Advice in high iso film

[Rhodes]

I have mainly medium to low iso films. My bulks are APX 100 and FP4+ and from times to times, I have some dinners parties or other low lights social events that I would like to photograph.
I am thinking of getting a few rolls to have store for those ocasions. I'm thinking of going neopan 1600 or ilford 3200, but wanted to ask for advice here.

 

[photo4ls]

A lot of the members here seem to
favor the Fuji 1600 quite often. I'm sure
some other members can wade in on
this topic also. The thing that I liked was
less grain than the 3200.
Nelson

 

[Tim Gray]

I prefer the look of Delta 3200 or Kodak TMZ 3200 over the Neopan. Most of the Neopan 1600 I've seen shot at 1600 is pretty contrasty. If that's your thing, that's cool, but it just looks too pushed to me.

The Delta and T-MAX high speed films are really about ISO 1000-1200. Neopan 1600 is about 640 depending on who you ask. I'd rather just shoot Tri-X for that speed. When I need faster, I need faster. TMZ looks great at 1600, and is pretty useable at 3200. Delta is about the same.

 

[ilia]

I do like neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 in ilfotec ddx
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/musitian.jpg

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'd choose Delta 3200, my recent test of Neopan showed it was too contrasty and didn't carry the shadow detail at EI-1600 that Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 do at 1600.

 

[Mablo]

Tri-X, HP5+ or Neopan 400 are all quite usable at EI 1600. Shadow details start to fade away and you get some contrast but still less grainy IMO than Neopan 1600 or Tmax 3200@1600.

 

[thegman]

I've used Superia 1600, and just bought some Natura 1600 (may or may not be the same thing) and I like the results. If you want B&W, then a simple conversion might be good enough for you. I like Superia 1600, much better results than my Sigma DP-1 at ISO 800.

 

[GoneSavage]

Neopan at 1600 is pretty contrasty... HOWEVER, I managed to remedy this problem by scanning it as a colour film. Not sure why this worked so well (on a coolscan 5000), but it brought a ton of depth back into negatives I had assumed to be overexposed. Grain is incredibly fine:

I've shot four or five rolls of Ilford 3200, and have found it to be far too grainy in situations where a 3200 speed film would be necessary. Looks good in daylight though!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Some people around push 400 film instead of going to grainier ones.

You can test the same image both ways to compare... It all depends on the look you want: how much contrast, how much grain, and if you're really printing or just scanning and doing the color paper thing from files.

Personally, I prefer silver printing and pushing 400 film. But sometimes, for certain subjects, I like the huge grain of Delta3200, with nice tonality in DDX.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Rhodes]

Much contrast or grain is no problem to me! I am just scanning know! I also have to get ilford DDX! Possibly I will also see the price issue, what is cheaper around here and with what I have read here buy 2 or 3 rolls! Next dinner party is of my girlfriend, so the photos must came out fine or else......

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Much contrast or grain is no problem to me! I am just scanning know! I also have to get ilford DDX! Possibly I will also see the price issue, what is cheaper around here and with what I have read here buy 2 or 3 rolls! Next dinner party is of my girlfriend, so the photos must came out fine or else......

You might know it: precisely when scanning, contrast can be a problem, as scans show lost highlights detail easier than wet prints...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Rhodes]

You might know it: precisely when scanning, contrast can be a problem, as scans show lost highlights detail easier than wet prints...

Cheers,

Juan

Ideed! The prices here are 5.60€ for the T-Max, 6.20 fo fuji and 8.70 for Delta 3200. I think I go for T-MAX!

 

[not_in_good_order]

I shot back to back rolls of neopan 1600 exposed at 1600 and tri x pushed to 1600 and thought that the tri x came out with better shadow detail.

 

[Rhodes]

I just a question about the developer for this kind of situation and others. I was thinking of buying Ilford DDX. or should I go for the kodak h-110? Or finaly go to a powder one as D-76?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't use any of them that frequently... 95% of my rolls are normally developed or pushed with Rodinal, and just some TMax400 pushed with TMax developer. I use DDX for Delta3200 only.

TMax400 is fine for me with Rodinal at 200, 400, and 800. Above that, TMax developer gives more from TMax400...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax Developer or DDX. Tmax Dev. was designed for pushing the high speed films and in my opinion gives the best results. Ilford DDX is said to be similar but I have not tried it. D76 sucks for these films, too grainy and poor shadow detail. Xtol is ok, but i like the tonality with Tmax Developer a little better.

 

[filmfan]

Shoot Tri-X @800 - 1600 and develop in Diafine or XTOL. The Ilford 3200 is nice too @1600 developed at 3200 time.
The Tri-X pushed is better than a lot of other options if developed in the right developers. I have pushed Tri-X to 3200 and it looks similar to Fuji Neopan at 800 (in my experience).

 

[Rhodes]

I see, thank you! I prefer liquid developers!
Yes Juan, I now only have rodinal! Trying to get a good solution for agfa copex film that I got!

 

[Tim Gray]

I would use DD-X, T-MAX, or XTOL for a dev. Or any other speed enhancing developer. DD-X and T-MAX are liquid.

 

[Gregoryniss]

neopan 400 @ 1600 in DD-X has given me great results. not too contrasty, but still enough contrast (for me, that is)