Why do so many LFers use slow films?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I second Sandy, if they sold 400 TMY in ULF it is all I would use. I use it for 8x10 and I am very pleased with the results. The only thing I dont like is the extended red sensitivity. but using a green or blue filter (blue if there is no sky) brings back the response to similar films like Tri X. For a moment I considered going to Tri X as I love the tonal response of this film, but reciprocity gave the thumbs up to TMY. For the 12x20, fp4 is beautiful.

What puzzels me is the ACROS users, pheww...expensive film! and not significantly different than Delta 100, why pay so much more for that film? I bought a box from Badger graphics, I liked the film but for the price....thanks, but no thanks....

[Brian Ellis]

I'm with the fast film crowd. I use HP5+ at EI 200. I also use T Max 100 in Readyloads at EI 50. Since I'm photographing often in dim light with small apertures and foliage of some sort in the image, the two stop increase in shutter speed I can get with HP5+ is very helpful if there's even the slightest breeze. The only time I really like the slower film is with running water. If the light is bright it can be difficult to use a shutter speed slow enough to produce the effect I want with HP5+. Except in that very limited situation I'd much rather have the faster shutter speeds I'm able to use with HP5+.

[Steve Gangi]

I like the slower films. I usually photograph things that do not move (not much anyway), in fairly bright sunlight. So, I can still stop down a reasonable amount. Also, like some of the other people have already said, faster films like HP5 look sort of flat in comparison.

[Dick Roadnight]

Films continuse to improve...but if you move to a large format, and use foour times as much film area, and use a film two stops faster, you end up with no more detail, and no less grain.

On MF I used some FP4+ because it was all I coud get at short notice - and it was terribly soft - so I went bact to 50 ASA Pan F.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Dick. Your post assumes that increases in film speed are proportional 1:1 with grain, and that resolution is inversely proportionate to grain 1:1. Both assumptions are false, and vastly oversimplified.

[Dick Roadnight]

Jay:

There is a trend, rather than a direct relationship between grain and speed.

Some people use LF cameras because they are masochists, or they enjoy the exercise, but if you want an improvement in picture quality over MF, you need to use decent low speed, fine grain film.

I expect, also that modern MF cameras can resolve as much detail as the original LF cameras, and that the 400 asa films of today are a bit better than the ones I used in the sixties!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but if you want an improvement in picture quality over MF, you need to use decent low speed, fine grain film.



I have to disagree with this, a 4x5 400 speed negative will surpass the quality of a 100 speed MF negative if both are enlarged to the same size. I am not even going to touch making 8x10 contact prints with 400 speed negatives as opposed to enlarging a 100 speed MF negative to 8x10. Simply not even close.



Even if you are talking about making equivalent enlargements, lets say 4x the quality of a LF negative is still greater than MF. If what you say was true, then nobody would be using LF and everybody would be using cameras which were big enough to be at the treshold of the no longer noticieable improvement in quality. Let me give you a hint, it is not because we are masochists and many of us who use ULF really get very little exercice from them as we usually shoot a few feet from the car....:-)

[Ole Tjugen]

My problem has always been getting films that are slow enough!

I like to have full control of DOF, so I'm likely to shoot at f:3.5 to 4.5 - depending on the lens. Using the "Sunny 11 rule" (16, modified for high latitudes) at f:4 gives 1/2000 second at EI 125...

All my lnses are old, many of the shutters don't even go to 1/100 second. To use these at full opening (f:4.5) in sunshine, I need a film speed of not more than EI 12.

When I do stop down, I've got a tripod...

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Dick. I have, use, and love my RB67, but Jorge has got it right. There is no substitute for area of film. Grain is only one element of overall image quality, and its primacy is debatable. I think the fact that it's possibly the most recognizable component of degradation of image quality, along with ease of measurement might contribute to its position in the minds of many photographers. Other factors and characteristics like, local contrast, acutance and length of scale could be said to contribute more to the quality of an image than the grain size. If one is to consider contact printing vs. enlarging, then there is little to debate. All of that being said, in the '60s I was more interested in my BigWheel than matters photographic, so I respect your experience. Respectfully, Jay

[Bruce Watson]

My purpose in starting this thread was to learn, and I have. What a diverse set of answers. It is really interesting to me that there are so many ways of working - so many demands to place on film. Thanks to all for their responses!