Your favorite ISO 800 film?

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Hi All,

 

I've been shooting XP2 and T400CN/BW400CN for the past few months (I

shoot it at ISO 250). I want a faster film (chromogenic or not) at

ISO 800. For those who don't like grain: what is your favorite

film? Good sharpness, contrast, range, and low grain are what I

want. I know I'll need to make some sacrifice, but given I like the

films I'm shooting now...what would you recommend?

 

I'm still a novice at developing, so whatever the choice, I won't be

able to get too fancy in the darkroom, but I'm willing to experiment

and learn.

 

Thanks!

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Oh...and if you think an ISO 400, or lower film, pushed looks better than any ISO 800, then please mention the film and development.

 

Thanks again

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Oh...and if a color print film is better (printed to b&w on a Frontier), please let me know. But I'd like to be able to reprint them in my own darkroom in the future. Is this possible with a color print film (can I just print it onto B&W paper)?

 

ISO 800 is all I need right now (fine grain is important to me) - but if 1000-1600+ can be had, without getting grainy, I'm fine with it. I'm very anal about grain, I know whatever the choice I'll need to get used to more grain than I'm usual.

 

TIA

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

I thought I might as well devise a list of those I'm considering while I wait for a response...in case others stumble across this thread...

 

Neopan 1600

Delta 3200

HP5+ pushed to 800

 

Fuji NPZ 800

Kodak Portra 800

Fuji Press 800

Fuji Press 1600

[gaius1]

I am not aware of any ISO 800 normal speed B&W film. Some folk say that Delta 3200 is really 800, but I've never agreed with that argument. If you meter it and shoot it at ISO 3200 then develop like Ilford says, it behaves as it ought, in my experience.

 

TRI-X and HP5+ both push very cleanly to 800. There'll be loss of shadow detail and an almost imperceptible increase in grain. If shadow detail is important, skip 800 and go straight to Fuji Neopan 1600, expose it at ISO 1250 and process normally. It has barely more grain than a 400 speed film, it's very nice.<div></div>

[al_divenuti]

Guy,

 

Ilford Delta 3200 is absolutely and most definitely NOT an ISO 3200 film.

 

Ilford's recommended development times just correspond to the 1 1/2 stop push needed to get reasonable contrast from this film at EI 3200.

 

Both TMZ and Delta probably have an ISO somewhere between 1000 and 1200.

[gaius1]

Al, could you explain the reasoning that it is not truly ISO 3200? Why would Ilford call it ISO 3200 if it wasn't? (I know that Ilford doesn't bother with normal ISO ratings and just picks a speed for all their films based on their empirical evaluation of it).

[arraga]

Ilford, in the Delta3200 datasheet says that it's an ISO 1000 film. It would be 1200 in microphen.

 

I don't have experience with those ISOs; I generally used Delta3200 for low light action at 6400.

[al_divenuti]

Guy,

 

Excellent question! The answer is that the film was designed to be pushed to ISO 1600 and 3200 by its users. Though a true ISO 1000 film it is assumed that customers will push it and so results are optimized for ISO 1600 and 3200 rather than striving for fine grain at its native speed. In fact, Delta probably will not demonstrate results at ISO 800 and 1000 better than say, Tri-X, HP5+, or Neopan 1600.

[gaius1]

Thanks Al.

 

As an aside, I think many people forget that rating a film at a different ISO is exactly the same as dialling in exposure compensation. The original poster says he shoots ISO 400 films at 250. What he really means is that for the types of scenes he shoots, his meter is 2/3 stop off. I shoot my TRI-X at 320 - not because I believe it's really an ISO 320 film, but because I know that I want more shadow detail and my highlights will be fine as is.

[Mike Gammill]

I've had good luck rating Fuji Neopan 1600 at E.I. 800 and processing in D-76. I don't do much of it since I can't buy this film in 100' bulk rolls like HP5+.

[mattalofs]

Neopan 1600 in diafine. Sharp, nice grain, good contrast. If only it came in 100 foot rolls.

[john_murphy1]

I think the standard answer to this question is, "HP5 or Tri-X".

[gary_watson]

Fuji NPZ scanned and printed grayscale/desaturated onto Fuji Crytsal Archive glossy.Also try Fuji Superia 800;Fuji Press 800 is identical and usually pricier. These films punish underexposure, so try for a 640 rating, 800 at the outside.

[al_divenuti]

Hp5+, Tri-x, or Neopan 400 that is...Fuji has a credible product here as well.

[kunihiko]

At EI800, I shoot NEOPAN 400 for finer grain and NEOPAN 1600 for better shadow.

The reasen why I shoot NEOPANs is that I like them and they are cheap here. We have 100ft rolls in Japan.

Other ISO400 films, HP5+, Tri-X, Delta also work, I think.<BR>

I used to push NEOPAN 400 with Microphen-like home brew. Now I've found that Fujidol E fits my work. Many standard developers, Xtol, D-76, etc, would work fine in both way - push ISO400 films and pull faster films - to EI800.

If I couldn't find Fujidol, I would go Xtol.

[trooper]

After hearing that the Barry Thornton materials were soon being sold again through Peter Hogan's site, monochromephotography.com, I decided to mix up some of Thornton's diLuxol Vitesse that I had purchased before Barry's death. I had decided not to pursue it, fearing I might like it and never be able to have it again. Neopan 400 at 640 and 800 works very nicely with easily printed negatives and seems quite predictable so far. I haven't really wrung it out completely but a few test rolls seem to be the best combo I've used at these speeds. I haven't really settled on a high speed combination for the long term but have also had good results with Delta 3200 @ 1000-1200 in Diafine. My use is in medium format.

[patrick_ingram]

<p><i>The original poster says he shoots ISO 400 films at 250. What

he really means is that for the types of scenes he shoots, his meter

is 2/3 stop off.</i></p>

<p>Are you sure that this is what he means? Maybe he's using

programme mode on his auto-everything SLR, in which case exact ISO

ratings are a bit of a joke. But maybe he's using a spot meter and

carefully adjusting exposure in 1/3-stops, and just happens to have

realized that the films he mentions (like most print films) have

been over-rated by their manufacturers, for simple marketing

reasons.</p>

<p>I'd suggest Neopan "1600" at 800 (probably still a slight

underexposure) or, if you like the pushed look, Tri-X or HP5+ as

recommended above. Tri-X at 800 in Diafine is fairly nice.</p>

[chris_waller]

Neopan 1600 down rated and devved in Rodinal. In fact, I'd suggest downrating to 640 for more shadow detail.

[arjen van de merwe]

For those of you who do not understand about "true film speed" check out the zone system. It will make dramatic improvements in your photos. For instance this site:

http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Ok...so I've read all the posts. Thanks everyone. I've gone to the better camera shops in my city in Taiwan, and it looks like Neopan 1600 can't be gotten, nor can Fuji Press 800, or NPZ. I went with Delta 3200 instead.

 

I don't need it rated at 3200...I was thinking 1000, or 1600. I'm getting more speed than I initially needed. What should I shoot and develop at (preferebly with ID-11/X-tol/D-76) to minimize grain with this film?

 

Would I have been better off pushing Neopan 400/HP5+/Tri-X?

[fran_ois_courtois]

don't forget Paterson acupan 800, the only true 800-rated film. Otherwise neopan 400 @ 800 is great, tri-x @ 800 also, 'though neopan 1600 @ 1000 is amazing

[lex_jenkins]

"Would I have been better off pushing Neopan 400/HP5+/Tri-X?"

 

===============================

 

Yeh, probably. I don't know about Neopan but 800 is hardly a push for HP5+ and Tri-X with most developers. When I was a journalist I routinely shot Tri-X at 800 and developed in HC-110. I still have those negatives. They don't look too grainy or contrasty to me.