ASA/ISO in Large Format

[Roger Cole]

I generally print 4x5 to 16x20, but once in awhile to 20x24. The biggest problem is that
sometimes I do unsharp masking and that can accentuate the graininess in the midtones. Still, the advantages of TMY often outweigh the disadvantages. I don't consider it a significant issue because I shoot 8x10 a lot more often than 4x5. I've never been fond of the grainy look of Tri-X, though that doesn't necessarily consitute a criticism of how others might use it. I'm down to my last few sheets of Bergger 200 -
another film wonderful in 8x10 but so-so in 4x5, same for HP5. But with a good supply of 8x10 TMY now in the freezer, I'm pretty optimistic. When I opt for 6x9 back on the
4x5 or shoot the Pentax 6x7, the only films I find suitable for a 16x20 print are Pan F
or Efke 25 - a whole different ballgame due to the slow speeds, but at least I can pick
up the detail and general look I want. With 35mm I work in an entirely different style
and generally handheld, but tend to print these quite small.

You must be REALLY sensitive to grain, to object to it in a 4x enlargement from TMY, unless the USM increases it a lot more than I thought it would.

But then, some of us are more sensitive to it than others. I happily shoot Tri-X at 1200-1600 in Diafine in 35mm and, while the grain is clearly visible in 8x10s, I find it totally acceptable for the kinds of subjects that I use that for. Of course those are very different from the subjects I shoot in 4x5.

My 4x5 film of choice is TMY, now TMY-2. I'm not currently set up to print larger than 11x14 (though I have been known to crop to that size from a 16x20 or so full frame) but I find the grain from TMY to be pretty much invisible at 4x enlargement.

I do have a stash of frozen APX100 from the last time I was shooting 4x5 in the late 90s which I intend to thaw and, assuming it is still good, use it. I wouldn't let such a good film go to waste because it's a bit slow and, as others here said, there are times 100 is more convenient than 400. But if I had to choose one black and white film for 4x5 it would be one of nominally 400 speed, probably in order TMY-2 or HP5.

[Drew Wiley]

The whole point of a mask is to either correct for contrast range (generally unncessary
in this era of high-quality VC papers) or in my case, to accentuate micro-contrast in
the scale of the negative without sacrificing reproduction of the extremes. Unlike some
practitioners, I don't like to mask black and white work unless I have to; it's just another tool in box like bleaching or whatever. I do it all the time in color, so am quite
comfortable with it. Once in awhile it can really make a black and white print sing. With
TMY-2 it can make the grain just a little more apparent than I personally like, but this
film has so many positive qualities that there's a pretty good chance it's what I'll be
packing most of the time.

[Roger Cole]

I understand that. I like the look of an unsharp mask in some prints though, like anything, I've also seen it overdone. But never having actually used it in the darkroom I was only guessing at the effect on apparent grain. That does make sense.

[Leigh]

The biggest problem is that sometimes I do unsharp masking ...

Hmmm unsharp masking

I don't find a control for that on my enlarger head

Can I add it to the developer?

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

I loved the Kodak Copy Film under the redwoods...about ASA 12 or something like that. Exposure time was nap time...LOL!

[Drew Wiley]

Actually there was a semi-automated form of unsharp masking which employed photochromic glass above the negative stage instead of negative film. It provided a
generic level of control at best. One more thing for archeologists of the future to try
to decipher. They'll probably surmise that it's some kind of fortune-telling device
connected to a secret society that met in the dark.

[Bill Burk]

I remember having trouble containing a smug smirk when I first saw computerized unsharp masking because I knew outside our secret society there would be a lot of people wondering why they called it that...
---

I could see going to slower film for a couple good reasons brought up in this thread:

-Flowing water.
-Cropping, or otherwise enlarging more than 3x.

[Michael_4514]

[I]

. . . He said that most Large Format shooters . . ..

As you may have gathered by now, any statement beginning with "most large format shooters" is bound to be false. We can't agree on anything.

Figure out what you like and what works for you.

[yeknom02]

As you may have gathered by now, any statement beginning with "most large format shooters" is bound to be false. We can't agree on anything.

Figure out what you like and what works for you.

Yeah, I knew that I would get a ton of conflicting responses when I posted this, which is sort of what I wanted. I was hoping to gather together a list of pro's and con's to look over while considering emulsions. On one hand, I like the consistency of picking a film (my go-to in smaller formats is HP5+) and a developer and sticking with it. On the other hand, I like the tones I see from Acros 100 and Delta 100, so I might give those a shot as well... but even so, do I do that now, or later? So what film to buy and try first is a mystery.

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, I knew that I would get a ton of conflicting responses when I posted this, which is sort of what I wanted. I was hoping to gather together a list of pro's and con's to look over while considering emulsions. On one hand, I like the consistency of picking a film (my go-to in smaller formats is HP5+) and a developer and sticking with it. On the other hand, I like the tones I see from Acros 100 and Delta 100, so I might give those a shot as well... but even so, do I do that now, or later? So what film to buy and try first is a mystery.

One advantage of LF is that it's very easy to shoot mixed film types at the same scene, compared to 35mm where you either have to unload mid roll or have another body with the other film, or even MF for those who don't have interchangeable backs. With 35mm I have two bodies now, and always want a third type of film, and in MF I only have one TLR with no interchangeable back so what I have loaded is what I shoot unless I want to burn/waste the rest of the roll to change, not even having the option of taking the film out midroll and losing only one frame like I can with my manual wind 35mm cameras.

But I always have a couple of types of B&W film in my holders, maybe one holder with a couple sheets of color neg, and a roll film back too with a couple of types of 120 in the bag. The latter is not really the same though, of course (if nothing else the comparative cropping means you can't shoot exactly the same scene on it and maybe not even approximately the same.)

But it's easy to experiment by loading up holders with different types of film. I like settling on a couple of types for just the reasons mentioned here - like a 400 and a 100, say. I mainly shoot TMY-2 but I have some frozen APX 100 I plan to use until it's gone, then I'll choose another medium speed film to have one or two holders loaded with.