100 or 400 speed films for 645?

[Tony Evans]

<p>I am getting into a Bronica ETRSi from 35mm. Intention is mainly B&W but some Color Neg for scanning (Epson V700), digital processing and printing to 19 x 13. The ETRSi is fairly restricted in regard to aperture and speed selection. What is the general feeling for film speed? For best IQ does one stay with the slower fine grained films or are the 400's equally suitable? Is there any preference? Thanks for input.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>The modern 400 speed films, especially color neg, is incredibly fine grained. I make this decision based primarily on the aperture I hope to shoot at. For portraits, for example, I use a slow fim to be able to take advantage of an oper aperture; for landscape I might use a faster film to use smaller aperture and take advantage of greater DOF. The light conditions also need to be considered: slower film for daytime; faster film for dawn/dusk and rainy days.</p>

[kelly_hughes]

<p>Remember that with 645, the negative is so much larger than 35mm, and the film material is essentially the same, so the grain is much less noticeable because it's so much smaller in terms of the percentage of picture size. So you'll generally get grain levels at 200 or 400 with 645 that are equal to 100 or 64 film on the 35mm, when comparing the same film formula in 35mm vs 120/220. Assuming you get exposures correct and use good techniques, you should see an increase in IQ just from the sheer size increase of the negative.</p>

<p>Also, there's the new Ektar format that is VERY low grain. If you like the colors it gives, that will probably be easier to get good results from scanning. I was very impressed with its utter lack of grain, but the blues and reds were very prominent. I almost think I like Velvia better, but it's got more grain.</p>

<p>Can't help much with B&W, as I'm a color shooter.</p>

<p>I know there's more to IQ than grain issues, but it does play a part.</p>

[predrag_vranic]

<p>Kodak Portra 400 (VC/NC) has reaaally fine grain for 400asa film - highly recommended.<br /> much more recommended - any of the Fuji slide films have mighty fine grain, be it Provia 100 (or 400X - excellent even pushed +2), Velvia or Astia.</p>

<p>I shot 5 rolls of ektar and wasn't that much impressed, I had really awfully funkified colour shifts and cold overcasts, and grain wasn't that impressing as <em>advertised</em>; comparing Ektar vs Provia with ~3800x3800 300dpi scans from Fuji Frontier machines I had much finer grain and details from 120 Fuji slides.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Hi Tony, grain can also be your choice, how much you want for a particular image theme. The "highest best tightest" IQ shouldn't be a goal (except for maybe the elimination of focus or metering errors), but that you capture the image that you see in your minds eye.</p>

<p>That being said, Kodak Plus-X ISO 125, Tri-X and Ilford PanF Plus (ISO 50) are three of my favorite b+w films.</p>

<p>Whatever you liked in 35mm will also become part of the list of films you like in medium format.</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Michael,<br>

Thanks for that. Yes, I come from PanF and would like to continue with it, but I want to make sure that this is not a waste of the larger format potential. Great to have everyone's experience and input.</p>

[gateway]

<p>Brian made a very good point, let the aperture dictate.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I use Fuji Acros, Neopan, and T-max 400. All are incredibly sharp and grainless, especially with the right development.<br>

T-max 400 in particular is so sharp and grainless, it actually looks.........<br>

can't believe I'm saying this........<br>

digital.<br>

For me it comes down to how much depth of field I think I'm going to need for a particular subject and the amount of light.<br>

For color negative, I've had good success with Portra 160 vc. For scanning, I get better color than with the equivalent Fuji. </p>

[xxloverxx]

<p>Try a roll of every film you liked in 35mm. Then try other films. After that, make a decision.</p>

<p>Also, you don't have to shoot the same film all the time. Get multiple backs, load with 100, 400, colour, B&W, whatever; change as you want.</p>

<p>…the one thing I've always envied about medium format SLRs…</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>For me, the advantage of higher ISO's goes to dSLRs these days.<br>

645 still rules for resolution and absence of grain with slow speed slide films like Astia 100F and the new generation of grainless neg films like Ektar and Pro 160s.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>Tony<br>

In general, I use ISO 100 speed film (or slower). The reason is exposure control. ISO 100 film gives me more exposure flexibility in daylight exposures than ISO 400 film. If I use ISO 400 film my full daylight exposure will be f-16 @ 1/500 sec. I can't go faster than 1/500, so I am stuck at that ONE aperture/shutter speed combo...I might as well be shooting a box camera.<br>

If your Bronica uses film backs, load them up with different films. That way you can select the film to use based on the lighting condition and the effect you want. Heck with the price of film gear as low as it is, I would get backs and load them with 50, 100, and 400 speed film. That is what I will be doing, once I get myself in gear and start to shoot again.</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Gary,<br>

The relation between the limited exposure settings on the ETRSi and ISO is the point of my concern. You have answered it. Thank you.</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Gary,<br>

The relation between the limited exposure settings on the ETRSi and ISO is the point of my concern. You have answered it. Thank you.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>You are welcome Tony.<br>

I learned that limitation when I shot for my high school yearbook. The standard film we used was Tri-X, and I ran right into that problem. Never could convince them to also use Plus-X.</p>