Shooting with film at high ISO - 6400!

[igmotita23]

Taking pictures between ISO 3200 and 6400
Hi,

The new Leica M, can take pictures with an ISO as
high as 6400. On the other hand, Ilford manufactures
a film, Delta 3200, that can be pushed to ISO 6400.
This film, can be developed with Rodinal for a fine
grain development.

Many galleries, including the famous Leica Galleries
exhibit prints made with Leicas. My question would
be, which pictures would look less grainier, the ones
taken with film at ISO 6400, or the ones taken with
the digital Leica at same ISO? Lets say, that prints
are not larger than six feet or two meters in all their
dimensions. So, no larger than 20" x 24"

If the pictures taken with film are good enough, there
is no need for me to buy a digital camera within the
next three years. Would you agree or disagree that
film is still better than digital rangefinders with 24 Mega-
pixels? That film looks less grainy?

Thank you in advance, kind regards,

igmotita : ) !!!

 

[AncientMecha]

I have used Ilford Delta 3200.
I find the 120 has smoother grain compared to 35mm.
I've seen examples on flickr where fellow photographers have pushed to 6400 (some even pushed to 12400!) and I really like the results.
contrasty and gritty. Reminds me of Daido Moriyama-San's work.
IMO film grain, especially black and white looks more appealing and romantic compared to digital noise.

 

[Godfrey]

Probably not what you want to hear but to me, any of the modern digital sensors that run to ISO 6400 return much cleaner much smoother results than film shot at 6400 ASA. I just got back my first Hasselblad work in 10 years one roll of which was on Ilford 3200 film .. no way that it competes with even my X2 in terms of clean results at the highest ISO setting.

That said it does look beautiful — grain, defects and all.

G

 

[noisycheese]

I have used Ilford Delta 3200.
I find the 120 has smoother grain compared to 35mm.
I've seen examples on flickr where fellow photographers have pushed to 6400 (some even pushed to 12400!) and I really like the results.
contrasty and gritty. Reminds me of Daido Moriyama-San's work.
IMO film grain, especially black and white looks more appealing and romantic compared to digital noise.

Hear, hear!

Film based images have a visual texture that digital images do not. I am nor referring to detail; digital images can show wrinkles on a perspn's face and even skin pores. That is detail.

Visual texture is the fingerprint of the film which is a function of the film grain and the developing process. different emulsions have different graim patterns. Different developers will render the grain structure of a given emulsion in different ways. This is absent in digital images.

Sometimes a simulation of the visual texture of film can be added to digital files in Photoshop - with varying degrees of success. This is a feeble substitute for the real thing that comes with film based images, in my humble opinion. I don't care for the homogenized, smooth plastic looking uniformity that comes with digital; I never have, and I seriously doubt that I ever will.

And then there are digital noise and color fringing to contend with. For me, these are deal-breakers.

JMHO, but I will take the "limitations" of film based photography over the "advantages" of digital shooting any day.

 

[Fraser]

In my first job at a local newspaper I would be sent to cover night rugby games, these were local games and it was dark really dark my fastest telephoto was a manual focus 400 f5.6 so the only film choice was tmax 3200 pushed a couple of stops then developed in tmax dev and the negs were horrible! Maybe the delta films are better today not sure. I think a lot of these films if shot during the day in normal light look ok but when pushed in dark conditions they don't look so good.

 

[varjag]

On the other hand, Ilford manufactures
a film, Delta 3200, that can be pushed to ISO 6400.
This film, can be developed with Rodinal for a fine
grain development.

This is an awful combination, pushing and fine grain are two areas were Rodinal is pretty atrocious.

 

[cosmonaut]

I am on the side of digital with this one. 6400 ISO on my a99 is amazingly clean. It might be an issue if you want a digital M but they aren't the best full frame sensors for noise issues. You would think for the price it would be stellar, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

 

[Godfrey]

I am on the side of digital with this one. 6400 ISO on my a99 is amazingly clean. It might be an issue if you want a digital M but they aren't the best full frame sensors for noise issues. You would think for the price it would be stellar, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

LOL! It is what it is, Cosmo, and most who like it, like it for what it is. It's much like my E-1 ... I don't pull out the E-1 when I want to shoot at ISO 6400, I pull out the X2 (which handles ISO 12500 very nicely...), but I love the E-1 photo quality for when it is sensible to use it. ;-)

All cameras have their scope and limitation. 🙂

G

 

[edge100]

FWIW, this is 35mm Delta 3200, developed in DD-X as per Ilford's recommendations (my first time with this film, so perhaps it could be better). It doesn't look bad here, but at larger sizes, the grain is quite apparent. My X-Pro1 would mop the floor with this at 3200. Then again, I find the film grain very pleasing, and for certain uses, I would have no issue with this.

 

[gsgary]

Personally i shoot film for the grain, i have almost given up on plastic looking digital photos, my Canon high ISO shots look great but boring

 

[shadowfox]

This is an awful combination, pushing and fine grain are two areas were Rodinal is pretty atrocious.

Not true for every photograph.
It depends on the subject, composition, light, and the intent of the photographer.

Personally i shoot film for the grain, i have almost given up on plastic looking digital photos, my Canon high ISO shots look great but boring

For subjects that you want to show-off the textures, film could yield a more satisfying image (I agree with you).

For subjects where clarity and details are the prominent features, digital wins.

Use both, train to recognize which one works better for the scene at hand.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not true for every photograph.
It depends on the subject, composition, light, and the intent of the photographer.



For subjects that you want to show-off the textures, film could yield a more satisfying image (I agree with you).

For subjects where clarity and details are the prominent features, digital wins.

Use both, train to recognize which one works better for the scene at hand.

No, sorry, it IS true that Rodinal gives low speed and big grain.

It is also perfectly true that this can look good, but this does not mean that grain or ISO speed are either subject-dependent or lighting-dependent. To quote a friend who used to work for Ilford, "The film is refreshingly ignorant of what it is called upon to record."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

No, sorry, it IS true that Rodinal gives low speed and big grain.

One mans truth...

I would say it depends, for instance if you're using it in medium format it can look smaller and tighter than some other combos in 35mm.

Then we have the 'big grain' misnomer, by which I take it you mean it gives a perception of 'graniness' rather than actual physical larger grain (granularity).
No actual film developer makes grain physically larger than another; what you see is differing grain shapes (morphology) that give the appearance of larger grain.
Fine grain developers especially those of the Metol type reduce silver to a wire mesh like structure (filamentary) which takes up roughly the same size and same position as the original crystalline form:

These developers give smooth looking borders so aren't the sharpest looking.
Rodinal reduces the crystal in a much less aggressive manner and normally leaves the structure at least partially intact.
Another thing to note and very important to the understanding of the kinetics of silver reduction is that the silver is fixed (relatively) in the body of the emulsion, that is it doesn't move or clump together, clumping or the appearance of clumping is due to morphology the grains themselves are fixed (approx) at a point but can change shape.

So while Rodinal can appear to give larger grain in some circumstances it isn't an absolute rule, I have seen D76 at 1:3 give larger (perceived grain) than Rodinal with the same film at the same (effective) film speed.

Finally Rodinal with D3200 rated at EI6400 the appearance of grain isn't that bad to my eye.

There's more to film and processing than meets the eye!

 

[AncientMecha]

My hats goes off for you my friend.

 

[varjag]

This is not 35mm, in larger formats grain is much less of an issue.