I'm not sure I understand using ISO 400 during the day.

[ajs]

I was at a shop not too long ago where someone who had clearly never shot film before was asking the clerk for some color film. Long story short, he suggested shooting with Portra 400 for general purpose daytime photography. I've since noticed a good number of people using and recommending an ISO 400 film for regular day time photography. I'm not sure I understand why or how.

Given a Sunny 16 day, ISO 400 would typically be shot at 1/500th at f16 or 1/1000th at f11 (I guess 1/250th at f22 too?) and an overcast day would be around 500 at f8 / 1000 at f5.6.

Of course there's times you want to expose for darker shadows and having less light than "daytime" is a perfect use for 400 but, for the most part, I feel like 400 is a pretty limiting film speed.

If you're shooting 400 during the day, can you explain how you use it? Aren't you often running the risk of over-exposing? Do you find it to be reasonably flexible?

This is all assuming we're talking about cameras with a max 1/1000th SS.

	1/125​	1/250​	1/500​	1/1000​
ISO 100​
Hard Shadow ☀️​		f16​	f11​	f8​
Soft Shadow 🌤️​	f16​	f11​	f8​	f5.6​
Overcast ⛅️​	f11​	f8​	f5.6​	f4​
Heavy Overcast 🌥️​	f8​	f5.6​	f4​	f3.2​
ISO 400​
Hard Shadow ☀️​			f16​	f11​
Soft Shadow 🌤️​		f16​	f11​	f8​
Overcast ⛅️​	f16​	f11​	f8​	f5.6​
Heavy Overcast 🌥️​	f11​	f8​	f5.6​	f4​

 

[neal3k]

I use 400 speed a lot as there is so much latitude in most films and overexposure works better then underexposure. Of course, some films like slide film need more accurate exposure but I do well with 400 color negative and b&w films. I shoot mostly with really old cameras and 1/500 is the max I can get. It depends on your subjects. If you want out of focus backgrounds, you will need slower films. But, just for fun, I am shooting my second roll of ISO 1 film now. I guess I like the extremes.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I use 100 speed films much more than 400 even accounting for superb films like TMax 400. I don't shoot colour films but when i did...it was Kodachrome 25 or 64. I often use an orange filter (2 stop) and use a monopod or tripod instead of 400 film....especially in 35mm. I shoot more MF by far and even there.....the slower film the better IMO

 

[Pál_K]

Based on my experience of shooting film since the early 1960’s, that chart looks like a recipe for underexposure. I have seen charts like that, but usually not that optimistic.

With a 100-speed film (or the old Plus-X at 125), on a bright sunny day with distinct sharp (“hard“) shadows, I’d use 1/125 and f/11. Same for color.

With 400 speed color film such as Kodak Ultramax , I treat it as an ISO 250 speed and on a bright sunny day I’ll pick 1/250 and again f/11. It’s not even a full stop overexposure. Actually, I prefer mid apertures for best lens sharpness and less depth of field, so I’ll actually use 1/500 and f/8 or I’ll use 1/1000 and f/5.6 on that bright sunny day.

Better to overexpose film than underexpose it; it has the latitude. One stop overexposure often produces a negative with good density.

 

[Erik van Straten]

For me 400 ISO is more universal. I like to make both outside and indoor shots. Indoor often asks for 1/30 at f2 even when using ISO400. The solution is carrying two cameras, one with an ISO 100 film and the other with ISO 400, but that is awkward. As said, ISO 400 is more universal. It helps when the 400 ISO film is exposed at ISO 200 and developed a little bit shorter.

It also helps if you're practiced shooting without an exposure meter. An ISO 400 film is then more universal. The gradation of ISO 400 films is softer.

Erik.

 

[sjones]

I use Tri-X, and while several years ago I used to sometimes push by a stop or two, I just found life simpler shooting at 400 (or in that area). It’s flexible enough, especially since I’m mainly shooting outdoors. If I were doing color slides, that might be a different story. As it stands, I’ve got enough latitude to move around in. After all, I’ve also managed with a top speed of 1/1000. When it’s sunny, my depth of field is deep, and when overcast, it’s shallower; how’s that for creative control.

 

[Coldkennels]

Based on my experience of shooting film since the early 1960’s, that chart looks like a recipe for underexposure. I have seen charts like that, but usually not that optimistic.

Agreed. Here in the UK we seemingly rarely hit "sunny f/16". I've always worked to a "sunny f/11" rule - 1/500 and f/11 with 400 ISO film on the brightest of days.

400ISO gives you a lot of overhead for varying light - but also for filtration when using black and white film. A red filter will knock 3 stops off your overall exposure, and 1/125 and f/8 with HP5+ is much easier to deal with for landscapes than 1/60 and f/4 with Pan F+ when you don't have a tripod to hand.

With regards to the original post, I think a lot of folks are heavily overexposing Portra 400 for that washed-out look anyway; it might as well say 100 ISO on the box for a lot of people.

 

[Evergreen States]

I like a deep depth of field when shooting street photography so that I can zone focus. Also, I tend to overexpose black and white film by about a stop because it makes the midtones look nicer, even if I pull the shadows of the TIFF file down later. I have a roll of Kodak Max 400 in a Minolta SLR right now that I'm rating at 320 for color saturation and shadow detail.

I'm working on a project now with a couple cameras in the 645 format and Kodak Gold 200 and Ektar 100. Some shots I overexpose a bit, others I rate normally. I manage to get good front-to-back depth of field if I'm careful, even with a 105mm lens. My subjects are urban landscapes that are far away. Regular street photography tends to be a bit closer so I need the depth of field.

 

[Dogman]

The first roll of 35mm film I ever bought was Tri-X and I used it for decades almost exclusively for B&W photography. Today ISO 400 is my standard for digital as well, using it as the default when shooting auto ISO. Tri-X (and HP5+) have good latitude and excellent tonality for just about any purpose. I haven't used 400 speed color film in years but I'm sure negative color film today has lots more latitude than it did when I last used it. That helps with variations in exposure and, as Erik says, making it pretty much universal.

 

[Canyongazer]

IMO, Kodak was "optimistic" rating TriX at 400.
I spent three decades shooting it at EI 250.
A one stop "push" when needed: EI 500, developed accordingly

If a given contact print exposure produces its best looking images in the picture area but the Base+Fog around the sprocket holes is still just dark grey then you have NO black....a typical result at ISO 400.

OK, Kodak was not the only one...my favorite B&W film, AGFA APX 100, preferred to be rated at 64.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm usually shooting people (street) and want a fast shutter speed. Lighting is often wildly different, and 400 is a pretty good compromise on a sunny day.

I am finding my Soviet LC-A to be a problem, because the fastest it will go is 250 GOST (approximately 320 ISO) with an automatic shutter speed and aperture. Of course I don't want a super open aperture on a zone focus camera when I can avoid it, but the upper limit makes it impossible to force the camera to keep a narrow aperture along with a decent shutter speed. It's just not built into the machine.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

It seems many prefer ISO 400 films. I can see the preference w/ hyperfocal distance street shots. But using fine lenses...or trying to capitalize on the character of those lenses (especially Noctilux/ 35mm Summilux), slower films have their advantages. I do use 400 films for aerial photography, or street photography, as mentioned, but in general i don't like to be restricted to f8 & f11.
I know that Erik only prints small,....in which case the film speed matters less. I also prefer the inherent contrast of medium & slow films.

Tulips. 20"x20" print. Ilford Pan F, Rolleiflex @ f4

Sunrise on Mt Deltaform, Leica 35 Elmar (1935), Agfapan 25 (+ monopod) 11"x14" print.

 

[Prest_400]

I shoot medium format and considering the DoF differences all while handholding the Fuji 6x9, ISO 400 is overall useful. I am actually making an inventory before ordering more film and turns out I don't use ISO 100 so much, also living up north, it's very dark half of the year. For Color both Ektar and slide film are nice but I find they tend to be slow for me.

35mm if using a P&S the choice is ISO 400; but with better cameras and lenses I go fine ISO100 and T-grain for enlargability, that is usually when I am visiting family and use the camera I keep there. Home is Spain and there I really notice I could use ISO 100 a lot more, even during winter.

Years ago when I shot Kodachrome I got used to the slow ISO and after its demise, moving towards 400 films felt really fast!

 

[Doug A]

My "big" prints from 35mm B&W negatives are 8" by 12" and I want them to look to the causal observer like they were shot on film. The best way I have found to do this is to shoot cubic grain ISO 400 film stocks at or just below box speed and use a high acutance developer. A friend calls this "chemical sharpening." The last roll I just developed was Tri-X exposed at ISO 320 and developed with Rodinal (1+50). I used a Wratten K2 yellow filter so I metered at ISO 160.

(I also shoot HP5 Plus, Fomapan 400 and Kentmere Pan 400 and develop with Ilfosol 3.)

 

[Erik van Straten]

When this shot would have been done on a slower film, I would have had more problems with the light parts in the background. Now I could print them with a very light grey tone instead of with pure white. This works less flat IMO. Tmax400 in Perceptol. Paper: Ilford MGFB classic glossy.

gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica mp

C.v.R, 2023

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

My "big" prints from 35mm B&W negatives are 8" by 12" and I want them to look to the causal observer like they were shot on film. The best way I have found to do this is to shoot cubic grain ISO 400 film stocks at or just below box speed and use a high acutance developer. A friend calls this "chemical sharpening." The last roll I just developed was Tri-X exposed at ISO 320 and developed with Rodinal (1+50). I used a Wratten K2 yellow filter so I metered at ISO 160.

(I also shoot HP5 Plus, Fomapan 400 and Kentmere Pan 400 and develop with Ilfosol 3.)

Interesting approach Doug. My big prints are 16x20" and 20x24." I process in Pyrocat HD and try to carry over in 35 or MF the tonal smoothness i get in large format. This one 20x24" from a Fuji 6x8 cm neg on Agfapan 25. Print on Foma Variant in Ansco 130

 

[Cyriljay]

To my knowledge asa 400 ( Trix ) and Tmax had a very advance multicasting technology. So the use of 400 were suitable for many type of photography in many changes or different situations of lighting conditions. Where as Tri-X 100 ASA didn't have the same advantages of using on different applications. That is due to the difference EXPOSURE LATITUDE between 100 ASA and 400 Asa the result may out of the Zone system and you may end up getting unexpected missed results. ( Over exposure or underexposure ) I am not talking about pushing of pulling the films. That is getting into another level of photography.
On 100Asa the exposure latitude is very narrow and 400 Asa I has a very broad exposure latitude. So the 400 asa in many brands of B&W had a very developed chemical coatings. It was also known as general film for many occasion.
EX. many 400 ASA of AgFa/ Kentmare/ Kodak triX/ Kodak Tmax/ Fuji FUJIFILM Neopan400 Cn and Ilford Hp5 are the example of B&W
My favourite film was Ilfod/ Tri-X and Fuji Neopan.
I am not sure about any colour 400 ASA is included into the conversation. Only Fuji Colour professional 800 ASA had a special colour coating to compensate for the film latitude. It was very popular and used by many Long range land scape photographers and sport photographers as I can remember.

It is like using a Leica M8 shoot some night photography and instead of using 650asa if you use it at the last ASA ( ASA 2500 )your photos are sucked.
If you use a M10 you can use a 2500 ASA as the censer is developed and optimised for the lower ASA so the exposer latitude is wider to accept some margins of err. So the film400 Asa is like the photo-censers.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

To my knowledge asa 400 ( Trix ) and Tmax had a very advance multicasting technology. So the use of 400 were suitable for many type of photography in many changes or different situations of lighting conditions. Where as Tri-X 100 ASA docent has the same advantages of different applications. That is due to the difference EXPOSURE LATITUDE between 100 ASA and 400 Asa the result may out of the Zone system and you may end up getting unexpected missed results. ( Over exposure or underexposure ) On 100Asa the exposure latitude is very narrow and 400 Asa I has a very broad exposure latitude. So the 400 asa in many brands of B&W had a very developed chemical coatings.
EX. many 400 ASA of AgFa/ Kentmare/ Kodak triX/ Kodak Tmax/ Fuji FUJIFILM Neopan400 Cn and Ilford Hp5 are the example of B&W
My favourite film was Ilfod/ Tri-X and Fuji Neopan.
I am not sure about any colour 400 ASA is included into the conversation. Only Fuji Colour professional 800 ASA had a special colour coating to compensate for the film latitude. It was very popular and used by many Long range land scape photographers and sport photographers as I can remember.

The now discontinued 100 ISO Verichrome Pan, Plus X Pan, as well as Ilford FP4+ offer substantial exposure latitude.... more than the T grain Tmax100. I haven't personally had issues with TMax 100 & have gotten brilliant easy to print negatives. For bigger enlargements with minimal grain from 35mm it's my film of choice.....but in MF or for day-to-day film FP4 is very reliable & delivers the goods.

CyrilJ..... "Where as Tri-X 100 ASA didn't have"..... there was/isn't a Tri-X 100.... what exactly did you mean please?

 

[markjwyatt]

I like shouting ISO 100 in direct sun for sure, and I do a lot. Once you start moving out of the sun into open shade, deep shade, forests, etc., ISO 100 is more limiting. I shoot ISO 400 (HP5+, Bergger Pancro at 320), but always use a M-Y filter, so effectively it is ISO 200, and my ISO 100 is quickly ISO 50 effective. Also, for med format where lenses tend to be slower, ISO 400 helps again.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I find it's good to use 400 iso if you suspect you are not going to get through all of the roll in the day. I am in London today finishing off a roll of fomapan 100 but will then use fomapan 400 (at 320 ) as the next time I use the contax may be in a photo walk in Leeds in the early evening.
Then later in the year will use hp5 or rpx 400 at 400/800