Faster film or finer grain with MF?

[robertdfeinman]

I'm not entirely happy with my latest batch of MF pictures. I use a Pentax 67 (yes I know this is supposed to be a RF forum) and have been using 160 speed color negative film for the past few years.

This seemed to be the best compromise between speed and grain for (mostly) hand held shooting. But the recent images seem to suffer a bit from camera shake. Perhaps I'm just getting sloppy.

The newer 400 speed color negative films seem to make bold claims about graininess, so I'm wonder if switching would be a good idea.

At the usual 6-8x enlargements that I make (from scanned negatives) would the increase in grain even be noticeable? I would gain a stop in shutter speed which should cut down on any shake.

The net result might be a "sharper" print.

The alternative would be to be less lazy and use a tripod more often.

I use my 35 RF for street photography, and restrict the MF to landscapes and the like. With digital print making the differences between saturation and color characteristics are easily compensated for, so the other features of color negative film seem less relevant. I can make any film "vivid" or pastel, I can't change the grain.

 

[mfogiel]

I think, your best bet is Reala at 50 ISO, or Portra 160 at 80 ISO and a good tripod with mlu... However, as an alternative, you could try one of the old tricks, like a piece of chain or a string, which you attach to the bottom plate, press the other end down to earth with your foot, and pull while you shoot. Another strategy, which can be combined with the first, is to point and focus the camera, hold your breath, release the mirror and then shoot after a couple of seconds. I do that with the Hasselblad at times, and it works pretty well.
Second best bet, is to try Portra 400 or NPH at 200 ISO, With a slight overexposure the grain gets finer and the shadows gain detail, so the end result is not very far from the slower film.

 

[Thardy]

I read an article in a magazine discussing getting the best out of MF. It said use the camera like it's LF. Tripod, and mirror lock up works best. ISO 400 film in 120 size still looks good.

 

[shadowfox]

I used to have a Bronica-EC, and I have grain-free pictures from Portra 400UC and NC. Frankly, I can't tell the difference when I use 160NC.

NOTE: I rarely use a tripod, I don't remember sharpness being a problem tho'

 

[titrisol]

400 speedfilm should work fine
I'm partial to the Fujis but the Kodaks are also good.

 

[Toby]

I use the P67 extensively - my advice is never to hand hold below 1/250th. I tend to favour 400 ISO black and whiter as I get a decent safety margin hand holding in gloomy weather. You can run out of light shooting on a gloomy day shooting with 100 iso especially if you are using on of the F4 lenses.

 

[oftheherd]

All good advice above. I don't know enough about the Pentax to know, but I wonder if there could be a mechanical problem slipping up on you that needs attention. If you are doing mostly landscapes, it shouldn't be a problem to use a tripod. Even one normally thought of as a 35mm tripod will probably be pretty steady absent some pretty strong winds.

 

[waileong]

I shoot 800 film on my Hassy and it still looks good at 18" x 18".

 

[LeicaM3]

I shoot 800 film on my Hassy and it still looks good at 18" x 18".

I use my Hassy for street with TriX @ 1250 souped in Diafine.
There are some tutorials out there how to photograph at slow speeds, some stuff helps.
Comparing how slow you can hold does not help an individual person, there is just too much interindividual variety. Because of my jobs I have very steady hands (have to) and what helps me might not help you.

Go out, shoot test rolls, challenge yourself, see what works.

 

[pvdhaar]

I almost exclusively used 400 ISO film when I still had my Bronica SQB. I did try some 160 ISO a couple of times, but the image softness due to increased shake completely overshadowed any improvements I got from smaller grain. It was rather the other way round. Shake goes in one direction, and once I can see it in a picture, it's distracting, I can't make myself not see it anymore. Grain is different, it's the same all over the picture and to me looks like texture of the paper it's printed on.

 

[robertdfeinman]

Shake

Shake

Discussing shake might be an interesting topic of its own.
The Pentax is a good example of a potentially high shake camera. Most people think it's the thump of the huge mirror, but this is only an issue at about 1/15 or so where the shake time is a big fraction of the shutter time. Slower times the shake doesn't register and with higher speeds the shake is over before the shutter opens (effectively).

Using it at eye level also makes for increased shake, it's heavy.

I have no issues with my swinglens (Noblex). I shoot at 1/250 and manage to keep still enough during the 1/4 it takes for the lens to rotate. 1/125 is doable, but longer exposure is asking for wavy straight lines. (An interesting effect if you want to do it deliberately.)

When one uses a 35 RF, with it's tiny click, one tends to get a bit sloppy about bracing when going back to a bigger camera.

I used to be able to hold my Rollei at 1/4 by pulling the strap taut against my neck. Waist-levels are more stable than eye-level in this respect.

I'm amazed at the way the digital market has evolved. Most point and shoots have dropped the viewfinder and people are now required to hold the camera out from their body, which is only a two-point support. Personally I can't use this format (not that I shoot digital), if I hold it far enough away so the screen is sharp then it's too small to see what's going on.

I guess the anti-shake feature is how the problem will be resolved. One can drive in a bent nail if you try hard enough, but using a straight one to start with just seems easier...