Fast B&W for Telephoto

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by arthur_gottschalk, Jun 16, 2020.

  1. I've been shooting my new-to-me Hasselblad 500mm F8 telephoto and realize that I need more film speed, especially with filters. I'm wondering if Ilford 3200 would be OK. Also if I should shoot it/ process it at box speed. Thanks for your help.
     
    cameragary likes this.
  2. Sure..... if you want to degrade your MF image quality to what you'd get using 400 ISO film in a 35mm camera.

    The true speed of Delta3200 is only 1600 ISO at best, but there's little loss of shadow detail at EI 3200. The grain penalty for this speed flexibility is enormous however, and I would really only use Delta3200 in an absolute emergency, and then only if every digital camera on Earth had been suddenly disabled by a massive EMP strike.

    A tripod is the answer, not faster film.
     
    mag_miksch and cameragary like this.
  3. Yes, I'm using a great tripod and head for sure. But with a red filter in bright sun I'm still shooting 400 film at 1/30 sec.@ f11. So shoot/ process at 1600? I have no digital capability what-so-ever.
     
    cameragary likes this.
  4. I have to ask: Why are you using a red filter with such a long lens? Because it's hardly a classic wide landscape lens, where you've got lots of sky that needs strong enhancement.

    Using only a Y2 filter would get you back two stops and make the same exposure difference as going from 400 ISO to 1600.

    1/30th @ f/11 with 400 ISO film and a red filter in bright sunlight doesn't seem to add up. The shutter speed without filter should be in the region of 1/500th. Meaning you're losing 4 stops to that filter. Again, I have to ask why?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2020
    mag_miksch and cameragary like this.
  5. All good questions. 1. Just experimenting with the red filter. Hoped to increase contrast as the scene was bright but included atmospheric haze. 2. I was using my Hasselblad meter prism to arrive at that exposure through the red filter. . Next time I'll use my Pentax spot, perhaps with a three-stop factor?
     
    cameragary likes this.
  6. I'd definitely go with the maker's stated filter factor, rather than metering through the filter.
     
    cameragary likes this.
  7. I agree with @rodeo_joe 's description of Delta 3200. You might get a so so 8x10" print from it and have to pay a premium price.

    Shouldnt a solid subject, like architecture or rocks under dramatic sky go well with a bit of motion blur in the also depicted foliage?
    If cutting through haze is the goal, why use a panchro film instead of something slightly IR sensitive?
     
    cameragary likes this.
  8. My limited experience with MF Delta3200 leads me to get out the Nikon with 400 film and a faster lens.

    For the OP, would a deep yellow filter get you close enough without losing such a high filter factor?
     
  9. I've had some experience with Delta 3200 using it for portraits. I personally love the look, and it sounds like you're still experimenting so I would recommend it to try! I don't print my work however, and I would imagine a print may not look the best, but the scans always make me happy. I'll attach an image I took with Delta 3200 pushed to 12,500 and shot in the middle of the night. A fun film for sure!

    Delta 3200.JPG
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  10. I always liked 3200 Ilford too. Yes it's got grain, but it had lots of character. I liked it in 35mm also. Pick your subject and it works very nicely. I used in the Hasselblad quite a lot for gritty portraits.
     
  11. I haven't shot any Delta3200 but many years ago I played with TMax3200 at ISO25,000 and I loved the look for the right portraits.
     

Share This Page