noah b
Established
Hey all, I'm just starting out on the 4x5 and trying to figure if I want to go with 100 or 400 iso. I've shot both on my MF rangefinder and like both speeds. Which do you think would be good?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
remember that lenses in LF are much longer, meaning you need much smaller apertures for even "normal" DOF, which means...a 100 speed film might have a very long exposure time.
bmattock
Veteran
The answer, as is often the case, is another question - what do you intend to photograph, and under what conditions?
If light is insufficient for the shutter speed and f-stop you wish to use, then a faster speed film is called for. If light is sufficient, then slower speed is generally preferable, unless you prefer a particular 'look' which the faster speed might offer.
The goal of the three-way dance between f-stop, shutter speed, and film speed, is to get the exposure you want.
So decide what photograph you want, and that will tell you what film speed to use.
A tiny hint - large format photography is often a slow, deliberate, process to begin with. Fast film is almost never a necessity. Slower film tends to have finer grain.
noah b
Established
Most of the time I want to photograph in the morning to mid afternoon outside. I'll be doing landscapes and architectures, then eventually portraits and thats what I'll be doing most. I love the sharpness of 100speed but I'm unsure how it'd be with portraits.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
it's fine as long as the people hold still 
. I shoot fomapan t200 at 160 and I only have problems when it's outdoors with a breeze. Leaves moving around, etc. Exposures are 1/15 at the fastest, usually, and sometimes 30s, 1 minute, etc.
If landscapes and a breeze, bring 400 speed. I have 2 boxes of hp5 just for that reason.
. I shoot fomapan t200 at 160 and I only have problems when it's outdoors with a breeze. Leaves moving around, etc. Exposures are 1/15 at the fastest, usually, and sometimes 30s, 1 minute, etc. If landscapes and a breeze, bring 400 speed. I have 2 boxes of hp5 just for that reason.
bmattock
Veteran
Landscapes and architecture is typically shot at a small aperture to increase depth-of-field, which means slower shutter speeds or faster film or both.
Portraits are often show with a wider aperture to avoid razor-sharpness, depending upon what you want your portraits to look like. This would allow you to use relatively slower film or faster shutter speeds.
With 35mm, 400 is often a good compromise film for color prints. With 4x5, it is more dependent upon the nature of your photography and the goal you wish to achieve.
Sharpness generally isn't an issue when shooting at 4x5 or larger, because the enlargement factor does not tend to degrade the image nearly as much, or at all in some cases. More real estate on the film means a lens does not have to be as perfect to obtain 'sharp' results as a smaller negative, which can show every problem a lens may have when sufficiently enlarged.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
with 4x5, 100 asa is better IMO since its on a tripod. Even leaves moving are okay -- review Joel Meyerowitz 8x10 fotos. f/11.
Last edited:
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
it depends.
I often prefer 400 just to keep the exposures reasonable. Since the negs are big, you are not enlarging as much, grain is less of an issue.
However! I also shoot architecture and on very long exposures, some 100 speed films are faster than 400 speed films due to the way they handle reciprocity. Tmax 100 vs Tmax 400 for instance - there is a crossover point where the 100 speed films require less correction for reciprocity which gets to be a multiplier on exposure times. (I have a shot inside Canterbury that was a 40 minute exposure on 400 speed film, due to doubling exposure times in reciprocity... it would have been a 15-20 minute exposure on Tmax100 - live and learn).
Ultimately though - you're usually already using a tripod. What's an extra 1/2 second on the exposure? Use whatever film gives you the tonal control and characteristics you like.
I often prefer 400 just to keep the exposures reasonable. Since the negs are big, you are not enlarging as much, grain is less of an issue.
However! I also shoot architecture and on very long exposures, some 100 speed films are faster than 400 speed films due to the way they handle reciprocity. Tmax 100 vs Tmax 400 for instance - there is a crossover point where the 100 speed films require less correction for reciprocity which gets to be a multiplier on exposure times. (I have a shot inside Canterbury that was a 40 minute exposure on 400 speed film, due to doubling exposure times in reciprocity... it would have been a 15-20 minute exposure on Tmax100 - live and learn).
Ultimately though - you're usually already using a tripod. What's an extra 1/2 second on the exposure? Use whatever film gives you the tonal control and characteristics you like.
x-ray
Veteran
You can see there's no real answer. I use film from 50 to 400 ISO. Generally I like the look of the 50 Efke / Adox but most frequently use 200 Foma/Arista Edu Utra (exactly the same film but less expensive than Foma) and rate the 200 at 160. For 400 I use HP5 and for 125 FP4 use these rarely.
As mentioned grain isn't an issue unless you're enlarging to huge sizes. Large format isn't for action so slow film is fine for may subjects. My reasoning for using the 50 Efke is the beautiful tonal scale. The 50 is basically an emulsion from the 40/50's and is very rich in silver. Its not particularly fine grained but has a really lovely rich tonal scale. It really has the look of a film from that era.
As mentioned grain isn't an issue unless you're enlarging to huge sizes. Large format isn't for action so slow film is fine for may subjects. My reasoning for using the 50 Efke is the beautiful tonal scale. The 50 is basically an emulsion from the 40/50's and is very rich in silver. Its not particularly fine grained but has a really lovely rich tonal scale. It really has the look of a film from that era.
venchka
Veteran
First of all, grain won't even be a concern.
Second, until you test your equipment, film, devloper, time, etc. you won'y know what your film speed is. Personally, I expose HP5+ at 250. For all I know, my "speed" for 100 film could be 50. I appreciate the extra comfort zone with HP5+. Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 is the undisputed reciprocity failure champ: None out to 16 minutes.
Third, according to Sandy King in an article in View Camera magazine, there was no difference between Tmax 100 and NEW Tmax 400 up to 32"x40" enlargements.
Fourth, don't forget the bellows factor losses if you decide to get up close and personal.
So, for normal use, I prefer a 400 speed film that is really a 200 or 250 film.
If you want a true 100 speed film, give the Arista.EDU.Ultra 200 from Freestyle a good testing. The general consensus is that the true spped is closer to 100. I got a 100 sheet box on Wednesday and will start testing soon.
Bottom line on sheet film speed: More folks seem to use closer to half of the box speed than the printed box speed.
Good luck!
ps: The really good news is that you aren't limited to one or the other. With a few holders, you can have several emulsions at the ready. As everyone else has hinted at, there are a LOT of 4x5 film options available. Heck, try them all. We don't know which film will be RIGHT for you.
Second, until you test your equipment, film, devloper, time, etc. you won'y know what your film speed is. Personally, I expose HP5+ at 250. For all I know, my "speed" for 100 film could be 50. I appreciate the extra comfort zone with HP5+. Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 is the undisputed reciprocity failure champ: None out to 16 minutes.
Third, according to Sandy King in an article in View Camera magazine, there was no difference between Tmax 100 and NEW Tmax 400 up to 32"x40" enlargements.
Fourth, don't forget the bellows factor losses if you decide to get up close and personal.
So, for normal use, I prefer a 400 speed film that is really a 200 or 250 film.
If you want a true 100 speed film, give the Arista.EDU.Ultra 200 from Freestyle a good testing. The general consensus is that the true spped is closer to 100. I got a 100 sheet box on Wednesday and will start testing soon.
Bottom line on sheet film speed: More folks seem to use closer to half of the box speed than the printed box speed.
Good luck!
ps: The really good news is that you aren't limited to one or the other. With a few holders, you can have several emulsions at the ready. As everyone else has hinted at, there are a LOT of 4x5 film options available. Heck, try them all. We don't know which film will be RIGHT for you.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
Your ISO with any film has a lot to do with the developer you're using and your technique. Where Wayne rates his film at about half the rated ISO I've never found this to be the case for me. I find Arista 200 to work best at 160, new 35mm TX to work best at 250 but also find HP5 and FP4 to have full shadow information at the manufactures recommended ratings. I mainly use Ilford HC but years ago when I apprenticed in a commercial studio we used Microdol-X for roll film and rated many films at 2/3 to 1/2 the normal rating.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
I usually choose a film based on tonality first, rather than speed, unless I'm shooting handheld press camera style or shooting a subject that obviously needs a higher speed film. If the camera's on a tripod, I can deal with long exposures usually, but I often shoot Tri-X, because I like the strong sense of line that it produces.