The old film days

[mirzaphotography]

<p>When it comes to film, I've only used store bought 35mm in my old FM-10. Never did weddings or anything important. <br>

What were the ISO capabilities of the old films cameras? If there was noise/grain, did people just accept the fact and carry on?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Just before digital cameras took over, 400 and 800 speed color negative films were used for weddings. There wasn't much grain, and everyone was happy. 1600 speed film was used for special, low light situations but you had to deal with grain. Some people liked grain.</p>

<p>What people are you talking about? Photographers or clients? With photographers, there was always the desire for low grain, high speed material, as there is today with sensors that provide higher and higher ISOs. With clients, they took what they could get, but most events could be captured very well with 800 speed films.</p>

[acbeddoe]

<blockquote>

<p>What were the ISO capabilities of the old films cameras?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None. Or infinite. ISO (or ASA) is a measure of the <em>film's</em> capability. While film cameras with exposure meters had ASA settings, these were to tell the light meter how to respond to light levels.</p>

[starvy]

<p>the average client would know very little about photoshop and photo manipulation in the days before digital took over. they knew about airbrushing from magazines but had less of an expectation in terms of grain. photography was not just about 'a guy with a camera' but a craft that had to be mastered.<br>

i knew the indian wedding circuit well and knew of a few shooters. the expectation - there might be a cultural issue here - was an album of finely exposed prints (perhaps 36 to 100) that would show off the vivid and gaudy colours. video, in this circle would have already become more important than still photography. the guys i knew used kodak iso 200 to 400 films and big on the camera flashes. i don't recall seeing any grainy pictures at all and i attended a lot of weddings with my family!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>The ISO (previously called ASA) capabilities of camera ... meaning what settings were available to tell the light meter what film sensitivity you were using ... normally could range from ASA 25 up to 6400. </p>

<p>The higher ASA numbers could be set on the camera in order to "push" the film ... which you would then do when processing the negs. For example, in low light you could "push" ASA 400 Tri-X to 800 or higher, and then develop it longer, or process it in a special film devloper to control the grain. There were quite a few things you could do with the same film by altering the processing time, agitation, and what "chemical soup" you used. There is/was a real art to it.</p>

<p>Really old film cameras often did not have a light meter at all ... but still had a ASA dial to remind you what film was in the camera. </p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>There are lots of ways to control grain, dynamic range and response to light when using film. All remarks about film speed and grain are going to be relative, since they can be controlled in large part by the person doing the development.</p>

<p>The choice of developer, the method of development (agitation vs. stand development vs. rotary) and the method of exposure can produce dramatically different results. Some developers can enhance grain structure, and others can reduce it. Some bring out shadow detail and suppress highlights; others vice versa.</p>

<p>One of the nice things about negative film is that it's very resistant to over-exposure - you can retain whites that are five stops over-exposed, if you develop it correctly. The other nice thing is that when you know how you've shot it (for instance, in low light) then you can modify your development process to get the results you want. And, if you're using b+w film, you can rate film at a wide range of speeds, irrespective of what the box says. (You can do the same with colour, but there's much less control than with b+w because the development process is different).</p>

<p>As an example - consider a candle-light reception. Many film photographers might pick a 3200 speed film to ensure fast enough shutter speeds. The downside is that most 3200 emulsions are pretty grainy, and react to light tones before shadow tones - which can lead to muddy results if the exposure isn't long enough.</p>

<p>But it's possible to get superior results by using a 400 speed film, rating it as 3200, and then developing it to enhance dynamic range while minimising grain. (example - use Diafine - a two bath standing process without agitation, which develops shadows and highlights in two separate solutions).</p>

<p>Suffice it to say there's more than one answer. I tend to use a lot of film in weddings with rated speeds (not box speeds) of 50 - 3200, and never have problems with excessive grain. There's always some grain, certainly - but with the right techniques it's well controlled and usually adds something very nice to the image.</p>

<p>Irrespective of processing techniques, medium format film always has less grain in the print than 35mm because the surface area of the negative is larger. A major reason why many film wedding photographers have preferred to shoot in medium format.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I tried to stay with ASA (iso) 100 or less, never had much luck with 400 films.</p>

<p>For small prints grain was not too much of a problem, but scanning my old negatives sure shows lots of it in any kind of larger print.</p>

<p>Slide film tends to have far less grain, and slides were how I viewed my photos large back in the days when I was shooting film.</p>

<p>

<p>Most cameras had a wide range of asa setting they could take, if there was a build in meter. We did have a small Minolta RF camera that could only shoot in ASA 100 or 400, but it has exposure compensation so you could get 200 and 800 as well. Things got very bad if you change film in the camera to a new ASA and forgot to change the ASA setting, I did this a number of times.</p>

</p>

</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Oops, I read the question wrong. I thought you were asking what the ISO capabilities of the various films were. The cameras themselves, of course, had a big range (as Marc points out) as far as metering capabilities, because this was what the range was for. Of course, some film cameras had no meter, and hence, no ISO settings.</p>

<p>And, what I described above was in reference to general, color photography, rather than black and white, where you had much more control of speed and grain through pushing and development as Neil describes.</p>

[mirzaphotography]

<p>@ Starvy Goodfellows<br>

I laugh because most of my business is also Indian and Pakistani customers. Shooting in low light is almost never a worry for me because they pretty much expect the bright lights of videographers and photographers. When it comes time for me to shoot in a Catholic church where no flashes are allowed, I will need to be well practiced.<br>

Thanks for the input everyone!</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Highest I used for weddings was 800 in color. Tri-X can go higher but B&W bears the "grain" better than color IMO.</p>

 

[savagesax]

I liked to shoot with 400 film often switching between Fuji and Kodak. It was fun wondering which company would come out with the least grain, beautiful skin tones, and the highest ASA. It was a constant battle! For a long time the Kodak 160 VPS (?) can't remember the name, was the film of choice during the 80's. Then came the Fuji 400 NPS and NPH, and finally the Kodak 400 and 800 VC and NC. Most pro's rated these films a bit under their ASA ratings. For example the ASA 400's with both companies were usually rated around ASA 320. Those were really fun days! The talk of the wedding trade wasn't about camera choices, but film choices and ratings. Needless to say it's camera choices now.

 

For nature work the Fuji Velvia ASA 50 took over the Kodak line in the 90's. Again, most nature photographers rated this ASA 50 film at 32 and as low as 25, depending on the weather conditions, including elevation, and the time of day, along with assorted filters.

 

For myself I used all of these films but I never went over ASA/ISO 400.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Most of the film bodies I use have metering that goes up to 6400iso. The films however, never made it that far. For weddings now, when I do use some film, it's Fuji 400H rated at 200, and exposed anywhere from iso 50 to 200. Fuji 800Z at 400. Ilford HP5 at 250, Neopan 1600 at 1000, and Ilford Delta 3200 at 1250, 3200 and 6400.</p>

<p>For 35mm color, there is no grain up to 8x10 with the 400, and only the slightest texture present at 11x14. I never worry about highlights as it's darn near impossible to blow them.</p>

[john_lynch5]

<p>Way back when (1968), we used Ektacolor S, ASA 100. This was C-22 process. Then, we had Vericolor S and then Vericolor II S, ISO 125 which was C-41 process. Thats the way it was in the "real old" film days. I stopped doing weddings in the late 70's.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Started with 120 film << for my first weddings 1978. Never really ventured beyond ASA 400, in color. Never really liked the grain ---- with digital I never venture too far beyond 640. </p>

[savagesax]

By the way there were tricks regarding how to meter the film when there is shade and the bright sun. Negative film had about a 3 to 4 stop latitude, so you would favor the shadows when metering. The overexposed light was still printable. Positive film was the opposite, I'd meter for the bright areas, because if you metered for the shade you'd blow out the bright areas, resulting in a washed out look, same look as digital. With positive film you only had a 1 stop latitude, so it was often difficult to get the perfect image. There were tricks you could do, such as using a 2 or 3 stop graduated ND filter, helping to keep within that 1 stop latitude with positive film.

[cjogo]

<p>Had a chance to use this camera and 4 lenses last week >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644448-REG/Hasselblad_70380542_H3DII_50_Digital_SLR_Camera.html Wow, what $40+k will buy ya >> still did not work well above iso 400.</p>

[savagesax]

C Jo - I'm jealous!

[chris_burgess3]

<p>Yea, the ISO capabilities of film cameras are on the ISO knob. It depends on the film you are using. Fast film is grainer, slow film has less grain. Film grain is much more attractive than digital noise. Film grain is a creative tool.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>BOB :>:: The HASSY 50 with the 28mm << was reminiscent of the SWC --- superb piece of glass /without any distortion. Wonderful image production ~~except when the files open in CS ,,, they are way too big >> for my little 4gb Ram /XP ....... You really see the quality in the individual tones ... like a 4X5 tranny produced. <p></p>

<p>Marc may already be using one in his commercial usage ....</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>I try to keep to 400 film (use fuji 400h) and rate it anywhere between 200 and 400. if i must, i'll use 800 film but usually will reach for a flash on the 400 film before that happens. grain is more prominant in 135 film compared with 120, but i find that the faster lenses and better handholdability of small format makes up for it.</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>I used higher speed films for black and white, but for color stuck to ISO 100 and slower. Quality was SUPERB! Used Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Fujicolor, Kodak Gold, all great stuff! </p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Whats an ISO knob? My cameras must be really old none of them have that newfangled knob on them. I think everyone just worked within the capabilities of the film, but the results were still wonderful. The sad part is until I scanned some of my old negatives I didn't realize how clueless I was in the darkroom and regret all the thousands of hours I spent there. It really made me see the genius of the likes of Ansel Adams and that a good percentage of his hard work was done in the darkroom and that snapping the shutter was just the beginning of the process.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Glad you asked. I shot almost everything with either VPS 160 or Plus X 125, rarely used 400 on medium format, but used Kodacolor 400 and TriX 400 a lot on the 35mm. If anything, I used slower films often K25 and Ektar 25, imagine all that speed... Enjoy, Dave</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>There were a few ASA (if we really want to get technical about the "old days" that were 1000 or 1250 but they were specialty films.</p>

<p>Now there were developers; like Acufine, that would let you push TX that high, but the grain was the size of basketballs (unless you use the hydrogen peroxide trick).</p>

<p>Now, as then, I don't stray past 200, and in fact now I do not stray past 100. For black and white I used to use Plus-X @ ASA 64, Kodak Kodachrome 25 and 64, Ektachrome 64 and VPS (ASA 160) With superlative films like Kodak T-MAX 100 and Kodak Ektar 100, whats the need? I have not shot slides in a good while, principally because I don't like the new Ektachromes and Kodachromes are long gone.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>The new film days aren't as bad as some people seem to think. There's no Kodachrome but there's actually better high ISO film available now than there was in the 90s (before so many people stopped shooting film) and in some ways I attribute that to two things people love to hate - slow zooms (making higher ISOs important) and APS film (making finer grain important). I stopped shooting film in 2000 then started again last year, and found out that 400 film is now as good as 100-200 film used to be, there are 800, 1000 and even 1600 color film that are quite usable and Ektar and Reala are freakin' fantastic.</p>

<p>I was just going through some Fuji 800 drugstore film I got back from a trip. The color is excellent and I could make 5x7's from these scans without the grain being noticeable and probably 8x12's without it being an issue. Of course, the Ektar I got done at the same time is much better.</p>