Highest ISO film you ever used.

<p>For me, very rarely ISO 800 and only B&W at that speed. ISO 1600 was considered exotic and looked rather unacceptable. Of course many more of us used high speed single focal length lenses way back in the Twentieth Century. The point is, in evaluating modern digital cameras we should not get too concerned by this camera vs that camera at ISO 6400 or higher. If it looks acceptable at 1600, that should be good enough for most conceivable situations. Anyone have high speed film examples to post?</p>

<p>800 film was the highest I've used. </p>

<p>"Good enough" is relative. I had an IBM XT when I shot that 800 film. :-) </p>

<p>Sanford, take a look at my "3200 Club" set in my gallery. All were taken on Ilford Delta 3200 using my RZ67. With the slow lenses common to medium format cameras and the darkness of the subway trains I have no other choice but to shoot this speed. I try to shoot at iso 1600, but sometimes it's just not possible. Here is a 35mm Delta 3200 picture.</p><div></div>

<p>And a recent Delta 3200 picture from my RZ67</p><div></div>

<p>Back when, I shot mostly slide film, so GAF500 ASA 500 without a push, and later used Ektachrome up to 800.</p><div></div>

<p>Beautiful stuff Marc, great smooth tonality, but the RZ67 used a BIG piece of film.</p>

<p>I don't go over 1600 for film, but with digital I think it's a different ball game. Now that they've made it so that we can shoot at 6400 or higher with reasonable results, that opens the door to some methods of shooting we never would have considered, like handheld, no flash candids in dark spaces, handheld street shooting at night, more opportunities for stopping action at indoor sports events, etc. A couple weeks ago I did an engagement photo shoot for some friends at a night baseball game, mostly candids without flash, and had to just wing it because how can you plan out something like that. I can do stuff like that with my D700 that wouldn't come out nearly as well if I used my (still very useful to me) F100 - even if I would have nailed half the shots with 800Z film, I wouldn't have nailed the other half.</p>

<p>Sanford, <br>

back in the 90s I've shot tons of Fuji 800 (Super G or so, don't recall the name), most of the time pushed 1 or 2 stops. This stuff was even pushed much better than Fujis older 1600-colornegative film. I've used Konicas 3200-CN-film too, but this was a rather unpleasant experience.<br>

For B&W my favorite was Fuji Neopan 1600 (self loaded from the bulk spool), developed in Tetenal Emofin (a 2-step-developer) or Microphen. TMax 3200 (and later Delta 3200) was too expensive for me back then.<br>

Agfachrome 1000 was something like an insiders tip - I've shot a few rolls with it, some cross-processed, others with regular development. Beautiful coarse grain and very special colors.<br>

Sorry, I don't have any scans at hand.<br>

Cheers, Georg!</p>

 

Used to shoot a lot of Delta 3200 at EI 3200 (and occasionally 6400) with a Leica and f1.4 lens. Even then, I was often shooting at 1/25 or 1/10 second.<div></div>

<p>For me ASA 800 was the highest, and I remember only trying one roll of 36 exp. and did'nt like the grain!<br>

But then again, I liked very little of the 200 or 400 for the Underwater photography I was doing then. Ektachrome 64 slide film was the "Cats Meow" for the inherent blues & greens. </p>

<p>Even now, I find myself hesitant to crank the ISO up, . . . Not very rewarding on a 50D! And I admit, I'm not very good at noise reduction in post processing!</p>

<p>Delta 3200, Fuji Superia X-tra 800/Fuji Press... and lots of it. Hardest push, probably T-Max 400 to 6400 in Microphen. Grain? Humbug, that's flavor. And I often crank up the digicams to the max. Whatever it takes to get the shot.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1594321-lg.jpg" alt="" width="514" height="640" /></p>

<p><i>T-Max 400 at 6400. The grain aliasing in darker areas isn't apparent in print.</i></p>

<p>Konica 3200 color negs (usually rated at 1600). Only way I could get an image under certain conditions.</p>

<p>The highest film speed I ever used was ISO 800 (Kodak Gold 800?) I shot a roll, but I didn't like the grain. Now, my top film speed is ISO 400 Tri-X.</p>

<p>Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 3200.</p>

<p>Digital photography creates a different environment than the one that existed with film. Deciding not to use use higher ISO settings that can still produce excellent results would be like not using the histogram function, or failing to take advantage of dual memory card slots. Now that I drive a car with far better acceleration (and also better mileage) than my 1960 Peugeot 403 station wagon (purchased used in the 1970s) I take freeway on-ramps in a different (and safer) way.</p>

<p>Not all is progress, of course: I use a larger belt around my waist these days than when I was mostly shooting Kodachrome. The belt I used in the past doesn't seem adequate anymore, and it isn't.</p>

<p>Ektachrome 800 slide film, used a fair amount of that back in the day. I tried a 1600 (I think it was Konica print film) but because I rarely carried two camera bodies I had to roll it on & off depending on the scene and it was a pain. There was no way it was going to be useful in anything but quite murky environments. I liked the 800 though, and shot a fair number of rolls. </p>

<p>I had used Kodak Supra 800, possibly Portra 800, Fuji NPZ or other. I would have used higher ISO negative film if the film and/or custom lab processing were available at reasonable prices.

 

<p><i>The point is, in evaluating modern digital cameras we should not get too concerned by this camera vs that camera at ISO 6400 or higher. If it looks acceptable at 1600, that should be good enough for most conceivable situations.</i> writes Sanford E. Exclude me out of your "we". My "most conceivable situations" are during evening, night time; sensitivity of "ISO 1600" is the starting point on Sony A700 (and "ISO 3200" stopping point as any higher sensitivity requires exact exposure that still produces worst color fidelity).

<p>This was Tmax shot at 6400 (deved in XTol). It's a 6x7 so the grain is really not an issue.</p><div></div>

<p>I shot a roll of Delta 3200 @ 12500 in 35mm once, had a decent amount of contrast and grain shall we say. I have a print hanging on the wall though, so i can't be too bad!</p>

<p>Sanford-<br>

Nothing in my portfolio over 125, and only a few at 125. A couple at 50. The rest is all rated 80-100 using film that is officially rated at 100.<br>

Boring, I know.</p>

<p>Back in my student days May and Baker brought out Promicrol which was supposed to clump grain for a sharper result and the usual blurr of other chemicals over developing film. One started with the medium speed Plus-X or FP3 of 50 ASA and exposed for 800 ASA [ Back then the 'fast' film was Tri-X or HP3 at 100 ASA .... those were the days LOL ]<br>

But I really don't know what ASA was achieved and I think some suggested 1600 ASA but that is only one stop faster than 800 even if the number is "BIG".<br>

All this was in early 1953 and I guess before microphen came out? Don't forget 6400 is only two stops faster than 1600 and one can do so much these days to get a 'picture' if not IQ in editing.<br>

I have so much junk in my place I have nowhere to hang my work but this would be one of my favourite bits of nostalgia of those heady days of starting in photography.</p><div></div>

<p>Portra colour negative pushed four stops to 6400. The results were excellent. Of course there was grain, but not nearly as much as I expected.</p>

<p>I used a roll of 3200 slide film in 1982. Only ever one, it had been given to me as time expired stock and I quite liked the results, but didn't go back to it. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that the highest I used was Fuji Pro 800Z. For some shots I had to shoot at f/1.4 (despite that, I would not buy such a lens today as I'd rather underexpose/push if I really needed to).</p>

<p>A very interesting thread, thank you, Sanford. Mike, I really like your shot.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't have any examples to hand but I have uprated TMax 3200 to 6400. Grain was, of course, very evident, but not as bad as I expected.</p>

<p>Fuji NPZ (at the time) 800. Provia 400F. May try a roll of Delta 3200 :)</p>