (not quite the same as pushing) - characteristics they had traditionally assigned to Super-XX. That most of them tended to use HC-110 or similar that can at certain dilutions (I recall) rather run out of steam with HP5+ when trying to bump up the CI probably has more to do with their opinions than anything else. I've successfully persuaded low SBR scenes onto grade 2 with ID-11 without issue or excessive development times. If all else fails, PQ Universal can be used to expand contrast dramatically. Given the choice, I'd follow Ilford's rigorous work over the opinions of amateur sensitometrists.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan, you have certainly reaches a lot of conclusions about films and developer combinations in this thread. Iit might be worth contacting Ilford or Kodak to see what they have to say. On the other hand you may have reached some definite conclusions about the best combination or possibly combinations to achieve what you need and neither Ilford nor Kodak's information is required.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Hi,
Honestly zero conclusions in my case after four pages... I bought TMY2 and FX-39 for two years, before starting this thread, so that's been what I've thought and think about what's good for my photography. There's very little information in this thread in my opinion: lots of posts, little information...
And visual poverty, our examples to answer the subjects in question, especially if we look for comparisons, is possibly one of its remarkable achievements... I guess we're all trying...
I seek truth, not mine, but other two kinds of truth: members' truth, and visual truth: I learn from both...
Many people use forums for other emotional requirements, but as long as they're members, I respect whatever they try to do here...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

@Juan Valdenebro HP5+ has a softer toe which does let you get away with some degree of underexposure without losing all details in the shadow as fast as a sharper toe film. When it's compared with something much sharper toed like TMax 400, the 'expanderists' seem to be trying to get a steeper gradient without affecting toe or shoulder behaviour too much (not quite the same as pushing) - characteristics they had traditionally assigned to Super-XX. That most of them tended to use HC-110 or similar that can at certain dilutions (I recall) rather run out of steam with HP5+ when trying to bump up the CI probably has more to do with their opinions than anything else. I've successfully persuaded low SBR scenes onto grade 2 with ID-11 without issue or excessive development times. If all else fails, PQ Universal can be used to expand contrast dramatically. Given the choice, I'd follow Ilford's rigorous work over the opinions of amateur sensitometrists.

That sounds fair, Lachlan... Thank you very much... I guess I'll stop sharing all this here before more people think I'm pedantic and uninterested... I was just feeling there's little understanding around why Delta400 exists, but what does it matter really, I just got a lot of TMY to work in...
Thanks everyone.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Juan Valdenebro Delta 400 is aimed pretty squarely at the 400TX sort of look, but with some curve alterations that seem aimed at making it have 'better' highlight behaviour - that's at least what I've found. Ilford and Kodak have tended to avoid stepping on each other's toes too much, so while you might have a 3D crystal type film from Kodak with a particular characteristic curve, sensitisation etc, the Ilford equivalent in curve shape may have different grain structure (Delta crystals and epitaxy), speed, and possibly sensitisation. I'd argue that this differentiation problem was what caused the demise of Neopan 400, which seemed to have a mix of a Tri-X-ish curve and an Ilford-ish colour sensitisation - I liked it a lot, but for many pepole it may not have been seen as 'different' enough - or Fuji weren't prepared to invest in scaling it properly.