Which fast b&w emulsion?

[efix]

I have recently acquired a Contaxt T and plan on using this solely with low-speed (max. 100 ISO) colour slide film -- except if I should come across a colour negative emulsion that I grow fond of 🙂

Now I plan to use my Yashica Electro 35, which has the faster lens (f/1.7 vs. f/2.8 on the T) solely for available light photography with b&w film. I've been using it with Ilford XP2 and HP5+ so far, for both of which I couldn't develop a particular liking.

My 35 GT can only correctly expose films up to 1000 ISO, so I'd like to know what b&w emulsions are available that are faster than 400 ISO (either by definition or by reserves for pushing). I read that both Delta 3200 and TMAX 3200 are actually 1000 ISO films, so these would be an option. What else is there?

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[Tim Gray]

That't it. TMZ (tmax 3200) looks quite nice at 800-1600. I'm sure Delta 3200 does to, but I've not tried it there personally.

 

[efix]

Here's a potential problem: Both my film cameras are AE and the max. ISO setting on both is 1000. So while I could expose TMAX or Delta for ISO 1000, I'm not sure whether they would be developed at ISO 1000 at the lab -- I'm not developing myself.

Another possibility would be using Neopan 1600 and technically overexpose for 2/3 of a stop -- I could later adjust the curves after scanning.

What think you? I'm a bit hesitant to use 3200 film as I'm afraid that at the lab the film will be developed at its nominal ISO, either according to what the cartridge says, or according to what the machines read off the DX code.

 

[btgc]

Another possibility would be using Neopan 1600 and technically overexpose for 2/3 of a stop -- I could later adjust the curves after scanning.

People here on regular basis expose Neopan 1600 at ISO1000 and 800, as 1600 isn't it's real sensitivity.

 

[ChrisP]

Neopan 1600 is discontinued if I understand correctly. If you don't develop yourself you can just ask you lab to pull the film to 1000. It will probably cost you an extra dollar per roll. Or even better start developing yourself!

 

[Brian Legge]

Do you have a camera you can test with manually? If so, I'd try shooting a roll bracketed at different speeds and have them develop it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their standard development worked when you expose at 1000.

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah, Neopan 1600 is slower than the other two. And not made anymore, which is why I didn't mention it. It should do fine exposed at 1000 and developed as if it were shot at 1600. In fact, it might even look better.

As far as the other two go, yes, I would shoot them at 800 and ask the lab to develop them as if they were shot at 800. Otherwise you run the risk of them being over developed.

Frankly, if you aren't developing it yourself AND you can't shoot them at box speed AND the lab won't work with you, I'd do one of three things:
1. start developing yourself
2. find a new lab
3. Shoot T-Max 400 or Tri-X at 800 and just get them developed normally. Adjust a bit in Photoshop and you'll be alright.

 

[mfogiel]

Tri X in Acufine or Diafine will be fine.

 

[Moriturii]

Check this out, might intrest you;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1302888#post1302888

 

[efix]

Thanks for all your input!

Well, I might one day start developing myself, as it doesn't seem to be overly complicated for b&w film. Right at the moment, though, I don't have the spare mental capacity to get into it 🙂

I usually drop my films at the drugstore to get them developed, which worked well so far. (They're sending it to one of the two big labs in Germany - CEWE.) I'd have to inquire if the lab will develop at a customized ISO rating if I mark the order accordingly.

My local shop has a supply of Neopan, but if it's discontinued I'm sure prices won't be dropping, and said shop usually has quite steep prices. Shooting TMAX 400 [EDIT: I meant Tri-X, but I think both might work?] @ 800 might be an option -- considering it's a negative film the scanner should be able to get enough shadow information from the brighter parts of the film. Do you think I could even go so far as to expose it for ISO 1000, or would that be pushing a bit too far? (Considering the lab will probably develop it at ISO 400).

 

[Tim Gray]

Shooting TMAX 400 [EDIT: I meant Tri-X, but I think both might work?] @ 800 might be an option -- considering it's a negative film the scanner should be able to get enough shadow information from the brighter parts of the film. Do you think I could even go so far as to expose it for ISO 1000, or would that be pushing a bit too far? (Considering the lab will probably develop it at ISO 400).

In my tests, Tmax 400 and Tri-X have roughly the same speed. Both of them will look better if development is adjusted to compensate for rating it at 800. However, Kodak states both of these films have enough latitude to develop normally if shot at 800. If you are scanning, you have a bit more leeway to adjust contrast to your liking in this case, though you'd probably be fine wet printing as well (just print on a harder grade). So that sounds like it might be your best bet if your lab can't accommodate shooting at speeds other than box speed and you don't home develop.

The difference between 800 and 1000 is only a 1/3rd of a stop, i.e. not that big of a deal when it comes to making exposures. Just rate it at 800. It's worth it to have the extra tiny bit of shadow detail.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200. I've used the Tmax for years and just got into shooting the Delta a lot, and am liking the tonality slightly more.