Recommend me a High Speed B&W film

[ian_greant]

River, <p>

Through bitter experience I've learned that under pressure it is easier to shoot with one film, one ISO and to only adjust your exposure to match conditions. In the heat of the moment it is really easy to forget to set your ISO correctly when changing films. Much easier to set once and forget it until the shoot is done :)<p>

I didn't have time to read through all the other recommendations so my apologies if I repeat anything. <p>

I've had good experiences pushing XP2 to 800. Typically indoors with brighter lights and a 1.7 lens I get hand holdable speeds. Personally for low light I usually push Tri-x to 3200 or HP5 to 1600. You can check my portfolio for the results. I've had reasonable results with Delta 3200 but actually get less grain from Tri-X or HP5. <p>

All the best for you and your wife.

[lex_jenkins]

Here's a pretty typical example of Delta 3200. Low contrast, good skin tones, reasonable grain for a high speed film.

 

Taken indoors, kinda dim light, speed set to 1600. I was using my Olympus XA3 for this shot so I don't know the exact exposure but my Minolta Autometer IIIF said 1/30th @ f/4.

 

This is a film scan but I've tweaked it just a wee bit to resemble a print at around Grade 3. Delta 3200 needs a bit of a magenta kick or the prints tend to be flat.<div></div>

[tony_terlecki]

Lots of people here are talking about XP2 but in light of the original question, asking for a high speed film recommendation, I don't think XP2 is that good a choice.

 

It copes wonderfuly well with overexposure - indeed you get far better results rating it at 200 than 400 - but it does not cope well at speeds above 400. Remember too that because this film is processed using standard C41 there is no real ability to push as you would with silver films. Trying to rate this film at 800 will lead to very disappointing results when compared to many other non-chromogenic films.

[tom_musselman]

Hi River. I shoot a lot of indoor scenes with existing light, and I just shot some in hospitals. I found that ISO 400 film was fine, even in waiting rooms, and I was rating it at 320. For what it's worth, I like Delta 400 and find it works great at 800. My faster film is Delta 3200. It is a very forgiving and pushable film. I rate it at either 1600 or 3200 depending on the light, and develop in Microphen. I have even rated it at 12,500 with good results, but I wouldn't trust any lab with it at that speed, only the lab in my home!

 

I used to shoot a lot of XP2 Super. I really like that film for its mid tone separation, but I had trouble finding a lab that wouldn't scratch it. Its emulsion is a bit softer than other films when wet. When dry it's fine. You don't really push or pull it since it is always developed for ISO 400. You just expose it the way you want. I find that at ISO 800 it gets a little more contrasty, but still very usable.

 

My advice is to take a roll of each film you are considering, go to the hospital and shoot some frames in the halls. The light there will be very similar to other rooms. Some rooms will be brighter, but probably not darker. I am pretty sure you can use an ISO 400 film rated at 400. You can also talk to the lab. A good pro lab should give you good results, and even use the developer you specify, if you want to go that far.

 

One more bit of advice. If you use faster films, they tend to be less forgiving to under exposure than slower films. Be more diligent about metering.

 

I don't want to post examples, but I would be happy to email some to you if you ask. My best to you and your wife!!

[tim obrien]

Having been there, done that, I can only tell you there is much more important stuff going on in a delivery room than shooting film. At your risk you lose whatevet "That" is. The last thing on my mind was whether I would have pictures of my daughters coming out into the world. The Nikon was there but the pictures came later, hours later.

 

The memories don't rely on Kodak.

 

 

tim in san jose

[dave_martiny]

Lex --

 

I don't mean to digress too much from the original question, but

could you give the time, temperature, dilution and any other

specifics that you used in processing the Delta 3200 negatives

for the picture of the kids that you have posted?

 

I have used a lot of Delta 3200 and have settled on ISO 1600 in

ID-11 for a time that would be equivalent to a one stop push; ie,

the time that Ilford would recommend if I had exposed at ISO

3200.

 

I have never used Diafine but I have heard that it can render

reduced contrast and good tonality, which could be helpful with

some high contrast indoor natural lighting. Thanks!

[lex_jenkins]

Dave, the beauty of Diafine is that time and temperature are pretty much irrelevant. Three to five minutes in each of Part A and B between 70-85°F. That's it, no muss, no fuss, consistent results every time.

 

Delta 3200 is already a low to moderate contrast film so I was concerned that in Diafine the negs would be flat and lifeless. Not so. Best results I've gotten yet from that film.

 

Just remember that a film's effective speed (not true speed) cannot be influenced by development time in Diafine. It's a fixed speed developer - contrast/gamma, characteristic curve, etc., cannot be changed. While I don't have a densitometer (which would be of dubious value with Delta 3200 anyway because the film tends to have a very high base fog) I'd guesstimate the true speed in Diafine to be around EI 1600.

 

Personally I dislike Delta 3200 in ID-11. I got even higher than usual base fog with dull, flat and listless negatives. Shadow detail was surprisingly good even at EI 3200, but the negs were almost unprintably flat. I had to scan them to get reasonable results. I'd use Diafine or Microphen instead.<div></div>

[john_verity1]

FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what film to use or what chemicals

to develop it in or what exposure index to use is that you TRY

OUT your new B&W film, whatever it is, BEFORE the blessed

event. You have one chance to get these photos, and the more

you know about your new film, the better your chances of coming

home with good images.

 

I say this as someone who has messed up royally by borrowing

a friend's flash and not trying it out before an important wedding,

to name just one stupidity I can admit to.

 

You said you were unfamiliar with B&W films, which makes it

even more imperative that you choose a film, shoot a roll in

available light, and get it developed. If possible, repeat this

procedure once or twice more with the same film. By then, you

will be more or less ready to get the photos you want.

 

Good luck!!!!

[river side]

Guys Thanks for all the responses.. sorry i've been away but you do understand :)

 

We were blessed with a baby boy late night Aug 06.. (no available daylight .. hehe)

 

I used the Ilford 3200 rated at 3200. I did not shoot during the actual birth.. but immediately afterwards when the baby was taken for a cleanup and weighing I managed to shoot some decent shots.

 

For the rest of the hospital stay I used the XP2 Super plus my 2.1MP digital P&S.

 

Got the Ilford 3200 developed at a local professional lab (expensive.. cost me around $30 due to push processing). Results were.. hmmm well... ok. This film should be shot at 1600 as the experts had mentioned.. too bad i didn't have the kind of light to do that... delivery room wasn't as bright as i'd expected and i wasn't gonna argue with the doctor to turn up the surgical lights.

 

As for the XP2 Super it came out kinda underexposed.. all of it.. so it definitely needs to be shot at 200 .. once again the photo.net gurus are on the mark when they say the true ISO is around 200. I'd say it'd take even less.. but I didn't try. I did recover the more important pics in Photoshop though.

 

All in all.. I'm glad I shot B&W and i'm glad I shot high speed. I'd do it again.. although the development cost for 3200 is kinda prohibitive. I wonder how the 3200 setting on the D10 behaves... but that's a $1300 question i'm not gonna ask.

 

Many thanks again..

 

Proud Father.