Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Hello!
Going to the seaside and I want to drop a roll of BW400CN in my Hi-Matic F. What ever bothered me on this camera is that it first slows down before opening the apperture. (It is fully automatic.) So it is almost impossible to get short DOF. This is why I would like to rate the BW400CN at ISO 50 or even 25.
Yes, I could take some real BW film like PanF or the Adox 50 or 25, but I have the BW400CN here in the freezer and it comes handy when I can put the ISO up to let's say 400 or even 800.
I shot the BW400CN at 320 ASA but have no experience with other ISO settings.
How would the film perform at high ASA settings (600-800 but eventually even 1600) and at very low settings (ASA 50-100)? What changes? Contrast, etc.? What about scanability?
I also intend to use a light yellow, a middle yellow and an orange filter.
Greetings,
Eugen
Going to the seaside and I want to drop a roll of BW400CN in my Hi-Matic F. What ever bothered me on this camera is that it first slows down before opening the apperture. (It is fully automatic.) So it is almost impossible to get short DOF. This is why I would like to rate the BW400CN at ISO 50 or even 25.
Yes, I could take some real BW film like PanF or the Adox 50 or 25, but I have the BW400CN here in the freezer and it comes handy when I can put the ISO up to let's say 400 or even 800.
I shot the BW400CN at 320 ASA but have no experience with other ISO settings.
How would the film perform at high ASA settings (600-800 but eventually even 1600) and at very low settings (ASA 50-100)? What changes? Contrast, etc.? What about scanability?
I also intend to use a light yellow, a middle yellow and an orange filter.
Greetings,
Eugen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Lower speed = finer grain and reduced sharpness. With a 2x yellow filter you'll be about 2 stops over at EI 50; should be tolerable, though you'll have dense negs.
It's tolerable at 800 but poor at 1600 in my experience.
Cheers,
R.
It's tolerable at 800 but poor at 1600 in my experience.
Cheers,
R.
mh2000
Well-known
below ISO 200 it gets really muddy looking, so go 200 plus your filters and you are there.
agree with Roger too, the film is just *tolerable* at 800.
agree with Roger too, the film is just *tolerable* at 800.
venchka
Veteran
Orange filter. Vary your ISO between 200-250-320-400. One of those settings will be right. Will you have time to run a roll through a 1 hour lab for feedback?
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Maybe I should put a ND filter on the camera.
What do you mean would give better results? Putting an ND 2x filter in front of the lens and setting 400 ASA or no filter and setting 50 ASA? (Hm.... did I the calculus correctly?)
The idea is to force the automatic of the Hi-Matic F to open the apperture. At some point, at least when it reaches maximum exposure speed (1/650 s) it must begin to open the aperture.
Eugen
What do you mean would give better results? Putting an ND 2x filter in front of the lens and setting 400 ASA or no filter and setting 50 ASA? (Hm.... did I the calculus correctly?)
The idea is to force the automatic of the Hi-Matic F to open the apperture. At some point, at least when it reaches maximum exposure speed (1/650 s) it must begin to open the aperture.
Eugen
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think for what you are after I would set the camera to iso 200 and use a 2x ND filter. Just have it processed as normal at it's rated 400.
Bob
Bob
mackigator
Well-known
Life is short. I'd just shoot slower film and save the BW400CN for another project. I doubt it handles a serious pull very well.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I don't think most people who shoot Kodak BW 400 CN push or pull process it. They just shoot it at a different iso and develop as per normal. I usually rate it at 200 and when using a yellow filter set my hand meter to iso 100. I take the finished roll to my local one hour lab and have then develop it. No need to confuse with push or pull instructions even if they could understand and do it.
Bob
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Well... Kodak states it can be used exposed from 50 to 800 ASA on the same roll without pull from the lab.
But maybe you are right. To be honest the idea came to me out of the thinking to have one camera covering all light situations and more important one that I don't need to take permanently an eye on, one that is little enough I can leave it on the beach when going in the water. I don't want to carry a lot of gear that needs to be watched.
Oh... and slow film is not easy to come by here.
Eugen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Eugen,
'Can be exposed' and 'will give the same results' are very different statements.
If you like the sharpness of the Kodak product, you should find the Ilford product even sharper -- though also slightly grainier and about 1/3 stop faster.
Cheees,
Roger
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Dear Roger,
let's not do hairsplitting. If Kodak states it can be done then I accept this at a certain degree. (At the degree that I am thinking about it and ask people who might tried it themeselves.) They also state it can be made with acceptable results, so nobody is talking about "same results".
Which "Ilford product" do you exactly mean? Their chromogenic film or the PanF?
Eugen
let's not do hairsplitting. If Kodak states it can be done then I accept this at a certain degree. (At the degree that I am thinking about it and ask people who might tried it themeselves.) They also state it can be made with acceptable results, so nobody is talking about "same results".
Which "Ilford product" do you exactly mean? Their chromogenic film or the PanF?
Eugen