Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,934   Posts: 1,585,590   Online: 737
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,919
    Images
    66

    Fast films and 35mm

    Somewhat new to my way of photography I've just picked up a Nikon FM2N. Centre-weighted metering and the small negative is a different challenge to my more usual Delta 100 and a spot meter. To that end I'm going through my options in the 800-1600 exposure index range:

    ILFORD Delta 3200 / Kodak T-Max 3200 - low contrast film for normal to high contrast settings.

    Kodak Tri-X / T-Max 400 - any comments here on suitability for rating at 800? - bearing in mind in camera metering versus spot metering.

    Tom

  2. #2
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    774
    Images
    4
    I regularly push Neopan400/TMY to ei3200 in XTol 1:2 (20 mins on my bes motor base, extend to 24-26 for normal). There is a scan here. You can view all sizes.

    I just don't see much advantage with the faster delta/tmax offerings with results like this in xtol. Even with the grain that show up on a scan, it prints quite beautifully.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,919
    Images
    66
    Those are good results. Have you made optical prints from the negatives, and how fast is that motor base rotating?

    Tom

  4. #4
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    774
    Images
    4
    I have only made an 8x12 and nothing shows up. One of my freinds accused me of d**l, lol.

    It's just a crappy $25 beseler motor base off the *bay site. I think maybe 3-4 rpm? It doesn't reverse like the unicolor. It is the best purchase I ever made....

  5. #5
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,230
    Nice job. Have you tried the faster films? I have not myself, just wondering if you did and compared them side by side.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,919
    Images
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    Nice job. Have you tried the faster films? I have not myself, just wondering if you did and compared them side by side.
    Fotch,

    I guess your question is directed at 'mrred', but from a theoretical point of view the Delta 3200 should deliver lower contrast, i.e. more shadow detail compared to the 400 speed films. However I've read about TMY-2 delivering good shadow detail @ E.I. 1600.

    Tom

  7. #7
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    774
    Images
    4
    I didn't do a real side-by-side comparison. The last time I tried Delta 3200 I picked up 3 rolls. Shot one of them and could not see any advantage, considering I got a 100' of Neo400 at Freestyle for about $25. I gave the other 2 away.

    I originally was trying to put my Kiev4a so jacked up so that I could leave the focus locked and shoot f22 for some street photography stelth/hand held. I was so stund at the results, I rarely shoot this stuff @ 400 anymore. I figure if I want super fine grain and shadow detail, I'll soup up some pyro. Otherwise, this is my go-to combination now.

  8. #8
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,230
    Thanks Tom and mmred for the replies. I have been thinking about trying the supper fast films but have not had the time. Usually, I avoid faster films and like the quality of slow films even though that means using some kind of camera support. However, times change and I will venture into the high speed film area.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    123
    I do a lot of low light stuff - i've tried a lot of films to try and find one that i really like, and i have to say that pretty much every option will look good, but different. I use an OM2n which has automatic center weighted metering. I use HC-110, which is not exactly the best developer to push with, but it works.

    I've tried T-max 400, Tri-X, Foma 400, Neopan 400, Neopan 1600, Ilford 3200 and T-max 3200.

    For EI 800, pretty much any 400 speed film is going to work fine. 800 is said to be close to Neopan 1600's actual speed - I found it a little contrasty with the recommended time, i'm going to try a higher dilution next time i get some, and see if I can't tame the highlights.

    At EI 1600 differences start to show up more. With 400 speed films, underexposure is more of a concern. T-max 400 works really well, as does Neopan 400 (but Neopan is a lot cheaper). Neopan 1600 is easier to work with though (but not as cheap). I found Tri-X and Foma 400 to work OK, but the didn't seem to handle it as well as the T-grain stuff. It gets grainier too, looks good in 8x10s, not as good in 11x14s. The T-grain stuff looks really good though. I've printed 8x10s from Neopan 1600 that look grainless.

    The "3200" speed films are a different beast. T-max P3200 is very very grainy - big lumpy grain even making 5x7s. I've tried it at 1600, and found it to print well, but just not have much contrast. I have a roll i tried at 6400, the negatives look pretty great, but i haven't printed them yet. I'm not sure if i'll shoot at 6400 again or not - it seemed like i was at f8 1/125 all the time, which is a little weird at midnight.

    Ilford 3200 I've only used in Medium format. I hated it in HC110, but really like it in Rodinal. It's got a similarly lumpy grain and lowish contrast to T-max 3200, but the grain didn't matter as much because of the bigger negative size when i used it. Other than that i can't say much about it. It's too expensive for me to shoot regularly, so i haven't gotten to know it that well.

    I had sort of decided on Neopan 400 as my go to film for 35mm and MF medium to high speed, but now that it's sorta discontinued in 120 i'm starting to experiment again.

    Sorry for the sort of a rambling post, my experiments have not been exactly organized. I tend to buy what's cheap and shoot it however I need to. It's just a hobby for me - if it turns out terrible, so what? Hopefully you find something useful in what i've said though.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,919
    Images
    66
    C.w.

    Thanks for your post. From high speed negatives I'd like to be able to make a 9x12" print. Kodak Tri-X has been considered a classic for push processing but perhaps the most recent revision T-max 400 is a modern alternative. As far as I'm aware the Neopan films are traditional grain products.

    Tom

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin