Favorite ISO 200 35mm BW film?

ChrisPlatt

ChrisPlatt

Thread Killer
Local time
6:52 AM
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
3,408
Often I find 400 film too fast, while 100 can be a bit slow.
My film speed "sweet spot" seems to be about ISO 200.

Recent threads have lauded Eastman XX 5222, Fomapan 200 etc.
What about 400 speed films "pulled", or 100 push-processed?

What's your favorite ISO 200 35mm BW film (and developer)?

TIA,
Chris
 
The problem with pulling or pushing is that it messes with the contrast. Pulled film has reduced contrast (which might be good if you're shooting in contrasty light). Pushed film has reduced shadow detail and excessive contrast, and increased grain. Its a technique best used in emergencies.

The only 200 speed BW film sold now is the Foma 200. I'd personally use a good 400 film at normal speed. I can't imagine why a film would be one stop too fast. Just use a higher shutter speed or smaller aperture.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The problem with pulling or pushing is that it messes with the contrast. Pulled film has reduced contrast (which might be good if you're shooting in contrasty light). Pushed film has reduced shadow detail and excessive contrast, and increased grain. Its a technique best used in emergencies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in general.
Not with the TMax 100. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
 
Fernando2 said:
Yeah, in general.
Not with the TMax 100. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


No, you don't. I have tested Tmax 100 in several developers, and its true speed ranges from 50 to 100 depending on the developer. These are not subjective tests; I do it scientifically, measuring actual densities with a transmission densitometer.

If Tmax 100 were really a 200 speed film, meaning that it could be shot at 200 with no loss of quality, then Kodak would market it as such. They don't, and its because it isn't.
 
Fomapan 200 in Foma LQN. Nice grain and latitude. Just something about it. Can still get it in Australia for a very reasonable price, especially in 30m cans.
 
QC issues with my last roll of Foma 200. Something sprayed the film with what appears to be fine black droplets.

But I really like the film for 35mm work. The rendering from Leica's 65mm F3,5 Elmar and this film delivers a special inviting feel to the final images.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
No, you don't
Click to expand...

Wow. :rolleyes:
I've always exposed TMX 100 at 160 to 200, without even pushing development. It just handles it fine. This is with Diafine, TMax Developer, Caffenol C-H.

I have tested Tmax 100 in several developers, and its true speed ranges from 50 to 100 depending on the developer. These are not subjective tests; I do it scientifically, measuring actual densities with a transmission densitometer.
Click to expand...

Care to share your charts?
 
Fernando2 said:
Wow. :rolleyes:
I've always exposed TMX 100 at 160 to 200, without even pushing development. It just handles it fine. This is with Diafine, TMax Developer, Caffenol C-H.



Care to share your charts?
Click to expand...

Roll your eyes all you want. I'm a retired teacher; I've worked with children with more maturity.

If you're really getting good results shooting TMX at such speeds, you're exposure meter is off. Mine aren't; I have them calibrated regularly.

I haven't tried Caffenol or Diafine. In Tmax Developer, the film is a true ISO-100. You can set your camera or meter to whatever speed works for you, but that doesn't change the facts. Tell me, eye-rolling child, why doesn't the Great Yellow Father market TMX as a 200 speed film?
 
Then why does Kodak say that you can expose TMax 100 at 100 or 200, and publishes the same time for both EI ?

I don't shoot a whole lot of TMax 100 myself though, so I cannot give any other experience other than 100, which gives perfectly good negatives, I have never measured density, but prints in the darkroom looks lovely. (HC-110, TMax developer)
 
znapper said:
Then why does Kodak say that you can expose TMax 100 at 100 or 200, and publishes the same time for both EI ?

I don't shoot a whole lot of TMax 100 myself though, so I cannot give any other experience other than 100, which gives perfectly good negatives, I have never measured density, but prints in the darkroom looks lovely. (HC-110, TMax developer)
Click to expand...


Because increasing the developing time of TMX doesn't increase shadow detail, it just increases contrast. Quality is lower shooting at 200, shadow detail will be lost. Pushing means same loss of shadow detail along with increased contrast and grain.

Pushing is useful for films like Tri-X, which does gain a bit of shadow density with increased developing times, and Ilford Delta 3200, which was actually designed to be pushed (shot at its ISO speed, which is 1000, D3200 is very low in contrast, so pushing just brings contrast back to where it should be, and the film does build some shadow detail too)
 
I understand perfectly fine push processing, that was not my issue with this.

It's not pushing if the development times are the same. (It's called push-processing for a reason).

Kodak states that you can shoot TMax 100 at 200 and use the same time as 100.

If the film is indeed an ISO 100 film, then why do they say this?
 
znapper said:
I understand perfectly fine push processing, that was not my issue with this.

It's not pushing if the development times are the same. (It's called push-processing for a reason).

Kodak states that you can shoot TMax 100 at 200 and use the same time as 100.

If the film is indeed an ISO 100 film, then why do they say this?
Click to expand...


Let me try and simplify it. Exposing it at 200 gives a one stop underexposed negative. With most films, increasing the developing time 20% or so will give a slight increase in shadow detail, helping to alleviate the lowered quality that results from underexposure. TMX doesn't push well, meaning that you won't gain any useful shadow density with a longer developing time. If you must underexpose it, you're best developing it normally and then trying to compensate for it in the printing or scanning stage.

I want to emphasize that shooting TMX at 200 REDUCES image quality. You will get the best results with TMX, as with any film by exposing it at the correct EI for the developer you're using. Shooting at 200 should be considered an emergency technique, not something you do normally.

Fernando says he gets good quality at 200. Most likely, his meter is out of calibration, overexposing a stop (very common, I see a lot of meters and cameras that need calibration), and so he is really exposing at 100 and not knowing it. Or, he really is shooting it at 200 and just doesn't understand what he's losing in quality by doing so.
 
Just wanted to chime in and say I've got good results from TMAX pushed to 200 and I agree with the OP... I find 200 a sweet spot. I know it's 'only one stop' but I find at 200 (for what I shoot) that I have most options re: shutter speed and aperture open to me.

I'm not arguing against what Chris is saying - he knows more than moat about this stuff and respect his opinion greatly! I do however think Chris is being too scientific in this respect and would argue that most Kodak films are OK with a little pushing and pulling - some more than others of course.

Overall, if I am wet printing, I find that a little extra contrast is absolutely fine and I have never felt I have lost too much shadow detail printing from TMAX100 rated @ 200. I may use grade 2-3 instead of 3-4... difference is just not that great.

When scanning I don't like pulling - Tri-X especially becomes VERY difficult to scan.

Anyway, if the OP is after a good 200, then there are more options than Fomapan 200. I've used Fomapan and I like it, but I MUCH prefer TMAX100 rated at 200. But that's just me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom