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

Slumgullion said:
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.
Click to expand...
I also like the flexibility 400 for indoor and outdoor light. Stronger ND filters would probably work better for rangefinders than SLRs since you're not focusing through the lens, so my solution is to use a shutter speed ND, aka 1/4000 on my Nikon FM2n. :cool:
 
Even on bright sunny days, a lot of my photos are taken in the shade. And the shade between buildings for me often meters 4-5 stops down from sunlight, and often much darker in the woods. I often have to use something like 1/60 at f/5.6 or wider even with ISO 400. ISO 100 film would not permit me stopping down enough for the DoF I want, hand-held. Even for a scene largely in direct sun, but with important shadows, such as faces contre jour, the wiggle room ISO 400 gives can be very welcome when I want large DoF. Now bring filters into the game...
 
Deardorff38 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I found Rodinal and an old uncoated lens helps. This was shot with a Summar:

Leotax-Roll9-PanF.jpg

The light was incredibly harsh but I love the way Pan F+ and the Summar rendered it. It printed incredibly well, too. I just picked up a couple more rolls and an Amedeo adapter, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with an uncoated 50/1.5 CZJ Sonnar.
 
Back in my film days I found Tri-X and HP5 both had superb tonality and decent grain when developed using the old Bill Pierce recipe of Rodinal with sodium sulfite. Contrast was also well controlled allowing excellent results under various light conditions. Today I strive to try and emulate the look I got from this film/developer combination using digital. I think I come pretty close but it's not perfect. What is? To my old eyes, nothing looks better than a Tri-X or HP5 photo with just the right combination of tone, grain and contrast.
 
AlexMogens said:
If film tends to live in your camera for days or weeks at a time, 400 is more versatile than 100.
Click to expand...

Deardorff38 said:
If film lives in your camera for days or weeks....it doesn't matter
Click to expand...
Why?

What I think Alex is saying (Alex, correct me if I’m wrong), is that if someone is not going to use the film immediately, that it may take days or weeks, then there will likely be a wider variety of subjects that will be photographed, under a wider variety of lighting conditions, and therefore a 400 speed film might offer more flexibility.

Or are you saying that leaving film in the camera for days or weeks somehow indicates choice of film (speed) doesn’t matter or whatever photo gets made doesn’t matter? Or something else?

I will plead guilty that I’m one of those rare individuals who, on at least one occasion, has left film in a camera for over several weeks.
 
Pál_K said:
Why?

What I think Alex is saying (Alex, correct me if I’m wrong), is that if someone is not going to use the film immediately, that it may take days or weeks, then there will likely be a wider variety of subjects that will be photographed, under a wider variety of lighting conditions, and therefore a 400 speed film might offer more flexibility.

Or are you saying that leaving film in the camera for days or weeks somehow indicates choice of film (speed) doesn’t matter or whatever photo gets made doesn’t matter? Or something else?

I will plead guilty that I’m one of those rare individuals who, on at least one occasion, has left film in a camera for over several weeks.
Click to expand...
I'm just suggesting there's no direct causality between leaving film in a camera and necessarily needing for 400 speed film the next time you go to take a photo.
 
I never have the wrong film in my camera since I have only shot iso 400 b&w film for about 30 years. I have just learned to use it everywhere.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I never have the wrong film in my camera since I have only shot iso 400 b&w film for about 30 years. I have just learned to use it everywhere.
Click to expand...

Bob, for some of us it's not a case of "learning to use it everywhere" but of choosing the film (or format) that produces the results we want.
 
Deardorff38 said:
Bob, for some of us it's not a case of "learning to use it everywhere" but of choosing the film (or format) that produces the results we want.
Click to expand...
We all have differing definitions of success or "produces the results we want". That is why this is so interesting to each of us in differentiating way. Many of us have figured out what works for each of us. For me, it is reducing variables to be best open to unique opportunities. Back in the '70's and '80's I went through the phase of carrying two bodies, one loaded with color and one with b&w, plus one film for daylight and one for when the light was decreasing. I concluded that didn't work for me. Certainly others differ.

I just returned from photographing for a week in Havana. All 120 iso 400 film, all at f8 and all 1/90th of a second. (Holga) This initial test will be be interesting to see if I decide to move forward doing that on another trip to Cuba.
 
Bob Michaels said:
We all have differing definitions of success or "produces the results we want". That is why this is so interesting to each of us in differentiating way. Many of us have figured out what works for each of us. For me, it is reducing variables to be best open to unique opportunities. Certainly others differ.

I just returned from photographing for a week in Havana. All 120 iso 400 film, all at f8 and all 1/90th of a second. (Holga) This initial test will be be interesting to see if I decide to move forward doing that on another trip to Cuba.
Click to expand...
True Bob. In my case i reduce the camera and lens baggage, but choose "slow, medium, or fast" films depending on. the size of the darkroom prints i'm making and how i want them to look.
 
Dogman said:
Yes but for some of us ISO 400 produces the results we want everywhere, all the time. 😁
Click to expand...
& for others, the opposite is true. As always it's a choice.... "my way or the highway" or "different strokes for different folks"....
 
Deardorff38 said:
I'm just suggesting there's no direct causality between leaving film in a camera and necessarily needing for 400 speed film the next time you go to take a photo.
Click to expand...
I’m just saying its easier to work with iso 400 in broad day light than 100 iso a week later in a bar. Do you guys really shoot entire rolls every time you pick up your camera?
 
AlexMogens said:
I’m just saying its easier to work with iso 400 in broad day light than 100 iso a week later in a bar. Do you guys really shoot entire rolls every time you pick up your camera?
Click to expand...
I don't always finish a roll for 35 (but prefer the # of images on 120). I have shot in a bar with 100 iso film.... a Summilux, Noctilux....if you have one. I've also shot with a Mamiya 7 with Delta 3200.... Many ways to skin that proverbial cat.
I also don't always want to shoot at f8/ f11......or have grainy big enlargements

48784910603_ab71dfbf71_z.jpg
M4, 35mm f1.4 / ISO 100IMG_3469.jpgLeica M6 Noctilux 50mm iso 100.... your proverbial bar photo....long neck beer bottle for tripod. As a matter of fact i had just come in from shooting a rodeo in bright sunlight..... but i didn't want the background in focus at small apertures so i chose iso 100.

42888338931_be3aa6fb44.jpg
Shaded north light, Rolleiflex Ilford FP4+
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First, I have no problems with those who insist on using any particular film or variety of different films. But, I always remember that one of my favorite photo series is "Havana, el momento revolucionario" by Magnum photographer Burt Glinn. He was at a New Year's Eve party in NYC on 31 December 1960 when he heard that dictator Fulgencio Batista had fled Cuba and the Castro led revolution had succeeded. He left the party arriving in Havana on 1 January 1961 and filmed the week of major change and Castro finally arriving in Havana on 6 January.

I have seen many of his proof sheets. He shot all his photos on whatever film he could find in local stores as he went along. No consistency at all, just a mix of differing film speeds and brands. None of this obvious when you view the book of his photos.
 
Good point Bob. And many of us had to do this years ago on holidays when the notion of taking your film with you was a thing for pros only, especially advertising pros. Elliott Erwitt and his wife had a very bumpy stormy plane ride on a big assignment. She was petrified. He was just cross with himself for not sending the film ahead on a different flight.

We’ve got fussy with film choice as we have now the need to plan ahead, even us amateurs, and have the luxury of some choice; and because, unlike professionals, we don’t have to solve problems on deadlines and everything else, and we’re probably not as capable. We reduce our risks. Many here could pull off a similar feat to Burt Glinn. But he had to.
 
I just have the one bulk loader at the moment, so choosing what to put into it is a big deal. On the whole I'm glad I chose 400. It's more versatile (I'm mostly using it in cameras that have 1/1000 as a top shutter speed: a Leica IIIc and a Nikon FE) and I'm a guy who likes a lot of depth of field. I did find myself wandering around with an Agfa Isolette loaded with HP5 on a sunny day earlier this summer and THAT was a useless combination (didn't have a yellow filter on hand). 1/200 of a second just doesn't work with 400 speed film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom