ISO 1600 Film

JeremyLangford

JeremyLangford

I'd really Leica Leica
Local time
2:46 AM
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
685
Today I was trying to take pictures inside a college campus, using a Minolta srt101 with ISO 400 film. I was using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. With every shot I was having to use an 8th or a 4th of a second which is way to slow for me to keep my camera still withough a tripod. My only hope is to start using ISO 1600 film for indoor shots.

Is this too grainy? Is it even worth trying? Can you post some examples?
 
color or b&w?

Provia 400F pushes to 1600 beautifully, with very managable grain, and not absurd color shifting.

What are you shooting? A tripod might be the best answer.
 
Sorry. Im in a highschool photography class and we can only shoot b&w negatives.

I really need 1600 ISO. Are there some b&w films that are known for low-grain?

Do u have any tips in keeping the grain down to a minimum? Should I underexpose the picture and then push when developing?
 
erikhaugsby said:
Tri-X plus Rodinal. 18.5 minutes with a 1+50 dilution. Makes a perfect 1600 film.
Click to expand...

Im sorry to say I dont know what this means.

Ive only watched my teacher develop, however I am developing and enlarging my first roll tommorrow.
 
If I shot 1600 Fuji color half the roll at 1600 and the other half at 400 ISO, what should I expect the results to be?
 
erikhaugsby said:
Tri-X plus Rodinal. 18.5 minutes with a 1+50 dilution, 68F. Makes a perfect 1600 film.
Click to expand...

Ok. I googled and found out that Tri-X is the film, and Rodinal is a type of developer. Are you saying to develop the film for 18.5 minutes? At 68 degrees?

?
 
kshapero said:
If I shot 1600 Fuji color half the roll at 1600 and the other half at 400 ISO, what should I expect the results to be?
Click to expand...

The first half to be exposed right and the second half to be underexposed?

U guys are tryin to tell me stuff thats over my head.

I just want to use 1600 ISO film and not have lots of grain.

Do u guys ever have to use 1600 for indoor shots?
 
JeremyLangford said:
Im sorry to say I dont know what this means.

Ive only watched my teacher develop, however I am developing and enlarging my first roll tommorrow.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I guess I just assumed...
Tri-X is a 400 speed Kodak film, Rodinal is a B&W film developer. I find that pushing Tri-X to 1600 (and using Rodinal as the developer) yields really nice looking negatives. The time the film spends in the developer depends on the speed that it is rated at, and 18.5 minutes is a good time for the 1+50 dilution (parts developer to parts water).

If you haven't developed before, it might not be advisable to start pushing or pulling until you're comfortable with standard developing first. In this case, Ilford Delta 3200 would be a great native-speed 3200 film to shoot, as it doesn't require push-processing, and works best with readily-available Ilford chemicals for developing.
 
JeremyLangford said:
Im sorry to say I dont know what this means.

Ive only watched my teacher develop, however I am developing and enlarging my first roll tommorrow.
Click to expand...

It means develop in rodinal brand developer for 18.5 minutes. In short, push tri-x brand film from 400 speed to 1600(2 stops).
 
erikhaugsby said:
Sorry, I guess I just assumed...
Tri-X is a 400 speed Kodak film, Rodinal is a B&W film developer. I find that pushing Tri-X to 1600 (and using Rodinal as the developer) yields really nice looking negatives. The time the film spends in the developer depends on the speed that it is rated at, and 18.5 minutes is a good time for the 1+50 dilution (parts developer to parts water).

If you haven't developed before, it might not be advisable to start pushing or pulling until you're comfortable with standard developing first. In this case, Ilford Delta 3200 would be a great native-speed 3200 film to shoot, as it doesn't require push-processing, and works best with readily-available Ilford chemicals for developing.
Click to expand...

Ok so pushing is when you unerexpose film by a lot, and then keep it in the developer for a longer time to compensate? hmm.

Right now we develop for 6 and a half minutes, agitating every 30 seconds.

Should I buy 1600 ISO film. Or should I stick with 400 and push it o 1600?

If I am pushing, would I just develop for like 18.5 minutes like you said?

I guess that makes since, because its a little under 3 times as much as I usually develop, and I am supposed to be pushing from 400 to 1600 (2 stops)

Am I understanding this right now?
 
Last edited:
I second Endustry's suggestion of Fuji Neopan 1600 B&W negative film.

Bob
 
Ok. Now that I understand what pushing film is............Would I get better image quality out of a roll of 1600 ISO film, or a role of 400 ISO film that is pushed to 1600?
 
It all depends on what look you're trying to achieve. All of the high speed (ISO 1600 & 3200) films are actually ISO 400 or slower films that are designed by the manufacturer to be pushed. However, this doesn't mean that you can't get a look that better suits you by pushing a film that's normally rated @ ISO 400 (e.g., Tri-X). Thousands of words have been written about the different B&W films & developers & combinations thereof that explain this better than I can, so there's a lot you can read up on. It's a classic YMMV, personal preference thing.

Personally, since I have better & more interesting things to do than develop my own film, I pick films that I know will give a certain look as developed by my local B&W specialty lab, so in your case, Neopan 1600 is my overwhelming favorite. It has fine grain, but tends to be very contrasty (not a problem for me as I like the "film noir" look). My examples here (you may have to re-load the page as flickr's been acting up lately): http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/fujineopan1600/

JeremyLangford said:
Ok. Now that I understand what pushing film is............Would I get better image quality out of a roll of 1600 ISO film, or a role of 400 ISO film that is pushed to 1600?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
well to confuse you even a bit more... I'd say the best results I get is Trix 400 developed with XTOL (stock)

for looking up the times I'd suggest: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

the times noted there are really good.

For some examples have a look at http://azrael3000.deviantart.com or check out the site from a good friend http://zort.deviantart.com

most of our b/w work in low light is done by trix 400 pushed to 1600 or even 3200. Developed in Kodak XTOL (as you see both film and developer are from Kodak). For a really nice instruction view http://severinkoller.blogspot.com/2007/03/since-i-got-asked-many-times-in-last.html

hth
regards
archie
 
wordpress said:
If you *need* 1600, I would go for Ilfords Delta 3200. If you are concerned about grain, I would perhaps stay away from Tri-X in Rodinal :eek:
Click to expand...

crrapp...........I was planning on trying that.

I am very concerned about grain, and I want to achieve 1600 ISO on my camera, and I cannot choose my own developer (Im in a highschool photography class)

Film suggestions?
 
As above. Fuji Neopan 1600, Ilford Delta 3200, Kodak TMZ. These are all "push" films which are designed to give reasonable results at very high speeds. A 400 speed film pushed to 1600 will build contrast very quickly and will probably be grainier. I say "probably" because it all depends on processing. Some people around here get very good results from Tri-x at very high ratings in rodinal because they use the technique of stand development wherein you use long times with almost no agitation. Have a search in the archives, user merciful has had some amazing results.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom