Austerby
Well-known
Am I missing something? (not for the first time)
I'm really enjoying using the slower ISO films - PANF+, Acros 100, Adox CHS 25 and CHS 50 and CMS 20 - with my Leica and Zeiss lenses. There's something about the quality of the image, the use of fast apertures and, when there's little light, longer exposures.
Yet all the talk is about the performance of certain cameras at really high ISOs, or the prevalence of Tri-X, or pushing films.
What's it all about? One aim of rangefinder photography for me is the ability to use these precious, temperamental, difficult, slow films with the extraordinary lenses available to capture images with a specific quality.
If I can shoot at 640ISO and get great results as a matter of course, some of the skill in the process, the art of the master, the attainment of a technical ability has been lost.
I know I don't always chime with many of the users of this forum but I'd encourage anyone disappointed with the high noise at high ISO levels to explore the world of slow film, fast lenses and mechanical cameras and see what they can do with them.
I'm really enjoying using the slower ISO films - PANF+, Acros 100, Adox CHS 25 and CHS 50 and CMS 20 - with my Leica and Zeiss lenses. There's something about the quality of the image, the use of fast apertures and, when there's little light, longer exposures.
Yet all the talk is about the performance of certain cameras at really high ISOs, or the prevalence of Tri-X, or pushing films.
What's it all about? One aim of rangefinder photography for me is the ability to use these precious, temperamental, difficult, slow films with the extraordinary lenses available to capture images with a specific quality.
If I can shoot at 640ISO and get great results as a matter of course, some of the skill in the process, the art of the master, the attainment of a technical ability has been lost.
I know I don't always chime with many of the users of this forum but I'd encourage anyone disappointed with the high noise at high ISO levels to explore the world of slow film, fast lenses and mechanical cameras and see what they can do with them.
steelydam
Established
I sometimes shoot Efke 25 in medium format and really dig the smooth look but not the curling and soft emulsion. This week I've been contemplating buying some Adox or Efke in 25 or 50 speed for my 35mm film cameras. You may have just pushed me over the edge.
redisburning
Well-known
there's a time and a place for everything, I suppose.
Acros is a really beautiful film, regardless of the format you shoot it in.
Acros is a really beautiful film, regardless of the format you shoot it in.
al1966
Feed Your Head
I love using low ASA films; as much as possible I do not want grain/noise and so on. I went through a period of using faster films but the colour film for me always was K25 and I used PanF a lot for a while along with an Agfa 25 (I think) wonderful as I could enlarge much more and the tonality was nice.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I too have made the journey back to low ISO films. I am now considering 100 to be "pretty fast", 200 "fast", etc. I currently have FP4+ and Delta 100 waiting for testing in 4x5, and my new "go to" film for high quality 35mm is Pan F+. I will be giving Efke 25, CHS 20, etc., a go in 35mm as well.
I think what caught my attention was this shot (previously posted on more than one occasion,) made with Pan-F+, Rodinal, Hexanon 40/1.8 @ (I think) f4:
I think what caught my attention was this shot (previously posted on more than one occasion,) made with Pan-F+, Rodinal, Hexanon 40/1.8 @ (I think) f4:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Slow films just make your images look more finished, use at your film speed tonality is better, all you have to do is take a deep breath and support yourself.
Many of use us started with Kodachrome 25 and then finally 64. We knew we had to be careful. I use a lot of slow films and I never push.
Many of use us started with Kodachrome 25 and then finally 64. We knew we had to be careful. I use a lot of slow films and I never push.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
My next step is slow/slowish films in staining developers such as Tanol.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
There are a lot of situations where it simply isn't realistically possible to shoot a 25 or 50 speed film. I use Tmax 100 for bright light, or work where I can use a tripod (Its a better film than any of the slower ones out there now, in my opinion), and Tri-X for general shooting, and Delta 3200 for handheld low light work where I need more depth of field or handholdable shutter speeds.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Chris: There are other situations. I seek them out. Or just find them.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't let technical restraints keep me from photographing. If I see something, I get the image, no matter what equipment or film is needed. For me, the final image is all I care about...technique is a means to an end, nothing more. Subject matter is front and center in my work...for me to pass up photographing something I want the world to remember just to keep to some silly idea that I can only use one film would represent a failure of the highest order. Photography is NOT about gear and technique. It is about having something to say to the world....if it is just about technique, then its not art, and I'd give up and teach history instead.
raid
Dad Photographer
Low ISO films have their advantages. I have used only ISO 50 and 100 films for about twenty years.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
If it's all about image and I agree, then if I can use a film that provides a better renditon through lower ISO I will adjust so I can. I don't hesitate to set up a tripod. I carry one always. I never used to but since then I haven't regretted missed opportunities for long exposures.
FWIW I still shoot Delta 3200 too and probably for similar reasons to yours.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
this is certainly a fine example Dr T
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
Hey,what's the matter with history?? If you see the antiques I shoot with,sometimes history is all I got.I mean really who doesn't like struggling with sticky shutters and searching for yet another light leak??? Heck,sometimes I think taking pictures is just an excuse to play with all this old gear and dream of how it used to be.If you've seen some of my pictures,you'd have to agree!
Regards,Peter
Regards,Peter
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Nothing wrong with History. I'm in my last semester of my MA in History at Indiana University
My own photography is all about history.There's no right or wrong answers here in regard to the selection of particular films. Personal preferences, one's reasons for imaging—and where you live, can all impact on choice. What is right for me, is right for me—but it may not be right for you.
I tend towards medium/slow films personally, Ie. Pan F Plus; Acros; Tmax; FP4 etc. A part of the reason for this comes back to my choice of cameras and, to some extent, format. Most have a top shutter speed of 1/500 (which really means more like 1/400). The slower films simply offer more control over depth of field, because you have a greater choice of shutter speeds (and hence, apertures) before you top out. I like the fine grain, tonality and sharpness they deliver anyway, and I'm not afraid to use my tripod if I can get away with it.
Re: the shutter speeds.
A case in point is an old Voigtländer Bessa I own, circa 1937, which sees a few films a year. It has a maximum shutter speed of 1/150. I'm not likely to load it with Delta 3200, if I want to be able to actually take photos with it in anything approaching daylight. Of course, ND filters can give you more versatility if you want to use them. With larger formats they may be essential for faster films in brighter light, as—in general—medium and large format shutters tend to feature slower maximum speeds than 35mm.
Regards,
Brett
I tend towards medium/slow films personally, Ie. Pan F Plus; Acros; Tmax; FP4 etc. A part of the reason for this comes back to my choice of cameras and, to some extent, format. Most have a top shutter speed of 1/500 (which really means more like 1/400). The slower films simply offer more control over depth of field, because you have a greater choice of shutter speeds (and hence, apertures) before you top out. I like the fine grain, tonality and sharpness they deliver anyway, and I'm not afraid to use my tripod if I can get away with it.
Re: the shutter speeds.
A case in point is an old Voigtländer Bessa I own, circa 1937, which sees a few films a year. It has a maximum shutter speed of 1/150. I'm not likely to load it with Delta 3200, if I want to be able to actually take photos with it in anything approaching daylight. Of course, ND filters can give you more versatility if you want to use them. With larger formats they may be essential for faster films in brighter light, as—in general—medium and large format shutters tend to feature slower maximum speeds than 35mm.
Regards,
Brett
To try to answer the question you actually asked, well, my take on it is that this site is the Rangefinder Forum. Although it's a very tolerant place, and features discussion of many types of cameras, not surprisingly, it is still focussed on rangefinder cameras to a large extent. Rangefinders have traditionally excelled at street and candid photography, hand held, in a range of light conditions. By and large, this means they tend to be loaded with faster films, which may or may not also be pushed. I can't say I've ever perceived any bias against slower films—the sheer diversity of members here, as well as their places of residence, means we probably have just about every natural lighting scenario in the world covered (well, except perhaps Antarctic conditions). So faster films just come with the territory—but slower films certainly have their adherents too.
Regards,
Brett
redisburning
Well-known
my grandfather used the OM-2sp I currently use when he flew antarctic missions in the Navy, he should be visiting soon, I will try to get him to bring some slides. I suspect they are 25 iso Kodachromes.
haempe
Well-known
Using slow film may have a technical and a "philosophical" component, if one see it as challenge.
Sometimes the harder way across the terrain is nicer and more entertaining than traipse the plastered street.
It feels good to have the same slow films loaded into a '32 Leica as the guy who owned it first, ok not the same films, they may be improved, but to generate similar circumstances for the act to take the photo.
Some kind of re-enacting early photography to get a better insight and understanding.
There are days, the results are not really interesting for me, just the activity.
ymmv, as always (and as you already explained).
DominikDUK
Well-known
On sunny days I personaly prefer low ISO Films like EFKE 50 I can stop down to f16 if I have to and can still get sharp pictures (1/60th) but I admit that I always take a 400 ISO film with me for those interior shots or shots in the shade. I also agree with Chris Crawfords sentiment "I don't let technical restraints keep me from photographing" and in bright sunlight a 400 iso film is just as restricting as low Iso film in the dark.
Domink
Domink