25 ISO Film

Like many othere on the forum I grew up with low ISO films...Kodachrome and Plus-X were my go to films. Initially I didn't have a meter until maybe my 2nd year, and I ended up with a Metrawatt for the next few years...then none again. In 1968 I got my first Leica (M4) which was meterless for a few years until I could afford a meter. But I found that my familiarity with the films I was using, and the conditions I was shooting in I almost always knew before metering what exposure I would use...so the meter again disappeared. Fast forward a couple of decade...films got faster, I'd spent less time photographing in the interim and I got a digital incident meter...after a year or so it too went into the drawer as I was nailing my exposures mentally and then checking with the meter...it became an albatross. Sadly, my supply of low ISO films had dramatically diminished.

One of my friends who is a professional photographer always sets his camera for 1/2 the iso of whatever film he shoots, so 400 film, ISO set to 200.

Does this make any sense? I guess the key is to let the lab know you've shot it at 1/2 ISO so that can develop accordingly?

One of my friends who is a professional photographer always sets his camera for 1/2 the iso of whatever film he shoots, so 400 film, ISO set to 200.

Does this make any sense? I guess the key is to let the lab know you've shot it at 1/2 ISO so that can develop accordingly?

 

I would say it depends on the type of film.

 

Back when I still shot a lot of color negative film, I routinely overexposed it by one stop(half the marked value) and had it developed normally. I found that it would give me better shadow detail and typically better color saturation. Color negative film has so much latitude that most people probably won't notice it.

 

I typically will expose B&W film at box speed and develop normally, but that's mostly because an overexposed negative can be difficult to print although this also depends on the film, developer, and the ultimate plan for the negatives. If I want to reduce the contrast of the film, I will overexpose and then reduce the developing time, but that's also not something I regularly do.

 

With slide film, typically 1 stop of overexposure will make a big difference. If you did something like accidentally shooting the film one stop overexposed, you can have the lab "pull" it, which reduces the time in the first developer. This reduces contrast(often giving a somewhat "muddy" look) and can also cause color shifts. It's not something I'd do habitually-more just to salvage a roll where I had set the camera wrong.

Ansel Adams would set the ASA to overexpose by one stop. That allowed for more shadow detail and the highlights would still be there on the denser film. I would do the same. I found it easier to work with a denser negative than a thin negative that lacked detail.

One of my friends who is a professional photographer always sets his camera for 1/2 the iso of whatever film he shoots, so 400 film, ISO set to 200.

Does this make any sense? I guess the key is to let the lab know you've shot it at 1/2 ISO so that can develop accordingly?

When I did some serious film speed testing, I found that Tri-X printed a lot better for me when exposed at 200 rather than 400. As James noted this provides better shadow detail and a slightly reduced development time prevents overly dense highlights. Film manufacturers have often tended to be "optimistic" about how sensitive their products are and you can certainly get acceptable results at box speed with most negative materials, but if you're going for the broadest possible tonal range with good detail in darker tones, in my experience exposing at a lower ASA/ISO works better. Transparency film is quite different, and in my experience both Kodak and Fuji were accurate at box speed.

With transparencies, specifically Kodachrome, I often underexposed by 1/2-1 f/stop to get a contrastier result.

Thanks, everyone! Im shooting strictly negative film now, having just gotten into film, I don't foresee using slide film, but never say never, right?

 

 

ALSO: a couple of you mentioned "box speed". This s a term I've heard and wondered about. Is "box speed" the same as a film's ISO, IOW 400 ISO film's box speed is 400, 160 ISO box speed 160, ISO 50 box speed is 50, etc?

 

 

I would be inclined to expose that AGFA film close to home. I would hate to see bad results come out of shooting it during an expensive trip. Your mileage may vary...just my thought.

 

Thanks, that makes sense....

Yes, box speed is the recommended speed indicated on the box or cartridge.

I'm really interested in this thread. It's time I found a good M3 and started shooting with film again.

My M3 was my favourite camera of all time. I only had 2 lenses. 50/2.0 and 90/2.8 IIRC

 

I live an hour away from Midland Ontario. That's where my M4P and a couple of my lenses were made.

ALSO: a couple of you mentioned "box speed". This s a term I've heard and wondered about. Is "box speed" the same as a film's ISO, IOW 400 ISO film's box speed is 400, 160 ISO box speed 160, ISO 50 box speed is 50, etc?

 

As said, "box speed" is taken to mean what is printed on the box, which is supposed to be determined by a specific methodology laid out by the ISO.

 

As a side note, technically(at least by my understanding-I haven't seen the actual ISO documentation) the ISO speed is intended as a combination of the American ASA speed and the European DIN speed, the latter of which is a base 3 logarithmic scale. I've always understood that ISO should be given as, for example, 400/27º-a change of 1 on the DIN speed is a change in sensitivity of 1 stop. Since I'm lazy, I usually quote film speeds as ASA so that I can satisfy myself about using the correct terminology but not have to worry about DIN.

 

Another thing I also think about with "box speed" in 35mm terms-commercially packaged film is normally DX coded. To me "Box Speed" is also the speed on the DX code. This gets interesting in the case of films like Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak TMAX P3200, both of which are coded at 3200 but are technically an ASA 800 or 1000 film.

 

Another term to add to your dictionary is "EI" or "Exposure Index." This is speed at which you actually shoot the film, which may be different from the box speed. You might run across statements like "Shoot Tri-X at EI 200" or "I always shoot Velvia 50 at EI 40 to get better shadow detail" to indicate that the photographer is shooting at something different from the box speed. That may or may not involve changing development to account for the EI.

Thanks for the explanation ASA....ISO

I grew up with ASA; I never understood why it was changed.

 

Recall that every film box had a sheet or label within that explained what settings to use. Using those recommendations I finally understood. I got good at street shooting, using no meter. My used M3 was a jewel. I wish I had it still. It was stolen; the M4P I bought later never suited me and my workflow, because of my eyesight and the rangefinder.

 

I voiced this love of the Leica M3 to a friend. He has/had more money than I. He bought an M6 and an assortment of lenses. Then he started buying digital Leicas.....he's a fine photographer. His results are incredible.

Edited July 5, 2019 by 2mnycars

Hey so I was thinking about "box speed" a few days ago so I thought I'd search out anything I may have posted in Beginners... and found this.

I shot that 25 ISO film recently, Agfa apx 25. I shot it sunny daylight conditions. The images are all aritfact-y and stuff with numbers and backing show and everything but I like them.

 

This is my favorite

 

but I like this one too

 

Here's a couple more

 

 

I've been shooting a fair mount of lower ISO film, Ektar 100 & Portra 160, with occasional decent result (if you ask ME ha ha ha) well that is I like how things are c coming out. Here's one from the Ektar 100, I think this color is off the chart.

 

 

But the Portra 160 has delivered acceptable results too, I think... (not a real colorful subject, I admit but I seem to be getting the exposures pretty close?)

 

Anyway, so I picked up a couple rolls of Ilford Pan F Plus B&W film in ISO 50- in 35mm to shoot in my recently bought Voigtlander Bessa R3m. Fired one roll through it now, so will send that out soon enough. Meanwhile that brought me back to thinking about box speed again!

 

(gotta dash to dinner now will continue this later)

Or get a tripod!

 

What he said...

I like how back then 35mm cameras were considered "miniature".

 

I knew a character back in the day who had a basement full of O scale (1/48) Lionel trains and shot pictures of his layout with a 4x5. HO scales trains were "electric mice" in his mind, his comments about 35mm film were a bit less complimentary.

I knew a character back in the day who had a basement full of O scale (1/48) Lionel trains and shot pictures of his layout with a 4x5. HO scales trains were "electric mice" in his mind, his comments about 35mm film were a bit less complimentary.

 

As a long time Lionel guy, it's also a bit of a stretch to call most old Lionel stuff truly 1/48 :) . Most of it has the width correct, but it's a whole lot shorter than 1/48 of the real thing, I wanted to post actual dimension comparisons, but am not where I can easily measure the Lionel models now so can't say how long they should be. The postwar era Berkshire, though, for example will navigate a 31" diameter curve without problem, while the full scale Berkshire model made in the 2000s needs a 54" diameter curve and still has some compromises to fit around that.

 

I've never tried to photograph model trains with a view camera. On one hand, the amount of DOF seems like a nightmare, plus having to deal with the bellows factor. On the other hand, model railroad photography is basically a textbook case for using the Schleimflug principle.

Perhaps I am spoiled. I shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 back in the 70's. I though it was slow but not too slow. Never needed a tripod for it. Now I do think ISO 25 is too slow for most handheld shots.

Perhaps I am spoiled. I shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 back in the 70's. I though it was slow but not too slow. Never needed a tripod for it. Now I do think ISO 25 is too slow for most handheld shots.

 

Is the ability to hand-hold slow shutter speeds a lost art?

 

I sometimes remember years ago, in museums with flash not allowed, to stand

as still as possible, and carefully depress the shutter release. Oh so carefully.

Maybe down to 1/8, though 1/15 when possible.

 

Yes, a lost art.

Is the ability to hand-hold slow shutter speeds a lost art?

 

I sometimes remember years ago, in museums with flash not allowed, to stand

as still as possible, and carefully depress the shutter release. Oh so carefully.

Maybe down to 1/8, though 1/15 when possible.

 

Yes, a lost art.

I'm not sure that it is a lost art so much as it wasn't as good as we thought at the time. Most prints 30-40 years ago were usually only 8x10 or smaller, so negatives didn't have to be as sharp. With today's easy access to digital images at 100%, some of those old images don't hold up so well.

I'm not sure that it is a lost art so much as it wasn't as good as we thought at the time. Most prints 30-40 years ago were usually only 8x10 or smaller, so negatives didn't have to be as sharp. With today's easy access to digital images at 100%, some of those old images don't hold up so well.

 

I think this is absolutely true.

 

I was content for many years hand holding a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR(Canon A-1, F-1, FTb, or T90) at 1/60. At 4x6 or even projected on an old Da-Lite screen with a crummy Kodak lens they looked fine.

 

When I take all of those negatives or slides that I think were "fine" and scan them at 4000x4000, they're not so fine. In fact, not too long ago I was looking at a few frames of Velvia that I'd long claimed as one of my favorites taken in 2006. I remember the day well-I was on a trip with the BCM(Baptist Campus Ministries) down in the mountains of Eastern KY in October. I can remember using an A-1 with a 55mm f/3.5 Macro on some shots with fresh Fuji RVP(the real stuff) to photograph out in the "holler" where we were working on building a house. Among other things, I remember there being a beautiful deep blue sky that didn't need a polarizer, and I burned a roll of film walking around there when I had a chance. In any case, I looked at those frames on a light table and projected them and was always happy. I nearly cried the first time I scanned one at the visible and obvious motion blur-if I had to guess I was probably in the 1/30 range on a lot of them.

 

Even with digital, I'll look at the LCD and think it looks fine, then learn otherwise even zooming on the LCD or looking at it on the computer. With a 50mm lens, I often need to get to 1/125 to have reliably sharp images. 1/60 for me is hit or miss, and if I have to drop to 1/30 I usually flip the camera over to continuous, mash the button, and hope I get one good frame. VR can often save me down a lot lower, but it has its limits too and of course short of Tamron, no one makes short-ish fast primes with it.

I'm not sure that it is a lost art so much as it wasn't as good as we thought at the time. Most prints 30-40 years ago were usually only 8x10 or smaller, so negatives didn't have to be as sharp. With today's easy access to digital images at 100%, some of those old images don't hold up so well.

sp

Oh no! I was talking about Kodachrome and so I didn't print them but project them. No I didn't tolerate the camera shake back then. I did used high enough shutter speed. What I didn't do was shooting in relatively dark places. Just that now I feel the 25 speed is too slow.

Yes, I was thinking about slide films and not print films.

 

But even for print films, it is usual to look at larger prints from a distance,

 

I am remembering Kodachrome-X, Ektachrome-X and High Speed Ektachrome

from those days, more than Kodachrome II, though.