Which fast b&w film?

N

nephilim

Established
Local time
10:12 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
59
Hi,

I'm wondering which film I should get for 35mm street stuff at night. The usual suspects are of course Delta 3200, TMax 3200 and Neopan 1600. But then I could also push Tri-X or HP5+ to 3200. Usually I develop in Rodinal bt get Microphen a few days ago (no experience so far). I also never used the above mentioned films, except Tri-X.

Which one would you recommend for shooting at 3200 or 6400 with pleasant grain?

Cheers,
Torsten
 
Whats more important to you, shadow detail or fine grain?

If the former, T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200. If the latter, Tri-X, HP5+, or T-Max 400.
 
Personally, I always thought Neopan 1600 looks really pushed, i.e. very little shadow detail. It doesn't seem to give much more than a lot of 400 speed films. But I've never done any serious testing in that respect, so it's just my feeling. But it's not my favorite looking film. Which is kind of a moot point now since it's been discontinued.

Regardless, the Kodak and Ilford should give you more in the shadows. It's said that the Ilford is a bit faster, but I'm sure with all the variations in developers, tastes, and techniques, it could go either way. Best to compare both side to side and find out first hand. In *my* testing, T-Max 3200 gave a bit more than a stop (1 1/3, 1 1/2?) of extra shadow tones over Tri-X and T-Max 400. So I'd estimate it around ISO 800-1000, for me, more or less agreeing with Kodak's data. Of course you can push it faster. At 1600-2000 it should make about the same amount of shadow detail as Tri-X does at 800ish. And so on. I think 1600 is the sweet spot for T-Max 3200.
 
Echoing what Tim said, somehow Neopan at 1600 looks like Tri-X at 1600. Rather lacking in shadow detail.

I've used Delta 3200 but only briefly. I would say rate Delta at 1600 if you use it - 1600 or 2000, but develop as per instructions on the box.
 
T-Max 400 or 3200, depending on how dark it is. Develop in T-Max developer. Be happy and forget about all other films and developers. Until you discover BW400CN, of course, but that's C41.
 
Last edited:
Tompas said:
T-Max 400 or 3200, depending on how dark it is. Develop in T-Max developer. Be happy and forget about all other films and developers. Until you discover BW400CN, of course, but that's C41.
Click to expand...

Or Delta 3200 in DD-X, which is 1/3 to 1/3 stop faster than TMZ in T-Max. Yes, it's grainier. But it's also sharper and (in my opinion, and I'm not alone) tonally superior.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last spring I tested out TMAX 3200, Delta 3200, and TMAX 400 and Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600. I've been happiest with the results I've gotten from TMAX 3200 in DD-X. Though it needs to be agitated every 30 seconds for the best results.
 
Tompas said:
T-Max 400 or 3200, depending on how dark it is. Develop in T-Max developer. Be happy and forget about all other films and developers. Until you discover BW400CN, of course, but that's C41.
Click to expand...
Both kodak CN400 and Fuji CN400 Neopan are getting more and more my Fav's! Just drop them and pick them up an hour later with CD!
Now isn't that wonderful?!
 
It's worth noting that Fuji recently discontinued Neopan 1600.

What sort of 'street' photos do you want to take?

If you want to hand hold, Delta 3200 or TMZ are great. I prefer TMZ in TMax developer, but Roger's photos on Delta 3200 look great. I just can't get it to work like that. I don't know why.

If you're using a tripod and it is VERY dark, Fuji Acros can be faster than the 400 or 3200 speed films because of its lack of need for correction for reciprocity failure.

Marty
 
Now that the different opinions have started to roll in, I would suggest you either a) choose one at random and don't look back or even better b) choose the top 2 or 3 and try them all on the same scene for yourself. See what works best for YOUR techniques and YOUR tastes.
 
What's at least as important as the film you choose is the developer.

Microphen will work well, but I'd look at TMax or DD-X developers...great for increasing speed and pushing film.
 
I've never tried it at 3200, but TriX does a nice job at 1600 in Diafine, D-23, or Xtol. Kodak gives times for D-76 and Xtol for TriX at 3200. If you can lay your hands on either Xtol or D-76, buy a roll and give it a try. I like TriX because I can have one film and shoot it at different ISOs.
 
Freakscene said:
If you want to hand hold, Delta 3200 or TMZ are great. I prefer TMZ in TMax developer, but Roger's photos on Delta 3200 look great. I just can't get it to work like that. I don't know why.
Click to expand...

Dear Marty,

Thanks for the kind words, but at Ilford they talk about 'the science of colour, the alchemy of black and white'.

Some films just 'work' for some people, where another, similar film 'works' for someone else. FP4 never 'works' for me in 35mm (fine in bigger formats -- now THAT'S weird) but Ed Buziak's FP4 shots are stunning.

This is why I get really annoyed with those who say, "Pick one film and stick with it. You can't go wrong with..." YES YOU CAN. Even an 'idiot-proof' films such as HP5+ or Tri-X have their differences. Try 'em both; stick with the one you like. I prefer HP5+; Frances prefers Tri-X.

I think it's what the old Revivalist preachers used to say: "Ya gotta have FAITH, dearly beloved!"

Cheers,

R.
 
Now I've seen that alchemy stuff somewhere on your website, Roger. And I do agree with you. Somehow as much of a science we make out of choosing films and developers, sometimes it's really down to a personal feel for the film or soup.
 
First, many thanks for sharing your thoughts! I guess, I'll go for two new (to me) films: HP5+ and Delta 3200 together with DD-X. To answer Marty's question, I want to use it for hand-held shots.

A final question: what is the difference between Microphen and DD-X. My impression was that Microphen is mainly used for pushing. Now I hear, that DD-X does a similar job.

Cheers,
Torsten
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Torsten,

DD-X is about as close as you can get to 'liquid Microphen'.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

It might be as close as you can get but that isn't very close.

Microphen generates a lot more grain but if you really need maximum speed then it will give you 3200 with normal contrast.
DD-X only works well upto around 1250 speed. After that you need to use extended development times to get normal contrast whereas microphen will give 3200 speed using 1+4 for 9 minutes @ 20degC.
So decision is about grain verses speed. If you want grain controlled then 1600 is about max speed with DD-X.
If you want maximum speed then start at 3200 with microphen but be prepared for very obvious grain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom