How often do you need more than ISO 400 when travelling?

[fixbones]

Hi people,

Thought i'd seek some advice.

I am going backpacking around Egypt for close to 3 weeks around Nov/Dec.
Will be bringing my MP and ZI - one for color and one for B & W both ISO 400 - and also 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/2. Nice well rounded kit methinks. Light enough too.

However.......

I am torn as to whether i'll need another camera for perhaps B & W pushed to 1600?....... in which case i might bring my Hexar AF.

Any advice/input?

 

[martin s]

ISO 400 in Egypt is a little bit much. Maybe take some slower film for the day, or you'll be shooting f16 quite a lot. Sunny 16 in Egypt is probably closer to Sunny 32.

//EDIT: but yes, why not take some 1600? It's not like it requires any space, - I wouldn't take another camera though.

martin

 

[Merkin]

If you can be careful about marking your rolls, and you like Tri-x, Tri-x developed in diafine should be rated at ISO 1250-1600. That way, if you find yourself in need of some 1600 speed film, you can just mark a roll of trix as 1600, shoot it, and then pick up a diafine kit when you get back.

 

[eleskin]

I was in Egypt, Gaza City, and Israel and I Used ISO 320

I was in Egypt, Gaza City, and Israel and I Used ISO 320

I was in Egypt, Gaza City, Israel, and the West Bank and I used ISO 320 with Delta 400 with my M6 and 35mm Summicron. Prints have great range and are sharp, no problems at all.

Even today, I rarely go over ISO 400 for 80% of my shooting, even with my M8!

As long as you have good lenses with decent speed (f1.4-f2.0) you will be fine, especially with a rangefinder.

 

[david.elliott]

If you can be careful about marking your rolls, and you like Tri-x, Tri-x developed in diafine should be rated at ISO 1250-1600. That way, if you find yourself in need of some 1600 speed film, you can just mark a roll of trix as 1600, shoot it, and then pick up a diafine kit when you get back.

That is exactly what I was going to suggest. Seconded!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally, I'd go for a few rolls of proper fast film, Delta 3200, to be used when you need it -- but not another body.

Of course we managed perfectly well without fast film before TMZ and then Delta 3200. All right, there was Ilford HPS -- S not 5 -- and Kodak Recording Film 2475/2485 -- but hardly anyone ever used either and 2475/2485 had a very limited developer repertoire.

Of course HP5 in DDX has a true ISO of nearly 800, and 1000-1250 is therefore only 1/2 stop push...

Cheers,

R.

 

[like2fiddle]

Along with what others have pointed to, I have found that Tri-x for everything makes life much simpler. I shoot it at 200 (developed in Rodinal or D-23), 320-400 (D-23 or HC-110), or 800 to 1600 (diafine). Mark the rolls, again as others have suggested.

 

[fixbones]

I have been told that Egypt is very sunny and ISO 100 would suffice.
However, i choose ISO 400 to have the slight flexibility of being able to shoot for a few extra hours towards the end of the day and also in places like dimly lit souqs, tombs, museums and stuff.

I am a sucker for grains and ISO 400 gives me the nice balance of visible grain, sharpness and also enlarge-ability (if thats even a word haha).

Diafine sounds interesting. Might do some reading about it. (BTW i hope to develop my FIRST film in a few weeks time!!! - deciding between D76 or Rodinal and now maybe Diafine but i'll leave that discussion for another day =D )

Not really considering bringing ISO1600/3200 fims because of X-rays plus its probably easier just pushing trix

 

[Roger Hicks]

Diafine tends to be 'love it or hate it', though there is also a small middle ground (in which I find myself) of 'Can't see the point'. The 1250 or 1600 speed is not, of course, a true ISO speed, meeting ISO conditions of speed and contrast, but an EI.

For carry-on (NOT checked) X-rays aren't worth worrying about -- I deliberately put Delta 3200 through 5 passes on one trip -- and although I've tried the same film/multiple EI trick, I've never found the results as good as different films. It can also be quite difficult to mark 'em when you're in a hurry, so a lot depends on how much you shoot and how you shoot. I'm not counselling against the practice, just saying that it is by no means the panacaea it might seem.

I completely agree about standardizing on ISO 400 for daylight shooting rather than also taking 100/125 for bright sun, because of the far greater flexibility.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Merkin]

I find marking rolls much easier if you go ahead and put a piece of masking tape on each canister before you go, and just keep a sharpie marker in your pocket or bag at all times. Also, mark the film before you put it in, not after you take it out.

Another advantage to taking 400 speed black and white film is that you can always use colored filters, which would, depending on strength, knock off a couple of stops of exposure. A deep red filter might be nice, as well as a yellow for shooting people, and a blue, which, to me, makes everything except for people look a lot more interesting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find marking rolls much easier if you go ahead and put a piece of masking tape on each canister before you go, and just keep a sharpie marker in your pocket or bag at all times. Also, mark the film before you put it in, not after you take it out.

Another advantage to taking 400 speed black and white film is that you can always use colored filters, which would, depending on strength, knock off a couple of stops of exposure. A deep red filter might be nice, as well as a yellow for shooting people, and a blue, which, to me, makes everything except for people look a lot more interesting.

I completely agree with the second para, but not the first. I regard marking the canister, not the film, as REALLY dangerous. When I reload, I take the film out of the camera and put it in the newly vacated canister, purely in the interests of speed. Not until that evening (or maybe, until I get home) are the films necessarily in their appropriate canisters.

It's also happened more than once that I've been shooting in the evening; hit a lull; reloaded; and then not shot again until the next day, at which point (say) 320 may be more use than (say) 1000.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Merkin]

I completely agree with the second para, but not the first. I regard marking the canister, not the film, as REALLY dangerous. When I reload, I take the film out of the camera and put it in the newly vacated canister, purely in the interests of speed. Not until that evening (or maybe, until I get home) are the films necessarily in their appropriate canisters.

It's also happened more than once that I've been shooting in the evening; hit a lull; reloaded; and then not shot again until the next day, at which point (say) 320 may be more use than (say) 1000.

Cheers,

R.

Allow me to clarify- by canister, i meant the metal casing around the film itself, not the plastic container the roll comes in. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[alexz]

I realize Tri-X can be rated to the both sides: 200 should produce excellent results in about half stop pull development while going as high as 1600 will allow lower light work albeit probably you're going to pay by exaggerated contrast in development.
If you're talking about color - out of 100% of rolls I'd probably reserve 70% for ISO 200, 25% for 400 and the rest 5% for 800 (while the latter can be pushed to 1600 quite safely if necessary)

 

[Al Kaplan]

I remember Ilford HPS, Agfa Isopan Record, and Kodak 2475 and 2485. The Kodak films were on an ultra thin polyester base and you could cram 72 exposures into a cassette. In fact Ilford briefly offered 72 exposure rolls of HP4 and Nikor made stainless steel reels for it. Trying to load that much thin base film on a reel was a true excersize in dexterity!

To say that Diafine can give you 2400 with Tri-X is wishful thinking. When Diafine first hit the market that was the claim, but 1600 was more realistic and 1200 seemed optimum. Even the manufacturer lowered the suggested speed after as couple of years. Your end target was getting a print to the news editor as rapidly as possible, not a salon print, and in the sixties printing on grade three paper was considered normal by a lot of photojournalits so Diafine's lower contrast negatives weren't a problem. It gave you nice fine grain but seemed optimized for Kodak films. You didn't get as much speed boost with other brands.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Allow me to clarify- by canister, i meant the metal casing around the film itself, not the plastic container the roll comes in. I apologize for the confusion.

Ah, sorry. But if I misunderstood, someone else probably did, too, so it's as well the misunderstanding is removed.

Every now and then, Frances will ask me a question I can't answer because I can't recognize it: she'll use a word which is perfectly correct, but which it would never occur to me to use to describe the object/subject under discussion. A couple of days ago, she doubled it by adding an adjective which was, once again, perfectly appropriate, but which it would never have occurred to me to use. I forget what the example was, but we were both mightily confused.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Merkin]

Ah, sorry. But if I misunderstood, someone else probably did, too, so it's as well the misunderstanding is removed.

Every now and then, Frances will ask me a question I can't answer because I can't recognize it: she'll use a word which is perfectly correct, but which it would never occur to me to use to describe the object/subject under discussion. A couple of days ago, she doubled it by adding an adjective which was, once again, perfectly appropriate, but which it would never have occurred to me to use. I forget what the example was, but we were both mightily confused.

Cheers,

R.

It is quite all right, I didn't even think of film canister in that sense, although in retrospect, it is certainly more correct. I always throw away my canisters as soon as I get them and put my film in ziploc bags, because you can carry close to twice as many rolls in the same amount of space, so they didnt even enter in to my thinking. (BTW, I realize that my film is safer inside of individual plastic canisters than it is loose in a ziploc bag, but I have never had a problem with taking my film out of the canister except for a couple of bent leaders that have never really caused problems loading.)

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think standardizing, as much as possible, on one film speed is a very good idea in order to avoid mix ups. If you are lucky enough to have all your lenses taking the same filter size, you could always carry a 1 or 2 stop ND filter to be able to better choose what f stops you want to use in bright light. A few rolls of very fast film is a good insurance policy as you can very quickly run out of good light indoors and the lenses mentioned in your post are not very fast. I am commenting on colour film not B&W having no experience with it.

Bob

 

[rpsawin]

Hi people,

Thought i'd seek some advice.

I am going backpacking around Egypt for close to 3 weeks around Nov/Dec.
Will be bringing my MP and ZI - one for color and one for B & W both ISO 400 - and also 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/2. Nice well rounded kit methinks. Light enough too.

However.......

I am torn as to whether i'll need another camera for perhaps B & W pushed to 1600?....... in which case i might bring my Hexar AF.

Any advice/input?

400 maybe too much. I went on a week long shoot in New Orleans a few years ago and took mostly 400 iso film ( I'm from Seattle...what do I know about intense light levels) and wished I would have taken some 50,100 &160 and just a few rolls of 400.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[35mmdelux]

400 B&W can be bumped to 3200 if needed.

 

[urban_alchemist]

As someone who lives in Tel-Aviv (although I've been relocated temporarily to horrible, horrible, horrible Geneva) - if you're taking two cameras to the middle east, make a day/night distinction. The light is VERY bright (even in winter) - I don't shoot more than 160ISO during the day unless I'm happy with endless dof - and even then, I make sure it's NOT contrasty film. Tends to be: Fuji 160S/Kodak Portra 160NC if colour or Delta 100 for b+w.

For night, well, your choices are open (darkness is darkness anywhere in the world!) - Neopan 1600 and a fast lense should do you well...