How Slow Do You Go?

[giganova]

6 ISO? 😱 What can you shoot with this? Nuclear bomb explosions, the interior of the Sun?? 😛

 

[sepiareverb]

6 ISO? 😱 What can you shoot with this? Nuclear bomb explosions, the interior of the Sun?? 😛

Always good to be prepared. 😉

Actually, it is quite usable on a sunny day. 6 is the 'base' ISO on a film M meter.

Pan F 50 yummy good

Indeed!

 

[Fotohuis]

Efke 50 hard to develop for me , seems to scratch easily

Like Efke 25: Orthopan (Red not very sensible). In regular films that Efke 25 E.I. 32 in Beutler/FX-1 was my top combination.

Printed on Fomabrom Variant 111.

 

[Michael Markey]

The slowest film I`ve used was Kodachrome 25.

 

[GarageBoy]

Ektar 25 for me and I was too young to remember what it looked like

 

[Greyscale]

Ektar 25 for me and I was too young to remember what it looked like

I just shot a roll of that last week, expired in 1979. Rated it at 12 and it is lovely.

 

[sepiareverb]

Ektar 25! Forgot about that one. I almost remember shooting a little of that - 1989?

 

[Greyscale]

The Ektar 25 that I used above expired in 1998. and not 1979. My apologies.

 

[sepiareverb]

That was quite a film, had what I'd describe as a digital look today, back then it I thought it was hyper clean.

 

[Murray Kelly]

The direct positive paper is great stuff, but as slow as any of us can probably go! I did a lot of cameraless work with it a few years ago, is it back in production finally?

There is the ADOX CMS 2 which seems Tech-Pan like. I just pulled out some of that today as well, will give it a go tomorrow. I tried the first version, but didn't get along with it well. I'm hoping this new developer is as much better as I've heard. I do like supporting ADOX, great papers in their catalog as well as films and chemistry.

Kodak's progression from Techpan was Imagelink and comes as a slow -HQ and a faster version. There is still the challenge of development to get pictorial tones, however. Like any of the slow film offerings. really. If you don't mind loosing a bit more speed you can try SPUR's specialist developers for this kind of film. Pricey, but. Results can be spectacular - at enormous enlargement. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[telenous]

The slowest I've ever tried were a few rolls each of Kodachrome 25 and APX 25. I liked them and even have some photos of personal importance but in truth I preferred faster versions of either (KL200 and APX 100 respectively). Other slowish films I tried for a few rolls and which are no longer around: Agfa Ultra 50, ADOX 50 (I forget which) and a single roll of Tech Pan. During summers I still use some PanF 50. Great film.

.

 

[sepiareverb]

Been playing around with some Washi-S lately, these at 50 & 32, but I'm going softer with it next time – I think 32 in a compensating developer will get me what I'm after. Waiting for some ID3 & Beutler fixings to come in. Will give the ORWO DP3 a run in these as well.



M5 / 50/1.4 ASPH / yellow filter.
ISO 50, developed in Microphen 1:1




MP / 3.5cm/3.5 Elmar LTM
ISO 32, developed in Perceptol 1:1

I really like the look of this film with the old Elmar, especially on a foggy morning!

 

[Dayrell bishop]

KODAK 5302 6asa ,Rodinal,v700. Olympus om2n ,50mm f 1.8.

KODAK 5302 6asa ,Rodinal,v700. Olympus om2n ,50mm f 1.8.

Looks very retro , had to use a tipod.

 

[css9450]

I grew up on Kodachrome 25 and 64, and later Provia 100. When I started dabbling in B&W with classic cameras, Ilford XP2 seemed a good choice because I could get it processed easily. However, at ASA 400 it seemed right at the far end of what many of my old cameras were able to shoot at, and even then, sometimes it was cumbersome to do so. Ever try finding f16 on something like a Jupiter-12?

So my best option was to return to my H.S. days of developing film at home, something I hadn't done since 1980. Now I use Delta 100, and I can shoot at apertures more toward the middle of each lens' range. Heck, I can even make the background go out of focus now! That was something which required a LOT of stops off of Sunny 16 to do with XP2...

Next step on this slippery slope will be to try some Pan F at ASA 50!

 

[sepiareverb]

Was gonna ask about a tripod Dayrell.

Kodachrome 25 was a favorite of mine too.

 

[Doug]

When I started dabbling in B&W with classic cameras, Ilford XP2 seemed a good choice because I could get it processed easily. However, at ASA 400 it seemed right at the far end of what many of my old cameras were able to shoot at, and even then, sometimes it was cumbersome to do so.

Shooting XP2 at EI 400 is "pushing it" in my experience, on the ragged edge of underexposure. I favored running it at 250 for better shadow detail and contrast, but it's entirely usable at 100 as well. That could ease your usage inconvenience... 🙂

 

[Nokton48]

I bought a case of 120 Ilford Pan F+ years ago, from Jim Andracki at Midwest Photo. I was in the basement and he offered it to me for buck a roll which seemed like a great deal at the time. It's still in my deep freeze in the studio.

 

[sepiareverb]

I bought a case of 120 Ilford Pan F+ years ago, from Jim Andracki at Midwest Photo. I was in the basement and he offered it to me for buck a roll which seemed like a great deal at the time. It's still in my deep freeze in the studio.

So 100 or higher for you eh? 😀

I've never thought of 100 as slow, that's normal in my bag. 400? That's that fast stuff 😱

 

[Ko.Fe.]

🙂...

ISO five. Details here:

Summicron, Leica. by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

ISO 12.5 on film:


Random Canadians. by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

 

[Rob-F]

Currently, ISO 100, with Plus-X (I still have some); Ilford Delta 100; and I am trying out some Ilford FP4 in the Hasselblad. I used some Panatomic-X when it was available, but haven't thought to try the Ilford equivalent, Pan F. I'm shakier than I used to be, and so the faster shutter speeds permitted by faster films are more important than they used to be. ISO 100 allows 1/250. 1/500, and faster with reasonable apertures. And the grain stays at or below the threshold of visibility even in an 11 x 14.