Let's see your high ISO photos: 1600 and beyond

[cpc]

Delta 3200:

Sofia Noir by corleypc, on Flickr

 

[Highway 61]

Guys drinking beers on the train on Delta 3200 (a bit too grainy for me to be a replacement for Neopan 1600 but a fun film to shoot)

Jon : Neopan 1600 was an ISO 800 film ; Delta 3200 is roughly an ISO 1000 film...

What I found is that Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Microphen 1+1 is less grainy, and with a wider greyscale, than Neopan 1600 exposed at 800 and developed the same way...

You won't find any Microphen 1+1 developing times for Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 around but you can just follow what I've quickly calculated and put at use myself : 13'30" at 20C, standard agitation.

Then come back to us with what you think of this.

😉

 

[jonmanjiro]

Jon : Neopan 1600 was an ISO 800 film ; Delta 3200 is roughly an ISO 1000 film...

What I found is that Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Microphen 1+1 is less grainy, and with a wider greyscale, than Neopan 1600 exposed at 800 and developed the same way...

Hi Nicolas, I exposed the Neopan 1600 @ ISO 1000 and the Delta 3200 @ ISO1600. Not too far off your exposure ratings 😉

Perhaps my grainy results with Delta 3200 reflect the fact that I used Fujiflm's Super Prodol B&W film developer for both films, and I expect it has been formulated for best results with Fujifilm's own films. I wouldn't mind developing some Delta 3200 in Microphen 1+1, but at the price charged for the stuff locally (see here) unfortunately it doesn't make economic sense to use it instead of the much cheaper Super Prodol (see here). While my Neopan 400 stash lasts, I think I'll stick to pushing Neopan 400 to IS0 1600 and developing in Super Prodol when I need higher ISO 🙂

I really dig that photo, very good! Maybe a large darkroom print would be great!? 😎

Cheers Gabor! Yep, I really should make a proper large darkroom print, and there's this darkroom in Yokohama I've been meaning to check out for some time too. Now to get a round tuit... 😱

 

[Mablo]

Links are ok but I dont know why photos are not visible here.

Just copy the part that is between

tags (tags included!) within the link and paste it here. Should be OK.

 

[Bob Michaels]

For the purpose of provoking discussion, I will opine that most people's use of high iso film is no more than a phobia about exposing at a setting less than suggested by a general overall meter reading. They refuse to accept that 2-3 stops underexposure will frequently only lose shadows, which may be beneficial in conveying the impression that the scene was dark, and probably still give good midtones which are the important element.

Internet lore seems to have blindly convinced many photographers than any exposure less than indicated by an overall meter reading will cause that frame to be totally blank, the rest of the roll to be unusable, probably all shots you make for days will be unusable and will increase your potential for ED.

Many also seem to think that there are magic developers that will make an iso 400 film into a 1,600 or 3,200 film when the reality is the size of the silver grains is the only factor.

Too many shooting film and using hybrid workflows suffer from grainy images and blown highlights from extended development of their film without realizing how much can be simply accomplished with image editing software. Do they not realize how digital cameras get those incredibly high iso settings?

An example of an iso 400 35mm film (either Neopan 400 or HP5+, have to look at the actual negs to tell which) simply underexposed and developed normally is this image shot at the Ground Zero Blues Club in Clarksdale MS (sorry for reusing, but it makes the point)

 

[Highway 61]

While my Neopan 400 stash lasts, I think I'll stick to pushing Neopan 400 to IS0 1600 and developing in Super Prodol when I need higher ISO 🙂

This is the best thing to do. Honestly I always found that Neopan 400 exposed at 1600 was better than Neopan 1600 at 1600 too... especially in Super Prodol.

😉

 

[rwintle]

My only high ISO film experience is with these shots - Delta 3200 rated at 1600 and developed normally (not by me - local lab uses Ilford chemicals but I don't know the details).

Nikki Yanofsky on stage at First Canadian Place in downtown Toronto, through a Pentax ME F and Bushnell 135mm f/2.8. I really want to shoot more of this stuff. 🙂




Nikki Yanofsky - Delta 3200 by Richard Wintle, on Flickr


Nikki Yanofsky - Delta 3200 by Richard Wintle, on Flickr

 

[rhl-oregon]

Perhaps these will serve as cautionary exposures? In any case, I prefer less grain these days. From my first roll of Delta 3200 in 2011. M4, Serenar 50 1.8 wide open, 1/15-1/30, box speed.

Pimps of Joytime

Lane County Fair

 

[Addy101]

Time for some color:

Minolta Dynax 9 | Minolta 28/2.0 | Fuji Superia 1600

 

[kxl]

 

[GarageBoy]

For the purpose of provoking discussion, I will opine that most people's use of high iso film is no more than a phobia about exposing at a setting less than suggested by a general overall meter reading. They refuse to accept that 2-3 stops underexposure will frequently only lose shadows, which may be beneficial in conveying the impression that the scene was dark, and probably still give good midtones which are the important element.

Internet lore seems to have blindly convinced many photographers than any exposure less than indicated by an overall meter reading will cause that frame to be totally blank, the rest of the roll to be unusable, probably all shots you make for days will be unusable and will increase your potential for ED.

Many also seem to think that there are magic developers that will make an iso 400 film into a 1,600 or 3,200 film when the reality is the size of the silver grains is the only factor.

Too many shooting film and using hybrid workflows suffer from grainy images and blown highlights from extended development of their film without realizing how much can be simply accomplished with image editing software. Do they not realize how digital cameras get those incredibly high iso settings?

An example of an iso 400 35mm film (either Neopan 400 or HP5+, have to look at the actual negs to tell which) simply underexposed and developed normally is this image shot at the Ground Zero Blues Club in Clarksdale MS (sorry for reusing, but it makes the point)

Do you not push and fix in post?

 

[burancap]

Like the OP, I have a few rolls of T-MAX 3200 sitting around. I was thinking about experimenting with a red (R25 090) filter dropping the film to ~400 and taking it in strong daylight. Anybody here tried that? Any developing thoughts? Thanks!

 

[ABrosig]

Tattoo Shop, Nacogdoches, Texas
Ilford Delta 400 @ 1600/Developed in Kodak HC110, Dilution B

 

[filmtwit]

My most recent High ISO shot

M7 + 50mm f1.4 Lux e46 + Ilford Delta 400 at 1600 in HC110 (mix B)

 

[Sparrow]

... hp5 ... id11 for quite a while I expect ... life was simple in 1980

Watty, Craven Heifer, Bankfoot par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

 

[Bob Michaels]

Do you not push and fix in post?

I almost never would have the opportunity to "push" in developing as I return from a week long trip with a bag of many rolls of film shot in varying light conditions. I could mark individual rolls except a roll of 35mm may have images shot inside a dark building followed by images shot in outside hard full sun. So I must process everything the same. My only option is to understand what the film can do and adjust exposure accordingly. Fortunately, I only shoot one film for many years so know what it can do. (as people of the pre-internet era did)

"fix in post"? Well, sorta. Except "fix" implies that you are correcting something you did wrong. I just consider what I do as accommodating what the film is capable of. Just as we once did back in the wet darkroom.

I wonder if too many today become too entangled in digital metrics and pay too little attention to what they want the photo to express. Frequently that is best done with no shadow detail (telling the viewer that it is dark). Instead some become obsessed with a perfect histogram in lieu of a good print.

Long long ago, I photographed much at night due to work schedules. I tweaked exposure, developers, development times, and paper grades. I almost got to where I could make a photo shot at midnight look like it was shot in the daytime. Then I realized that if that was what I want my photos to look like, it would be much simpler to just wait 8 hours. And I went back to making low light photos look like they were shot in low light.

Relating back to the original thread, I was asking people to consider if high iso was really necessary or just a convoluted attempt to make a low light photo look like it was shot in normal lighting. Alternatively, they consider not becoming a slave to the digital metrics of published iso's and light meters but simply understanding the relationships of their exposure and the end result.

 

[Markus B]

Kentmere 400, E.I 1600, Xtol 1+1, Leica M6 and (i think) Summaron 35/2.8:

 

[maddoc]

Leica M7, Summar, HP5 @ 1600 e.i. in SPD stock

 

[Spicy]

My only high ISO film experience is with these shots - Delta 3200 rated at 1600 and developed normally (not by me - local lab uses Ilford chemicals but I don't know the details).

Nikki Yanofsky on stage at First Canadian Place in downtown Toronto, through a Pentax ME F and Bushnell 135mm f/2.8. I really want to shoot more of this stuff. 🙂




Nikki Yanofsky - Delta 3200 by Richard Wintle, on Flickr


Nikki Yanofsky - Delta 3200 by Richard Wintle, on Flickr

At first glance, I thought this was Michael Jackson

 

[totifoto]

Tmax 3200 in Xtol 1:1

Tri-x @ 6400 in xtol 1:1