Super High Speed Film

<p>Are modern day super high speed films (800-3200) pretty good in terms of maximum blowups of no more then 8x10? Or is there still a big drop off after 400 speed? And of all the super high speed films today, both color and B&W, what gives the best results? I know there's no substitute to getting off the couch and finding out for myself, but I thought I would sample the collective experience here too. It's for a nature trip, shooting polar bears this November, where I'll have to overexpose by a stop or a stop and a half, and the longest lenses I have are a 350/4.8 and 400/6.8, and I would like to only take the 400mm lens, (because it's so light and sell the other one). I'm just wondering whether high speed can make up for the slower lens, or am I asking for trouble. </p>

<p>Portra 800 is a great film and you can get a nice 8X10 from it. To me, it looks like a 400 speed film. For color I think it is one of the best choices for a high speed film.</p>

<p>Actually, I'm kind of curious about this too, because I've never used film with an ISO that high.</p>

<p>hey Patrick...did you get my reply to your email? I've sent email to a few people lately, and I never got a reply. I'm wondering if my messages are getting blocked by spam filters for some reason (although I've been using Yahoo for years).</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure. I'll let you know. I know you let me know about the other thread, but I could not decide what to put in it.</p>

<p>I second Portra 800. I've seen 11x14 prints made from the 35mm version and it looks very nice, nothing like what I'd expect from a 35mm film. I've also made 11x14 prints from Fuji's Superia 800 that look very nice. Just remember that the larger the print, the further back you view it from and grain is less apparent from further away, but stands out more the more you enlarge a print. If you need really high speed film, Fuji does make Superia 1600 and I think they even make a 3200 speed color film, but it has to be ordered from Japan.</p>

<p>For b&w, Fuji Neopan 1600 works very well, even pushed one stop to 3200. I've found that developed in D-76, Fuji Neopan 1600 and pushed one stop to 3200, has better grain and contrast than Ilford Delta 3200, shot at 3200. But if you're shooting polar bears, I'm not sure you want to be pushing film? In terms of Kodak T-Max 3200 vs. Ilford Delta 3200, the Kodak film has better grain and contrast while the Ilford film has more of a low contrast look with fluffier grain.</p>

<p>I know this is a film board but if you are looking for low-light performance, then digital is the best choice. I shoot lots of film. I shoot ISO 3200 instant film all the time and love it. But, technically speaking, you will get far better results with a latest rev of Canon or Nikon's DSLR. Check out some low light performance reviews on dpreview or luminous-landscape.<br>

That said, try Provia 400X with a 2 stop push (ISO 1600) or special order some Fuji Natura (ISO 1600) from Megaperls. Those are your best bets IMHO.</p>

In 5x7in lab prints, Fuji Pro 800Z shot at ISO 640 shows somewhat bad shadows when light (metering) on (of) rest of the scene otherwise is good. Shadows come out worse when exposed at ISO 800. (Oddly enough, I have not this shadow problem with Fuji Pro 400H, neither had with NPH 400.)

<p>Here I have used Fuji Superia 800; often rated at 640 for sports for over decade.

 

It is a 4 layer C41 film that handles mixed lighting types very well; and is available 24/7 at an Walmart too.

 

For B&W I have used tri-x at 400 for over 4 + decades; and prefer it to the ancient 2575 recording film; or films with a 3200 label that are really a 800 to 1200 speed film.

 

Sticking with films you know allows one to master and understand it; here old Superia 800 is an old staple.</p>

<p>As long as you have proper exposures, Portra 800 is awesome.</p>

<p>i agree with aaron. i pretty much hate digital but in terms of low noise at fast iso's at enlargement, from what i've seen, it's got any film on the market beat. </p>

<p>that being said, i routinely shoot fuji pro 800z and i LOVE the stuff, it's one of my favourite and most used films. i use it to shoot abandoned mental hospitals alot where i've got daylight but very little of it seeping in. colour reproduction is excellent and grain is arguably closer to 400 or some say even 200. certainly doesn't look like traditional 800's. i totally disagree with parv's experience with 800z. i rate it at 800 and shadows come out rich.</p>

<p>i have not used portra 800 but my little experience with 160 and 400 portras is not encouraging. i found the shadows break up very fast for me. </p>

<p>i wouldn't recommend using anything above 800 if fine grain is important to you. i also use fuji 1600 superia, rated at 1600 and it's fine for newspaper stuff or concerts but grain is very apparent, saturation is not so great unless it's burned in primary coloured light like concerts. it can be downright murky in tungsten. </p>

<p>another of my favourite films is kodak tmax 3200. i chose it over ilford delta 3200 because the grain is soo chunky and i wanted that look. delta's grain is much smoother. i've blown 3200 only up to 11x14 and i personally LOVE how 'sandy' it looks. </p>

<p>btw, with any high speed film, i really don't like to use the 'weaker' lenses in my kits. high speed film will look sharpest with your best primes but can look really soft with mediocre or inferior glass. so be aware of this too!</p>

<p>these are both only 4 base scans, the prints look even clearer.</p>

<p>Fuji Superia 1600 rated at 1600<br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/234669060_de4318b5d2_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="692" /></p>

<p>Fuji Pro 800z rated at 800<br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/151595672_1b126e0f4d_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="679" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>oh and for what it's worth, here's a kodak 3200 shot i liked, rated at 3200, a very unique look for very specific purposes:<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2430/3698147400_090b8eb1c9_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="679" /></p>

<p>I've had some TMAX 3200 printed at 11x14 and it looks really nice.</p>

<p>it sucks i can't post these at a larger resolution... you can look me up on flickr.com if you'd like to see the grain. </p>

<p>I sometimes shoot 800Z in daylight so I can shoot fast and loose without using a tripod with my Pentax 645. I've got a 13x16 print I shot that way on exhibit right now. Can't see any grain at all. My guess it that you should be fine shooting 8x10 with a 35mm.</p>

<p>For B&W I shoot Tri-X at 1250 and soup it in Diafine. 35mm prints just fine at 8x10.</p>

<p>In high school we bulk loaded 2475 and 2484. TMZ was many years away and these films were faster than Tri-X. They were grainy but had more shadow detail than pushed Tri-X or HP-4.</p>

<p>Johnny M, shadows in the second photo looks rather good, at least on the screen.

<br>

 

On a related note, Fuji apparently has <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=fuji+%22800z%22+film+discontinued">discontinued 800Z</a>.

</p>

<p>parv, are you KIDDING?! i buy that stuff by the truckload! </p>

Sorry for the alarm, please make that "Fuji *will* discontinue 800z". Get ready for truckloads of truckload.

 

I myself came upon it via TheClick.us which pointed to BJP (British Journal of Photography) site which had a link to "professional film" section of UK Fuji site, where the site itself said nothing about the discontinuation or possible replacement.

<p>800Z is a great film - I love it and shoot it a lot. It seems such a shame to lose it. Can't they kill Superier 800 instead and keep 800z as it is the better film and the best 800 speed colour film I have ever used IMHO. :(</p>

<p>Make that Fuji *may* discontinue pro800z</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865834">http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865834</a></p>