I'm not sure I understand using ISO 400 during the day.

I live in the West of the UK. Light levels tend to be low most of the year. Digitally, without IBIS, I want to shoot 250 shutter speed and I find an ISO of 400 is a good all purpose value to input on my camera.
Going back to film, I shot mostly 400 Tri-X when I traveled a lot. I would rarely shoot a whole 36 roll in a day (daytime). In fact I usually pushed one stop to ISO 800 and was able to comfortably shoot daytime, even on sunny days AND in the evenings in doors.
Whenever I've shot ISO100 film I've often been juggling slow shutter speeds and shallow depth of field.
 
F16 is only for full sun at shadowless plage :)

Install exposure meter which allows to see the image, exposure change depending where you click on the scene.
You will be surprised how 400 meets barely minimum under real daylight situations, not some theoretical chart.

We were fishing for last two days and I left camera on iso 800, no overexposures, sun was up and hot.

53014312880_bb8fd54c5f.jpg

ISO800
f 6.3
1/1600, at f8 it would be 1/1000.
 
Last edited:
Erik van Straten said:
When this shot would have been done on a slower film, I would have had more problems with the light parts in the background. Now I could print them with a very light grey tone instead of with pure white. This works less flat IMO. Tmax400 in Perceptol. Paper: Ilford MGFB classic glossy.

gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica mp

C.v.R, 2023

Erik.

View attachment 4823407
Click to expand...
Erik, I wouldn't choose ISO 100 for indoor photos either. Here's one with my (new) Mamiya 6, shooting from a covered balcony. Ilford FP4+... f4 @ 1/60th. The Mamiya lenses are very sharp, maybe sharper than i'd like for portraits..... almost wide open takes the edge off. Of course there are no constraints on personal choice, but as with everything, all choices inevitably have some element of compromise. You all have shelves of cameras and lenses....but one film is the answer?? ;)

48817417327_0680052564_z.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For medium format I recall watching a video comparison and found it to share here. Interestingly not so much difference, it is however scan based:

I've just shot Delta and Acros in the 6x9 and it's hard to use the grain focuser. Medium format and not so large prints sometimes it's nicer with ISO 400 as the grain adds a bit of acutance and texture, depending on the subject. Unlike the Mamiya 6 series, I'd say the Fujinon 90mm is a bit softer and ironically the fine grained films seem to lack the crunch. I also tend to print low contrast and should use harder grades more
 
Prest_400 said:
For medium format I recall watching a video comparison and found it to share here. Interestingly not so much difference, it is however scan based:

I've just shot Delta and Acros in the 6x9 and it's hard to use the grain focuser. Medium format and not so large prints sometimes it's nicer with ISO 400 as the grain adds a bit of acutance and texture, depending on the subject. Unlike the Mamiya 6 series, I'd say the Fujinon 90mm is a bit softer and ironically the fine grained films seem to lack the crunch. I also tend to print low contrast and should use harder grades more
Click to expand...

I can certainly see the difference between HP5 and Pan F (both processed in pyro) in a 16"x20."
I find Pan F one of the most difficult films to use as i have problems controlling the contrast. TMax100 or Agfapan 25 ❤️ i find easier to work with.

16x20" print Rolleiflex, Pan F (yellow filter) in pyrocat HD
40673165072_57f9c08ffc_z.jpg
 
I long ago standardized on 400 ASA film (almost always Tri-X) for all formats (35, 6x6 and 4x5) since I usually like more rather than less depth of field. When grain would be a problem I simply shot with bigger film. Almost all of my film work these days is with my vintage Contax RFs handheld, so I appreciate the extra sensitivity for the higher shutter speeds that it allows. It makes it possible to use my 135 and 180 lenses in decent light without a tripod, which I appreciate. I also rate Tri-X at ASA 200 rather than 400 since I like to retain shadow detail.
 
Some of us do it because Ilford's annual odd-format sale only has HP5+ available for 46mm roll-film size! It's great for rerolling into 127 rolls but I'd sure like a 100 speed film since my 1938 baby rolleiflex isn't so hot with the fastest shutter speeds.
 
qqphotos said:
Some of us do it because Ilford's annual odd-format sale only has HP5+ available for 46mm roll-film size! It's great for rerolling into 127 rolls but I'd sure like a 100 speed film since my 1938 baby rolleiflex isn't so hot with the fastest shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
My greatest joy from Ilford odd- format sale was FP4+ in 4"x10" and 5x7"
 
I like shooting 400 speed film (usually rated anywhere between 250-320) because it allows me the flexibility to use indoors and then with/without the use of an ND filter I can shoot at whatever aperture I like outdoors.
 
When I was but a snapster with a Praktica MTL-3, I used compromise 200 ASA color negative film for everything. For the occasional airshow I used a whopping 400 ASA so as to more clearly get the undersides with a reasonable shutter speed.

Now in digital, I shoot mostly with the first Sigma DSLR - the SD9 - which has a max of ISO 400 ... horribly blotchy in the low tones and usually a waste of time even in sunlight. So, the "ISO knob" is super-glued to 100.
 
The use of an ND9 allowed for subject separation at f/2 in slightly shaded summer daylight:
Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

And then, on the same roll, without the filter at 1/15 indoors:
Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Both: Zeiss Ikon ZM, Light Lens Lab 8-Element 35mm f/2, Kodak T-Max 400, Xtol 1:1.

400 speed film + ND filters allows for good flexibility. Otherwise, I'd have to carry two cameras (like one with color film and one with black & white...which is a thing I do frequently...lol).
 
Same concept with a much stronger variable ND at f/1 (yes, with slower film...but f/1) against the sun:
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

And without the filter in much lower light than it appears:
Eben by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Basically, ND filters. That's the answer to OP's query, in my opinion.
 
If you photograph in cities you know the light can change drastically and constantly. I can't understand why someone would think ISO 400 cannot be used during the day.
 
Dear Board,

I'll begin by saying that even when shooting B&W film I shoot mostly nature, wildlife, birds, landscapes and scenery. I've struggled with ISO 100 and 200 and shutter speeds that are far too low for handholding for me, especially when I use telephoto lenses most often. On a bright blue-bird sky day those film speeds are fine, but the perfect days seem pretty rare anymore. Most of my 35mm SLR's have at least 1/2000th as the minimum shutter speed, and the Nikon F4S and Canon A2E go to 1/8000th.

ISO 400 works great with those cameras. I wish there were more choices for ISO 800. That way I wouldn't have as much need for digital cameras that work well at ISO 6400 or 12800 combined with judicious post processing. At least with the digital cameras I can at least attempt shots that I'd never try with film, even with a tripod and remote shutter release. How people shot wildlife 30 or 40 years ago is beyond me. ;)

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA :)
 
Tri-X works so well for everything. Shooting older meterless cameras without a handheld meter relies on films like Tri-X. I once shot part of a roll thinking I had Rollei Retro 100 in the camera. All shots rescued. Your tables would work for slide film, but for colour negative and Tri-X another stop of exposure could be routine. The ingenious Konica Hexar has a maximum shutter speed of 1/250s. No limitation at 400 ISO at all. But if you want to shoot wide open at f2, or with Leica’s Summiluxes, ISO 100 film should be standard.

I use Kodak Ektar 100 all the time. That hates underexposure, and is much less tolerant of overexposure but one stop over Sunny 16 on an Australian beach is still ideal for the skin tones. Fuji Superia 200 was a staple for me 15 years ago. That could happily take two stops over Sunny 16. And it was much more tolerant of a stop or more of underexoosure too. These faster films offer more than just higher ISO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom