Which "medium speed" b&w film is the fastest?

[runswithsizzers]

Presently, I am shooting 135, only. After tying out several "ISO 100" b&w negative films - most recently Fuji Acros II developed in Kodak Xtol - I have learned that many / most people recommend shooting these films at some exposure index less than their box speed. For me, shooting at ISO 100 is just tolerable, and trying to shoot hand-held at any ISO less than 100 just takes a lot of the fun out of photography.

So, of all the ISO 100-200 b&w films which are commonly available in 35mm, and which are relatively fine grained - which ones are going to give good results when exposed at ISO 100, or, preferably, greater? By commonly available, I mean film which can be easily ordered from a supplier in the US. I don't want to try to load 135 cartridges from a spool of movie film, or anything like that.

I am willing to use whatever commercial developer is necessary to get the higher speed, if it gives good results and is commonly available.

Or should I just forget about "medium speed" films, and try to find out which ISO 400 film comes closest to the fine grain performance of the slower films?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Shoot TMax 400.

 

[Pentode]

Ilford FP4+ always looks fine to me at box speed (125).
I prefer Fomapan 100 at EI 50 but I have used it and it does look good at 100 as long as you're careful not to let the contrast get out of control. This film is also marketed as Arista EDU 100.
Orwo UN54+ looks good at 100 and I believe it's available from some vendors in cassettes (I roll my own).
I have had no trouble with ACROS at 100.
Silvermax is now of limited availability but it looked great to me at 100.
I haven't used Ilford Delta 100 in many years but when I did it looked very good at box speed.

I have not used Kentmere 100 but it's very popular and I think a lot of folks use it at box speed. I believe this film - or something close to it - is also marketed as Ultrafine Extreme and AgfaPhoto APX100.

 

[grain elevator]

For hand-held stuff especially in the winter months, I'd go straight to ISO 400 films. But then I mostly want a good bit of DOF, so I need leeway to stop down. Tmax 400 is about as fine grained as FP4+, and Delta 400 is fairly fine too.
I believe all films from the big 3 (Ilford, Kodak, Fuji) comply with the ISO norm (except the EI 3200 films). ISO speed is ISO speed, although it depends on developer used, and the shape of the toe might influence peoples impression of speed. Of course one may prefer to give the films more exposure anyway, depending on many factors.
Opinions on the box-speed-or-less-question are meaningless as long as we don't know exactly how people meter. But I believe those why say e.g. Fomapan 100 to be slower than 100 if that statement comes from a comparison with other ISO 100 films.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I agree with @Anon Ymous, shoot TMAX 400. It is fine-grained (finer than some slower films) and will give two extra stops of speed, so hand-holding shouldn't be a problem. It is commonly available, and works well, in many developers.

 

[pentaxuser]

A lot of people use many 400 films at the box speed. Equally many rate such films at 320/250 even 200. Films such as TMax, Tri-X HP5+ were all tested before release to the public by standard tests so if Ilford/Kodak/ Fuji says a film is 400 then it will have met the standard test.

However for your metering and developer the only way to establish your speed(i.e. the speed that is right for you) is to do a film test) I won't even start to say what this entails as there is plenty of stuff out there and here on Photrio on this

However the quick and dirty way to test is to take 3 frames consecutively of the same scene at box speed, half a stop less then a full stop less Examine the negs once developed to see which one has the amount of shadow detail for you and choose that as your speed.

pentaxuser

 

[jimjm]

Agree with the others on just going to something like TMax400 or Ilford Delta 400. If correctly exposed and processed, even 35mm negatives will have minimal grain.
These can be exposed at 400 with no concerns, but I routinely shoot them at 200 or 250 as I like denser negatives for darkroom printing. That's just personal preference, so you should test them yourself to see what you want.

 

[relistan]

I've shot a lot of Fomapan 100 at box speed and I've always found it is good at 100.

But, if you are looking for true box speed and good grain, I'm not sure why folks have not mentioned Ilford Delta 100. This is a very nice film and is great at 100 in XTOL. Grain is finer than TMAX 400 and price is more or less equivalent.

 

[Donald Qualls]

More than even Fomapan 100 at box speed, I found it to be virtually as good at EI 400 as Fompan 400. There is a small loss of shadow detail, but not two stops worth, in my opinion (it probably picks up 1/3 stop or so in real speed due to the prolonged development, but the images are better than that). Can't post an example while I'm at work, but I've posted them before.

 

[eli griggs]

With so many films being shot in the 1600-3200 range as a standard by many individuals, Tri-X 400 or Ilford HP5 are your 'new' best 'Medium Speed' options, plus 'T' grain T-Max 400.

Yes, there are 100 speed films that do a great job, but for an all-around medium film, today, IMO, these are three of the most manageable.

I suggest you avoid ultra fast films if you do large prints or until you start to shoot medium format, 4x4in, 6x6, etc.

A lot of us rate Tri-X 400 at 200, but at 400, 800, 1600, it performs well, depending what you're after.

In the 135 format, i suggest you keep your films at between 200iso to 400iso, if you want faster, there are plenty of, what was ultra-fast, films to use and buy in bulk roll, as well as pre-rolled, unless you simply want to do night shooting in the high contrast of Night and Lamp Post, for the grain, Tri-X particularly.

Shooting at b&w, 200 just means you're following the advice of experienced photographers, who often will tell you to overexpose by one stop, as it is easier to print a overexposed negative, than a under exposed frame with data simply no recorded.

Adjustments, developers and your handling of both film/camera and developer/paper/print are what you learn to cope with and tune your kit and abilities to best suit your ambition, photographically

IMO..

 

[flavio81]

I'd say FP4 ...

 

[Pieter12]

Presently, I am shooting 135, only. After tying out several "ISO 100" b&w negative films - most recently Fuji Acros II developed in Kodak Xtol - I have learned that many / most people recommend shooting these films at some exposure index less than their box speed. For me, shooting at ISO 100 is just tolerable, and trying to shoot hand-held at any ISO less than 100 just takes a lot of the fun out of photography.

So, of all the ISO 100-200 b&w films which are commonly available in 35mm, and which are relatively fine grained - which ones are going to give good results when exposed at ISO 100, or, preferably, greater? By commonly available, I mean film which can be easily ordered from a supplier in the US. I don't want to try to load 135 cartridges from a spool of movie film, or anything like that.

I am willing to use whatever commercial developer is necessary to get the higher speed, if it gives good results and is commonly available.

Or should I just forget about "medium speed" films, and try to find out which ISO 400 film comes closest to the fine grain performance of the slower films?

You did not like Acros II at 100?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Presently, I am shooting 135, only. After tying out several "ISO 100" b&w negative films - most recently Fuji Acros II developed in Kodak Xtol - I have learned that many / most people recommend shooting these films at some exposure index less than their box speed. For me, shooting at ISO 100 is just tolerable, and trying to shoot hand-held at any ISO less than 100 just takes a lot of the fun out of photography.

So, of all the ISO 100-200 b&w films which are commonly available in 35mm, and which are relatively fine grained - which ones are going to give good results when exposed at ISO 100, or, preferably, greater? By commonly available, I mean film which can be easily ordered from a supplier in the US. I don't want to try to load 135 cartridges from a spool of movie film, or anything like that.

I am willing to use whatever commercial developer is necessary to get the higher speed, if it gives good results and is commonly available.

Or should I just forget about "medium speed" films, and try to find out which ISO 400 film comes closest to the fine grain performance of the slower films?

Fomapan 200 gives 125-160 in XTOL, FP4 is easily 100 speed in XTOL. TMAX 400 is quite lovely in XTOL and finer grained than most ~100 speed films.

 

[MattKing]

People don't downrate most films because they lack sensitivity to light ("speed").
They downrate films because it suits their metering preferences, or because it suits their aesthetic preferences, or because it suits their printing procedures or because it suits their post-processing procedures.
In older days, using box speed gave you the best prints from commercial labs.
If you are looking for something else. use T-Max 400 or Delta 400.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Presently, I am shooting 135, only. After tying out several "ISO 100" b&w negative films - most recently Fuji Acros II developed in Kodak Xtol - I have learned that many / most people recommend shooting these films at some exposure index less than their box speed. For me, shooting at ISO 100 is just tolerable, and trying to shoot hand-held at any ISO less than 100 just takes a lot of the fun out of photography.

So, of all the ISO 100-200 b&w films which are commonly available in 35mm, and which are relatively fine grained - which ones are going to give good results when exposed at ISO 100, or, preferably, greater? By commonly available, I mean film which can be easily ordered from a supplier in the US. I don't want to try to load 135 cartridges from a spool of movie film, or anything like that.

I am willing to use whatever commercial developer is necessary to get the higher speed, if it gives good results and is commonly available.
I suggest Ilford FP4+ or a tripod.Or should I just forget about "medium speed" films, and try to find out which ISO 400 film comes closest to the fine grain performance of the slower films?

 

[Vaughn]

One thing to consider if one is making long exposures, is that films with low reciprocity failure rate are effectively 'faster' than films with a higher reciprocity failure (RF) rate. Acros II, if it behaves like the original, will be faster (need less exposure) than an ASA 400 conventional film when the exposures meter in minutes, and it comes time to include corrections for RF. Same with Tmax100 and Delta 100.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMax100 @ 160 in overcast light, D-76 1+2 (240ml Stock + 480ml H2O), 20C, Kodak's agitation: five fast inversions in the beginning, and the same every 30 seconds, 9 minutes for condenser, I guess 11 minutes for softer light, filter 3 on ilford warmtone multigrade with dektol.
As you said, medium speed films are fast enough... With a good fast lens stopped down to f/4, and set there for a long walk, most common speeds are in the 1/60 to 1/500 range for overcast...
It's amazing what TMX can do in 35mm... So crisp and sharp and full of detail!
I'm more used to f/8 and f/11 shooting without focusing, but sometimes this is enjoyable too...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Shoot TMax 400.

I thought the same... TMY-2 is close to medium speed films look... If you want a bit of speed, try it @1000 in FX-39 II 1+12 22C for overcast, with 12 inversions in the beginning, 4 inversions every 30 seconds for the first four minutes, and 4 inversions every minute from then on... 12 minutes condenser, possibly 15 minutes softer light enlargers...
Tone is great. In MF it gives a very special sharp and tiny grain that's very "organized"...
Have a nice day.

 

[relistan]

It's interesting to me to see so many recommendations to skip the "slower" (100) speed films. I guess it depends on what you shoot. Manufacturers make 100 speed film for a reason. I use 100 speed film whenever possible and only generally carry faster film in the dark winters of the northern latitudes where I now live, or in situations where I know I'll need it.

Fomapan 100, APX-100 (original), Silvermax, and Delta 100 are and have been my go-to films.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Grain talk often comes due to scanning instead of printing these days.

 

[removedacct1]

FP4 at 100 ASA is great.

 

[radiant]

Grain talk often comes due to scanning instead of printing these days.

100% agree. I've printed many scan-grainy negatives without getting visible grain (as I wished to have grain - based on scanning).

Scanning grain is usually pretty horrible compared to grain visible in prints.

I also vote for T-Max 400 - amazing quality.

 

[NB23]

My conclusions after having developed 500+ Films and having printed over 4000 prints in the last 6 months (yes, really)

Hp5 is easily 500 and even 640 in some developers.

foma 100 is 100
Fp4 is125
Tmx iis 80
tmy is 400
tri-x Is 320 and even 250
Delta 400 is 400
Delta 100 is 80/100
Foma400 is 250 and lower
Foma200 is 100/125

 

[runswithsizzers]

Ilford FP4+ always looks fine to me at box speed (125).
I prefer Fomapan 100 at EI 50 but I have used it and it does look good at 100 as long as you're careful not to let the contrast get out of control. This film is also marketed as Arista EDU 100.
Orwo UN54+ looks good at 100 and I believe it's available from some vendors in cassettes (I roll my own).
I have had no trouble with ACROS at 100.
Silvermax is now of limited availability but it looked great to me at 100.
I haven't used Ilford Delta 100 in many years but when I did it looked very good at box speed.

I have not used Kentmere 100 but it's very popular and I think a lot of folks use it at box speed. I believe this film - or something close to it - is also marketed as Ultrafine Extreme and AgfaPhoto APX100.

Thanks for your input. Since you seem to be having pretty good results at ISO 100, do you mind telling me what developer(s) you use?

I have tried FP4+ at box speed, and I don't hate the results, but a little less grain would suit me better.

I had <poor results from Acros II> at box speed, but something went wrong with that roll, and it is unclear to me how much was due to underexposure, or if underdevelopment was also a big factor.

I did really like the results I got from Silvermax film shot at ISO 100, but I am hoping to find something for a long term relationship, which rules out Silvermax. I just went back and looked a roll of Kentmere 100, and it looks better than I remembered, and it is very reasonably priced, too!

 

[wyofilm]

My conclusions after having developed 500+ Films and having printed over 4000 prints in the last 6 months (yes, really)

Thank you! for single handily keeping the film economy alive.