Favorite ISO 200 35mm BW film?

[znapper]

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.
.

Again, I understand what you are saying, I have no issue with that.

The issue I have with this, is that Kodak would be hard-pressed to just state "develop normally" if there is degradation, more grain and/or loss of shadow detail.

Such facts should be in the datasheet, which is isn't really.
They publish the same dev-times for EI 100 and EI 200, as if it doesn't matter and, leaving push-processing and it's effects out of this for a moment, it seems they claim it can be shot at either EI with no particular loss of quality or shadow detail.

I know the effects of both pushing and pulling, but Kodak state that you don't have to push-process the film at 200 for some reason and nobody seems to know why that is.

As per this answer in a discussion over at APUG a while back:
http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php...ompared-to-tmax400.141020/page-2#post-1845015

and this

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/interesting-observation-with-tmax-100.30170/

But, from what I've red around the interwebs, it seems that Tmax 400 @ 200, with pull-processing, is the better option, especially when you are looking for the best tonal range and shadow detail, Tmax 400 can handle being shot at 200 with ease.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Again, I understand what you are saying, I have no issue with that.

The issue I have with this, is that Kodak would be hard-pressed to just state "develop normally" if there is degradation, more grain and/or loss of shadow detail.

Such facts should be in the datasheet, which is isn't really.
They publish the same dev-times for EI 100 and EI 200, as if it doesn't matter and, leaving push-processing and it's effects out of this for a moment, it seems they claim it can be shot at either EI with no particular loss of quality or shadow detail.

I know the effects of both pushing and pulling, but Kodak state that you don't have to push-process the film at 200 for some reason and nobody seems to know why that is.

As per this answer in a discussion over at APUG a while back:
http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php...ompared-to-tmax400.141020/page-2#post-1845015

Kodak Publication F-4016 (Tmax 100 film), February 2016 revision (the latest one on Kodak Alaris's website) clearly states the following under the table that gives info on pushing for 200, 400, and 800:

"Pushing exposure results in slight losses of quality compared with normal exposure and normal processing."

They make absolutely no claim that you can expose TMX at 200 without reduced quality. The actual tech sheet says the opposite.

 

[znapper]

Fine, I seem to have missed the small print.
That clears it then.

TMax 400 @ 200 with 25% reduced development is most likely the way to go in terms of shadow-detail.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Since there are few 200 speed rated films I'm open.
"Slight losses" are perfectly acceptable to me.
Keep 'em coming...

Chris

 

[J enea]

rollei retro 400s/superpan 200 is my favorite 200 speed. fine grain, great tonality and great sharpness. develop in pyro-hd or beutler and its perfect for me.

 

[sepiareverb]

Double-X here. Despite the manufacturers rating of 250 I shoot it at 200, and swallow hard every time I am forced to deal with the theoretical slight loss in image quality I can't see. I like HC110b best with it, tho I've been thinking about working out a Perceptol time as I have been thinking it might be a good fit for a less aggressive look to the grain.

Of course, HP5 is so malleable that it might be your best bet. With sheet film I shoot it at 200 and run it in HC110b as standard.

 

[marek_]

Wow. Chris, you sound angrier than the picture used for your avatar. What's with the attitude?

Expose at different iso - try things, experiment. Interesting results happen when you do this. But at the same time you can balls things up, you can get results that don't work. You learn what works, what can work for a certain situation, what doesn't work so well.

A picture may be exposed in a certain way. You may say that it should have been exposed differently - with the correct iso rating. I may prefer how it has been exposed - it has a particular visual quality. Who's right? The preference for higher contrast or lower contrast? More details in the shadow or less with blocks of black. Meters are not always right, and they are a guide in the end. The most interesting pictures don't always start out with the "correct" exposure, whatever that is?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Wow. Chris, you sound angrier than the picture used for your avatar. What's with the attitude?

Expose at different iso - try things, experiment. Interesting results happen when you do this. But at the same time you can balls things up, you can get results that don't work. You learn what works, what can work for a certain situation, what doesn't work so well.

A picture may be exposed in a certain way. You may say that it should have been exposed differently - with the correct iso rating. I may prefer how it has been exposed - it has a particular visual quality. Who's right? The preference for higher contrast or lower contrast? More details in the shadow or less with blocks of black. Meters are not always right, and they are a guide in the end. The most interesting pictures don't always start out with the "correct" exposure, whatever that is?

I'm not angry. I believe that if someone asks for advice, I have a moral obligation to tell them the truth. In my nearly 30 years of experience as a photographer, I have found that it is far easier to to get the results I want in a print by starting off with a negative that has been properly exposed and developed. Even if the result you want is ultimately higher or lower in contrast, etc. An underexposed neg is a bitch to print, and its not fun having to fight your materials to get the results you want.

Rules, it is sometimes said, are meant to be broken. Sometimes that is very true, but you cannot break the rules until you know them.

 

[Huss]

I'm not angry. I believe that if someone asks for advice, I have a moral obligation to tell them the truth. In my nearly 30 years of experience as a photographer, I have found that it is far easier to to get the results I want in a print by starting off with a negative that has been properly exposed and developed. Even if the result you want is ultimately higher or lower in contrast, etc. An underexposed neg is a bitch to print, and its not fun having to fight your materials to get the results you want.

Rules, it is sometimes said, are meant to be broken. Sometimes that is very true, but you cannot break the rules until you know them.

I appreciate that Chris. Sometimes it is really hard to get through the noise and find real helpful information when something is asked on the internet. Everyone is an expert, and everyone is right...

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The suggestion to shoot HP5+ @200 sounds very appealing to me; I already have quite a few rolls.
But @400 IMO contrast is already marginal at best; I doubt I'll like it overexposed/underdeveloped.

Chris

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The suggestion to shoot HP5+ @200 sounds very appealing to me; I already have quite a few rolls.
But @400 IMO contrast is already marginal at best; I doubt I'll like it overexposed/underdeveloped.

Chris

Why do you need a 200 speed film? 400 isn't that much faster.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Why do you need a 200 speed film? 400 isn't that much faster.

In the light I usually shoot in 200 is ideal, allowing me to use my preferred range of apertures and shutter speeds.
Most of my cameras max out at 1/500 or 1/1000 second, and I don't like to use f/16 and f/22.
Further I do not wish to be required to resort to ND filters.

Chris

 

[Nokton48]

In the light I usually shoot in 200 is ideal, allowing me to use my preferred range of apertures and shutter speeds.
Most of my cameras max out at 1/500 or 1/1000 second, and I don't like to use f/16 and f/22.
Further I do not wish to be required to resort to ND filters.

Chris

Ilford Perceptol will slightly decrease emulsion speed, and you might prefer the tonality. I know I do with Legacy Mic-X (pretty much the same thing).

 

[HHPhoto]

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

Delta 400 or T-Max 400 in a developer, which is optimised for sharpness, fine grain and resolution. And not for speed.
With such developers you are in general loosing 2/3 to 1 stop in speed, but in exchange for that you get an improved detail rendition and wonderful tonality with an ideal characteristic curve.
You get an overall improved picture quality.
Examples: Delta 400 and TMY-2 in SPUR HRX. Wonderful combinations.

By the way: Using such developers is not pull-processing!
Therefore you don't have reduced contrast and a flatter characteristic curve (the purpose of pull-processing) with these developers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Fernando2]

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

You don't know who I am, and you very bad attitude is annoying.

You obviously have little knowledge and very, very bad manners.

You will be reported, of course.

Fernando

 

[Roger Hicks]

You don't know who I am, and you very bad attitude is annoying.

You obviously have little knowledge and very, very bad manners.

You will be reported, of course.

Fernando

Dear Fernando,

Your ignorance is pretty annoying, too. I would be astonished if Chris did not know a good deal more about film and development than you do, and what he says is the simple truth (as Kodak themselves point out): there is a slight loss of quality if you deliberately under-expose.

What are you going to "report" him for? Telling the truth?

Cheers,

R.

 

[unixrevolution]

Would a 400-speed with a 1-stop ND not give the same results?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Years ago, I found that when I developed FP4 to as close as I could get to ISO contrast standards, the true speed in pretty much any developer was very nearly identical to the true speed of Foma 200, i.e. 80 or less (speed reducing fine grain developers) to 160+ (speed increasing developers such as Ilford DD-X or Microphen). Foma's own data sheets revealed that "Foma 200" was only in sight of ISO 200 in speed increasing developers, and that they had rounded up slightly (but without breaking ISO rules) to call it "200". Put it this way: the characteristic curves could be superimposed one on the other (and yes, I was using a densitometer to plot them) so even if my tests were not quite to ISO standards, they showed the similarity of the two films.

Now, they may have reformulated it in the intervening couple of decades, but the big lesson to draw from this is that ISO speeds vary with developers.

Also, departures from ISO speed and contrast standards are always desirable if you get better pictures that way.

Very often, people look for more precision than exists in pos/neg photography; and the ones who do so are often the ones with the least understanding of what sensitometry is and how it works.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Would a 400-speed with a 1-stop ND not give the same results?

Probably not. Different films have different characteristic curves. Besides, why would you bother? The penalties for slight over-exposure are modest: a bit more grain and a bit less sharpness. With 35mm, you need to keep exposure to a minimum if you want the smallest possible gran and the maximum possible sharpness, but if you cut it too far, tonality suffers. With larger formats, as much as a stop of extra exposure will often give you better tonality.

See also my note above about looking for more precision than exists in the system. Unless you are spot metering for the shadows, you're probably giving less exposure than would give the best tonality and shadow detail, but equally, if your shutter is running a bit slow, you'll be over-exposing at the marked speeds. Even aperture markings can be as much as 1/3 stop out, and this is before you compensate for veiling flare from light bouncing abound in the lens or the body.

I normally rated Foma 200 at EI 125, because I preferred the tonality, and I got particularly beautiful tonality when I ran a roll through a Pentax SV which I later discovered to have a shutter that was running a stop slow. In other words, I was rating an "ISO 200" film at about EI 64.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Delta 400 or T-Max 400 in a developer, which is optimised for sharpness, fine grain and resolution. And not for speed.
With such developers you are in general loosing 2/3 to 1 stop in speed, but in exchange for that you get an improved detail rendition and wonderful tonality with an ideal characteristic curve.
You get an overall improved picture quality.
Examples: Delta 400 and TMY-2 in SPUR HRX. Wonderful combinations.

By the way: Using such developers is not pull-processing!
Therefore you don't have reduced contrast and a flatter characteristic curve (the purpose of pull-processing) with these developers.

Cheers, Jan

Dear Jan,

Except, of course, that sharpness and fine grain are to some extent mutually exclusive: you will never get both the maximum sharpness of which a film is capable, and the finest grain of which it is capable, at the same time from the same developer.

Also, the concept of an "ideal characteristic curve" is dubious:a lot will depend on where you place the minimum exposure (shadow detail) on the characteristic curve. The late Geoffrey Crawley believed in keeping the straight line portion of the characteristic curve as straight as possible, but you're still going to have a toe and a shoulder...

Cheers,

R.