veryfast 120 films, why no choice?

[bacsa]

Hi. Just a stupid question: Why is there no very fast (black and

white) film in 120 format other than the ilford d3200? Grain being

much less of a concern (versus 35mm), i'd expect lots of different

films, - even with "true 3200 speed". E.g., neopan1600, kodak TMZ,

whatever, where are they? Or, is it a commercial issue, i.e. medium

format photographers use slower films and studio lighting/sturdy

tripods so there's no real need for high speed films?

 

Cheers & have a good light today.

[dale_dickerson2]

I assume it is due to the low demand. I use at most three rolls of film faster than 800. When I do need faster it is mostly color Portra 800 pushed 2 stops. Or the odd roll of Ilford's b+w 3200 one event every few years.

 

I use MF for bigger prints which hold fine detail. When I shoot 35mm, I am less concerned with detail and more low light work. It is rare for me to shoot 35mm film slower than 800 speed.

 

I had not even noticed the speed of the faster films missing in 120, until you pointed it out.

[furcafe]

I've wondered as well, but have always assumed it's because (per Dale's post) of lack of demand, i.e., that it is indeed a "commercial issue." I would *love* to see Neopan 1600 in 120, as it's my favorite super fast B&W film in 35mm, but I also like to shoot 120 in the same manner as I do 35mm (handheld, no tripod)

[stefan_kahlert2]

I suspect that most MF-work is done from a tripod and with very high dmands with respect to picure quality; as a viable and less cumbersome substitute for large format equipment for instance. Therefore, there may be much less demand for fast films in MF than in 35mm where compromises in grain and resolution are more readily accepted.

[silent1]

"If you ask a question that begins with the word 'why' the answer is most likely money." -- Robert A. Heinlein, as Lazarus Long

 

Most likely only Ilford has seen a profitable market for an ultra-high speed film in 120 format. I don't think it's a serious omission, since theirs is arguably the better of the so-called 3200 films, slightly faster (at least in most tests) and with no worse grain than TMZ.

[joey]

It's because most MF work is done with slower color films, mostly weddings and portraits. The number of MF shooters using super-fast 120 films has to be very small, and I doubt Ilford is making much money at all off of Delta 3200 in 120. I do use the occasional roll of 3200 in medium format, but definitely not regularly--and I doubt other photographers do either.

[www.ianleake.com]

I use quite a bit of Ilford Delta 3200 in 120 format. It allows me to hand hold my old Rolleiflex TLR in bad light. I like the grainy results as they seem to suit the age of this camera somehow.

 

It would be nice to have more options, but as the other posters suggest, I don't think there are too many people doing this to make it commercially viable. I just hope that Ilford continues making this film.

[cole_petersburg]

A few years back I tried Delta 3200 in my Lubitel and the results were really grainy. It could have been partly due to poor exposure. It wasn't the tradeoff I was looking for.

 

The neat thing, however, was that I could set my Lubitel to f/64 (there's no mark but the lever just keeps going) and get almost everything in focus in daylight.

[lex_jenkins]

I think film manufacturers misread the market. They assume that most MF photographers shoot from a tripod and want the finest grain possible. Many of us would use faster MF films if more were available. Lacking a choice I resort to push processing for handheld photography when I don't want to use Delta 3200 or don't have any handy.

[gary_ferguson1]

It's a good question, but it's an even better question in the context of Large Format. There's plenty of LF lansdscape photographers saying they want faster speeds to counter wind-blown movement but are limited to ISO 400.

[david_goldfarb]

Part of the reason for the low demand may also be that 35mm is a better tool in general for low light photography, thanks to the availability of fast lenses. One of the reasons I keep a 35mm system at all is for low light.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Part of the reason for the low demand may also be that 35mm is a better tool in general for low light photography, thanks to the availability of fast lenses. One of the reasons I keep a 35mm system at all is for low light."

 

Generally speaking you've got to be right. But there are exceptions. I reckon I'll get better quality results at any given print size by using ISO 800 colour negative film in my Contax 645 with an 80mm f2.0 lens, compared with using ISO 400 colour negative film in my Canon with a 50mm f1.4 lens.

[mark_tanguay]

In light of the fact that this is a forum for experts and experimenters, one should bring to mind the the ways of getting around the slow speed issue by push processing. For example, one can push Tri-X (the new stuff) up to ASA 2000 fairly easily by tinkering with HC110b + 1 equal part water for 30-35 min. with light agitation every 5min. This seems to work fairly well after sufficient experimentation with dev. time; it also gives a smaller grain than Delta 3200.