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

[Erik van Straten]

Every exposure medium, whether film or digital has a dynamic range to its ability to capture an image. The dynamic range of Tri-X Pan ran around 10 stops. The current Sony sensor run . . .I don't know. 13 stops? 14 stops. Think it like a bell curve with your chosen exposure in the middle. You use your shutter speed and aperture to correctly expose your image. That will determine what's the "middle of your bell curve." And the dynamic range of the medium will determine what else is acceptably exposed on either side of the exposure value you have chosen with your shutter speed and aperture.

But choosing ISO 400 doesn't overexpose your highlights all by itself. Your choice of aperture and shutter speed does. Now it is possible to set your exposure for, say, a backlit subject standing against a window, exposure correctly for the subject's face and lose detail outside the window in the background. That's how dynamic range can limit you, and there are ways to deal with it, up to a point.

The meter of the Nikkormat FTn was the same as the one in the Nikon F Photomic. With those meters it was very hard to make a wrong reading.

Erik.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Yesterday i was getting 1/15 at f2.8 outside with HP5 at 400asa. Since that is wide open on that lens I didn’t want to swap into anything slower.

On a sunny summer’s day, less so.

 

[bjorke]

I'm confused by the responses to this thread -- the OP asked about someone who had not shot film before.

What choices would help THEM, not declare "how I use this..."?

If they're keen on color by all means give them Portra and a guide to bracketing, too. 200-rated Portra is a modern standard, sure, but: they can use the oportunity to learn afresh, without so many examples of someone else's opinion.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I'm confused by the responses to this thread -- the OP asked about someone who had not shot film before.

What choices would help THEM, not declare "how I use this..."?

If they're keen on color by all means give them Portra and a guide to bracketing, too. 200-rated Portra is a modern standard, sure, but: they can use the oportunity to learn afresh, without so many examples of someone else's opinion.

Good point.

Some thought relevant to the OP:

- these days I shoot negative film and prefer slight over rather than under exposure - so full sun and f11 at 1/500 - I live 54 degrees north which may be a part of that.

- I often want more rather than less depth of field, so f8 doesn’t concern me, usually

- as others have noted, 400 still tends to work if I go inside or somewhere shady

However, to be fair, I often shoot slower film in summer - FP4 instead of HP5 say. Only a bit of colour.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'm used to expose Tmax400 @ 200 ISO, but I develop the film a bit shorter then indicated. My favorite developer nowadays is Ilford Perceptol; I use one part developer and two parts water @ 20 degrees C for 10 minutes.

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Amsterdam, 2020

Erik.

 

[Rayt]

I'm confused by the responses to this thread -- the OP asked about someone who had not shot film before.

What choices would help THEM, not declare "how I use this..."?

If they're keen on color by all means give them Portra and a guide to bracketing, too. 200-rated Portra is a modern standard, sure, but: they can use the oportunity to learn afresh, without so many examples of someone else's opinion.

Agreed. And if that someone isn’t interested in how experienced people shoot then the best way is to gain practical experience. I am sure that was how a lot of people learned photography before it was so easy to ask questions online. When I was a kid I learned how to set aperture and shutter speed using the instruction in the film boxes. Man under the tree is f8 1/250, etc.

 

[DownUnder]

Some may consider my comment(s) off-track, but - there are obvious differences between ISO 400 digital and ISO 400 film.

I never liked '400' color negative film. Images were far too grainy for my taste, and I could never really get the mid-tones to do what I wanted from them. Fuji was far better than Kodak, as I found the different Eastman color neg products varied too much in mid-tonal rendition. The old Agfa color films were, for me, far better, but they vanished from the market a long time ago. So no longer relevant.

Mid-2010s when I I finally changed almost entirely to digital color for my image-making, everything changed. For the better.

For B&W, I still use mostly film. Ilford FP4 and HP5 films suit my taste in monochrome to near perfection. Digital is almost as good, but film gives me the characteristic 'personalities' I look for.

Sadly, I had to stop using Tri-X when prices even for bulk rolls went past the stratosphere. Ridiculously high film prices (in Australia) were a major factor in my changing over mostly to digital.

For me, film is film, digital is digital. Each has its own value and worth. For my needs and purposes, digital does it all for color, but nothing will better what I get out of film for B&W.