Why are there no ISO800 B&W film?

[film_guy]

Is there any reason why there's no iso800 B&W 35mm film? There's iso 100, 400, 1600 and 3200 film but no iso 800 B&W but there's iso 800 color 35mm film :confused:

 

[Fotohuis]

Fomapan T800 was an iso 800 B&W film. Discontinued in 2001 due to a lack of interest.
Dead Link Removed

Best overall iso 800 B&W film is the Neopan 1600 from Fuji. In most common developers an effective DIN/E.I. around iso 800.
With some speed enhanced developers (e.g. SPUR SLD) around iso 1000.

Dead Link Removed
and:
Dead Link Removed

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Fotohuis]

on E.I. 1600 in fact a 'push'+1 development:

see:
(SPUR SLD, Neopan 1600 on iso 1600.)

 

[film_guy]

What about chromogenics? Anything which can be shot at iso 800 and developed normally at labs?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What about chromogenics? Anything which can be shot at iso 800 and developed normally at labs?

The chromogenic mono market is small enough as it is; demand for a grainier 800 would be negligible. Ilford considered a chromogenic for their ultra-high-speed film but made Delta 3200 instead, mostly (as I recall) because of static problems. Also, they reckoned most people who want an ultra-fast film woukd be able to (and would prefer to) develop it themselves.

HP5 Plus is ISO 650 in speed increasing developers such as Microphen and as Robert says Fuji's 1600 is 800 in DD-X or the like. TMZ is ISO 800-1000 in most developerts and Delta 3200 is ISO 1000-1200 in most developers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[j-fr]

ISO versus EI

Is there any reason why there's no iso800 B&W 35mm film? There's iso 100, 400, 1600 and 3200 film but no iso 800 B&W but there's iso 800 color 35mm film :confused:

There are no ISO 1.600 or ISO 3.200 films at all, only EI 1.600 and EI 3.200. Don't confuse ISO and EI. ISO has a very specific definition. EI is not defined at all - anything, however unrealistic, can just be called EI.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

 

[timpppa]

Is there any reason why there's no iso800 B&W 35mm film?

I don't know any reason for this, but I have been more than happy
with results using Ilford Delta 400 @800. You should try it.

--
- timppa

 

[bruce terry]

Also test 400TX. Excellent for interiors @ iso800 in D76 "c" formulation w/ some potassium bromide & iodide to hold max shadow detail, avoid overly-dense highlights. HP5+ pretty good as well.

I suppose since "fast" mono films hold up so well upped just one stop, and you can easily drop the 1600s to 800, there's never been a market for iso800.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

TMZ and Delta 3200 are really around ISO 800.

 

[ic-racer]

TMZ and Delta 3200 are really around ISO 800.

Agree, using 0.1 above film density gave me 800 also with TMZ.

 

[j-fr]

From the grumpy old man...

Also test 400TX. Excellent for interiors @ iso800

Sorry to be the grumpy old man, but 400 TX is ISO 400 andonly ISO 400. Everything else is EI, shadow detals or not.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I suppose since "fast" mono films hold up so well upped just one stop, and you can easily drop the 1600s to 800, there's never been a market for iso800.

Oddly enough, in the 1950s and 1960s, there seemed to be a market for this - Ilford had HPS (800 ASA), Agfa had Isopan Record (ASA 1000), Kodak had Royal X Pan (ASA 1250). As I recall, these films had full speed, quite good gradation, the expected moderate contrast and very coarse grain (Fuji Neopan 1600 is probably the closest modern equivalent). They were marketed in rollfilm form partly as a means of taking pictures in poor light with box cameras. It must have been due to lack of demand that they were discontinued, but why this was, I don't know.

Regards,

David

 

[johnnywalker]

I thought that Microphen and DD-X were both speed increasing developers and have similar formulations. Not so?

HP5 Plus is ISO 650 in speed increasing developers such as Microphen and as Robert says Fuji's 1600 is 800 in DD-X or the like. TMZ is ISO 800-1000 in most developerts and Delta 3200 is ISO 1000-1200 in most developers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rpsawin]

My understanding is that Ilford Delta 3200 is actually an ISO 800 film and is designed to be pushed.

Bob

 

[Helen B]

Here's a hint from Ilford's data sheet:

"DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating
of ISO 1000/31º (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight.
The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD
ID-11 developer at 20°C/68ºF with intermittent
agitation in a spiral tank.
It should be noted that the exposure index (EI)
range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional
is based on a practical evaluation of film speed
and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO
standard."

and Kodak's words on TMZ:

"The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards."

Which, roughly translated, means "If we gave it an ISO speed it would be 800 or 1000". (ISO 6 gives the film manufacturer the choice of developer to be used when doing speed tests.)

Best,
Helen

 

[erikg]

Helen has nailed it. So actually we have 3 800 speed films. There was more interest in the high speed end when press photographers were shooting b&w. When that market went to color, the demand fell way off. I also remember using Kodak Recording film (2475) a very grainy high speed film made for police work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry to be the grumpy old man, but 400 TX is ISO 400 andonly ISO 400. Everything else is EI, shadow detals or not.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

No.

ISO varies with developer. Tri-X goes from ISO 200 (or below) in fine grain developers to maybe ISO 500-650 in Microphen or DD-X.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I thought that Microphen and DD-X were both speed increasing developers and have similar formulations. Not so?

It is so. Microphen generally gives a tiny bit more speed (from Ilford's own tests) but not even 1/3 stop. For all intents and purposes, the speeds are identical.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Harry Lime]

TMZ and Delta 3200 are really around ISO 800.

According to Roger Hicks Delta 3200 is more like 1200 and performs best between 1200-2000 in something like DD-X. I tend to agree with this assessment.

 

[Lee L]

and Kodak's words on TMZ:

"The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards."

When TMZ first hit the market I was printing B&W for a university lab. I had the manager enlarge this section of the Kodak tech sheet for TMZ, put yellow highlighter over the EI 800 section, and post it at the drop-off window to explain to customers why I couldn't print what they hadn't put on the film.

Lee

 

[Roger Hicks]

According to Roger Hicks Delta 3200 is more like 1200 and performs best between 1200-2000 in something like DD-X. I tend to agree with this assessment.

Yes, 1200 in DD-X or Microphen -- maybe 1000 in ID-11/D-76. In other words its true speed is about 1/3 stop greater than TMZ. It's also sharper and (in my view) tonally superior, but the trade-off is that as the fastest of the three fast films, it's also the grainiest.

And yes, I prefer it at 1600-2000 in DD-X, though 3200 is good too. It's worth remembering that although 0.10 above fb+f is the ISO standard, anything above about 0.03 above fb+f is printable

Cheers,

R.

 

[RoBBo]

Everything I've seen from these films at their 'actual' ISO looks gross compared to slower films pushed a stop or so, even at the 3200 that they claim, I think pushing other films tends to result in better results.
I think the only reason to shoot any of this stuff is if you care about getting a picture where you need that extra speed and are willing to sacrifice some shadow detail and a certain level of control to get it.

I like Tri-X @ 3200 in XTol.
HP5+ sheet @ 3200 in DDX is very pretty.
TMZ @ 25,000 in XTol is workable.
Neopan 1600 @ 3200 in XTol is on a whole different level.

Anyone have any experience pushing with Pyro developers?
I want to get some more speed out of my TMZ but at 50,000 it gets these specks that I'm associating with it being in the developer for so long. (34 minutes.)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you hunt around in the chemical formulas section, you can find my post on RAF pyro-metol, which is a pyro speed developer. It's fairly grainy, but a nice counterpart for ABC pyro when you need more speed.

 

[Mike H]

If I recall correctly, Fomapan T800 was discontinued due to a lawsuit from Kodak alleging violation of its T-grain patent. At the time, it was quite popular and there definitely would have been a market for it if they'd been given the chance.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I recall correctly, Fomapan T800 was discontinued due to a lawsuit from Kodak alleging violation of its T-grain patent. At the time, it was quite popular and there definitely would have been a market for it if they'd been given the chance.

Dear Mike,

I think it was the name that Kodak objected to, not the grain structure. IIRC it was cubic, non-epitaxial.

It was also muddy, grainy and barely 800 in speed increasing developers: at most 1/3 stop faster than HP5 Plus, a vastly superior film. I've just found the original catalogue, and eyeballing the curves it was about ISO 750 in Microphen, 600 in ID-11, barely 200 in Perceptol.

Cheers,

R.