New film user needs help

[semrich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just started into using film with the MP and have shot a few rolls of Kodak B&W cn 400 and some Ilford XP2 400. One roll of film I shot with the camera set to ASA 400 and I wasn't impressed with the look. Then on the advise of a photographer I met while getting some prints made and seeing his work, I shot a roll of XP2 400 with the camera set to ASA 200 and had it developed at 400 it looked good.

 

Now I'm continuting to play around with other B&W films I can buy here and intend to shoot a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 in some real low light situations.

 

Can anyone tell me if I would be best off setting the camera to ASA 3200 or set it to 1600 and have it developed at 3200 or from whatever your experience is would you suggest.

[stunsworth]

Hi Richard, I've always found Delta 3200 best shot and processed at 1600, just my personal preference. To be honest I prefer Neopan 1600 - also shot and developed at 1600.

 

For a slower film try Tri-X at 400.

[semrich]

Steve - Thank you for your experienced advise, I know from your posts here the kind of shots you are getting.

 

I'm planning to go back to the Istanbul Cistern where I just took photos with the M8 and the CV Ultra Wide Heliar 12mm and I want to see what results I can get with film.

[Mark Antony]

Personally I don't care for the XP2 type stuff, but if you use it I'd certainly use it at 200ISO.

With that speed you'll get much better shadow detail, which I feel can lack with its nominal 400 rating.

Are you going to process the film yourself? if so conventional B&W would be better and give you more control over the final result. As Steve mentioned Tri-x or Fuji 1600 are good faster films, the ilford Delta is OK but not really a 3200 in my opinion.

A while back I used to love the T-Max 3200 (TMZ) rated at 1600, and used to get very nice results, below is the Kodak 3200 at rated speed:

 

But generally I feel these films need to be down-rated for best results.

 

I test some B&W on my blog if you're interested, though I haven't done the fast films yet

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

[semrich]

Mark - Thanks, at the moment I am not processing the film myself. My first rolls of B&W were for c41 processing and I had them done across the street at a one hour Kodak store. Since then I have found a place for professional processing including B&W. I cargo the film to them and they send me the contact sheets and negatives. I then choose which to scan.

 

I have yet to find any neopan, and will shoot the Ilford 3200 at 1600 as suggested this Thursday and have it developed at1600

[Michael Hiles]

All films have an intrinsic ASA, which may not be what is written on the box. There is a standard test - find out which ASA produces a Zone I on the negative that has a density of about 0.1 above the unexposed film base.

 

In practice, 1) meter a flat grey surface (the camera/meter will assume Zone VI - middle grey). 2) close the lens by 4 stops (or shutter equivalent) - this is Zone I. 3) make exposure. 4) do this at a variety of ASA setting (make notes) Leave a blank frame between each exposure. 5) process and find the negative that has a density of about 0.1 above an unexposed portion. The ASA you used for this exposure is your "personal user" ASA for this film and your equipment. Do the same for all films.Do not presume that if your speed for one film is 60% of the box rate, then that factor will apply to all films - do the test.

 

A good way to determine a density of 01 is to get a Kodak Wratten neutral density filter #96. Match unexposed film plus filter against an exposed Zone I negative (this is why you left a blank between each test exposure). Choose the negative that most closely matches blank film plus filter. By eye, you want the one that produces a significant difference in density above blank film. The objective is to avoid thin negatives with no shadow detail, or ovet thick negatives.

 

The point of all of this is that any part of your real life negatives that fall at 0.1 density or above will produce usable shadow detail - below 0.1 will produce mud in a print. The reason for the test is that every camera/lens is a little different. For XP2 Super your test may produce 400 (unlikely, I think) or 50 (also unlikely). I get 200. I do not know about Delta or your equipment, but the test will tell you for sure.

 

No need to play around - get the facts.

[pemayeux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've obtained the best negatives from Kodak b&w films by rating the film at 1/2 the stated asa and increasing development by 20%. A low contrast developer such as Microdol X can assist in holding the highlights when processed like this.

[budrichard]

Knowing why exposing ASA 400 film at 200 and then processing for 400 yields good results is the key. Just acquiring different films and then exposing them without a knowledge of contrast ratios, how exposure and development affect contrast and shadow detail will not teach you a lot. I suggest some good basic tutorials on B&W film use.-Dick

[rob_x2004]

1/2 the stated asa and increasing development by 20%

Huh? :eek: :eek:

Can you still scan it or are you using it beneath an enlarger? My 5400ii wouldnt handle it.

[telewatt]

Hi Richard, ..... To be honest I prefer Neopan 1600 - also shot and developed at 1600......

.

 

me too...

 

[ATTACH]33989[/ATTACH]

 

 

regards,

Jan

[Angora]

Wonderful shot Telewatt !

[pemayeux]

Huh? :eek: :eek:

Can you still scan it or are you using it beneath an enlarger? My 5400ii wouldnt handle it.

 

Well - typically it's under an enlarger. But I did scan a couple on my 5400ii which I posted here:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/other/19534-night-shot-carnival.html

[semrich]

Thanks to everyone, I sure have enough to consider, I can see why so many people especially beginners are starting with digital. With me it is different, I started a year ago with digital and now want to include film, I actually enjoy shooting with the MP and have managed a few "keepers" your responses will help me to understand the "old style sensor" better. I have bookmarked this thread.

[rob_x2004]

I did scan a couple on my 5400ii

All good. These were pulled two stops and overprocessed twenty percent? Have you any daylight rather than night time examples? What is the advantage of shooting 400 at 100iso instead of 100 at 100iso? Have tried pulling 400 to 200 when things were too bright for my available shutter speed and found it really didnt like it. Underprocessed but negs were still very gutsy with maybe too little contrast and the km didnt handle it well.

Thanks

[pemayeux]

Duh! Rob I read the part where you said "overprocessed", went back to my post saw that I wrote "increase developement". My mistake, that should read decrease. I was thinking increase exposure by derating the film and the word increase,I suppose, stuck in my mind.

 

Anyway back to your question which may be irrelevant now that the scenario is different.

 

I derate the film to place the shadow values well above the toe of the film. I expose for the shadows, placing the area that I want to just barely show detail in zone 3. The highlight I let fall whereever, relying on the underdevelopment and the Microdol X to protect the shoulder. TMax 400 seems to handle this better by derating to 100 as opposed to 200. TMax 100 is best at 50. This is only in my opinion and based on my work habits.

 

Yes, I've got some that are not at night, but they are taken in situations where there is a lot of shadow. Something that when printed would have zones 2-8, which is about as much as I've been able to get out of 35mm film. Also, I have not scanned very much of my black and white work, and what I have tried has taken some work to get it to look right. The two night shots I posted were probably the easiest so far. Tomorrow I'll dig one out that I took in a dilapidated mine in Colorado and try to scan it and post it. Paul.