In 4x5 format when do you need ISO100 over Iso 400?

[stradibarrius]

With LF, it seems to me, that grain is not really an issue so under what circumstances would you select 100 speed over 400???

[jp]

I use iso 400 film (tmy2) 95% of the time.

Reasons for slower film: desire to use a wider aperture in bright daylight. different spectral response (tmy2 is naturally light yellow filtered), slower shutter speeds (such as if a shutter doesn't go past 1/100 second) or if you want a slower speed to capture motion and you don't have ND filters.

[Ken Lee]

grain is not really an issue

Doesn't that depend on the degree of enlargement ?

[Leigh]

I have never purchased any film faster than 100 ASA for LF work in over 50 years of doing it.

It's all about quality.

- Leigh

*Technically, Ilford FP4+ is ASA 125, but I shoot it at 100.

[E. von Hoegh]

With LF, it seems to me, that grain is not really an issue so under what circumstances would you select 100 speed over 400???

Always. It's my standard film for 4x5.

[Light Guru]

Just like with other formats of film it depends on what you are shooting.

[MIke Sherck]

Films are not all the same except for speed. FP4+ has a very different look than does HP5+. For that matter, TMX looks different than does TMY. Film speed isn't the only criteria.

Mike

[unixrevolution]

I typically use 400 speed, but that's a function of my wanting to use my Graflex handheld occasionally, and wanting to take portraits without people holding still for too long. I do love a good, sharp 100 speed film.

[Peter Gomena]

If you're working in a studio and need two more stops of depth of field for a flash-lit shot, (and can't use multiple pops of the flash) you can reach for the faster film. If you're in the field and there's a light breeze and you dont want grass and leaves moving, you can reach for the faster film.

My first choice these days if an IS0 100 film. If conditions call for a higher shutter speed, I always pack some 400 ISO film. If I'm shooting smaller formats on windy days, days that are too windy or wet for LF, I always pack some IS0 400 film.

T-Max 400 is so fine-grained for a high-speed film that I don't think twice about using it. My standard film for years was Tri-X 320, and if handled well, it's rare to see grain, especially in smaller enlargements.

So why use 100 ISO film at all? It still has finer resolution and grain than faster film. Other characteristics are different, too, such as reciprocity characteristics and gradation. It's good to have a choice.

[Drew Wiley]

I generally choose a film first for its curve characteristics and specific spectral sensitivity, then for speed. While I often shoot TMY in 4X5, there are times I find
the grain a bit too apparent in smooth tones, esp if enlarged beyond 16x20 or if the neg needs to be masked to enhance microcontrast. I've always hated the look
of Tri-X, which seems like buckshot blown out of a blunderbuss (though there are obviously quite a few people who have done wonderful work it). Once I get to
8x10 film size, TMY is a dream. But I've never been a one-film guy.

[stradibarrius]

I am experimenting with TMY400 now and took my first shots last night. I am really plaesed with how they look. For some reason I have always thought that TMAX was really harsh, but this experience shows me I was wrong.
This is a shot using TMAX400 and pyrocat HD 1+1+100.
Please tell me what you think??

[IanG]

Like others I preferred slower emulsions APX100 (100EI) or Tmax 100 (50EI), on occasions EFKE 25 (50EI), and have a preference for slower shutter speeds and f22/f32, sometimes finding the films too fast in good weather.

However I found I needed to work hand held in Turkey and particular Greece so began using HP5+ in 5x4 with a Crown Graphic & now a Speed Graphic, this allows me to shoot at 1/100 to 1/250 @ f22 400EI and I've been amazed by the quality of the combination of HP5 and Pyrocat HD

I also switched to Delta 100 for my slow film, the choice was mostly because Kodak films were impossible to find while outside the UK in the areas I've visited. Ironically it's now easier to find Foma although Ilford films are very easy to find.

Ian

[Bruce Watson]

With LF, it seems to me, that grain is not really an issue so under what circumstances would you select 100 speed over 400???

I can't think of any at all. My only B&W film is TMY-2.

[C_Remington]

I have never purchased any film faster than 100 ASA for LF work in over 50 years of doing it.

It's all about quality.

- Leigh

*Technically, Ilford FP4+ is ASA 125, but I shoot it at 100.

That's stupid. There is zero grain on a 8x10 contact print on 400 speed film.

[jp]

This is a shot using TMAX400 and pyrocat HD 1+1+100.
Please tell me what you think??

I can't tell from your shot, but I know from personal experience that's a good combination of developer and film. Normally developed it will be very pleasing. Just don't overdevelop or overagitate and it won't be harsh.

[IanG]

That's stupid. There is zero grain on a 8x10 contact print on 400 speed film.

Not really, I know photographers who's only B&W film has been FP4 since it's release and they used FP3 before that, unless you work handheld or maybe shoot portraits there's really no need to use a faster film tahn one of the 100 ISo offereeings from the leading manufacturers.

Ian

[E. von Hoegh]

That's stupid. There is zero grain on a 8x10 contact print on 400 speed film.

The OP asked about 4x5 film. And, some people enlarge 8x10 negatives. Then, slower films generally have smoother tonality - although the old Tri-X 320 was very nice.
And just as a general pointer it isn't nice to call people stupid.

[Mark_S]

With LF, ISO is not the primary reason for selecting one film over another.
As you point out, grain is much less of an issue with LF, and since I don't really hand-hold LF, everything is on a tripod and I don't much care if my shutter speed is 1/60 second, or 60 seconds. I used to use Tri-X in the summer time, because in summer there tend to be deeper shadows, and Tri-X held detail in the shadows better. In the winter I would use Plus-X since my winter landscapes had more highlights than shadows, and Plus-X did better with highlight detail. Then Kodak discontinued Plus-X and I switched over to HP-5, which doesn't seem quite as good as Tri-X in the shadows, not quite as good as Plus-X in highlights, but it seems pretty good all around, and I use the one film for everything.

[Drew Wiley]

Wind is a constant issue around here, or deep deep shade in the redwoods, or sometimes I wish to freeze the motion of water. So I can think of a lot of reasons to
carry a fast LF film. And TMY has been a game changer for me, at least in 4x5 usage. With 8x10 I previously used HP5 for speed, but it tended to look a bit mushy
enlarged from 4x5. And TMY has more effective speed anyway, because it will separate shadows further down than HP5. But each of these films has its own look;
so even though TMY400 is one of my most used films, I also like to have on hand ACROS, FP4, HP5, and odds n' ends of several specialty films.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

In color, I have found some 400 ISO neg films have a grain size which aliases with the fixed pixel size of a CCD scanner for more noise, albeit still subtle and manageable with Noiseware (e.g. earlier version of Portra 400 NC). Too, Ektar is only available in ISO 100, and it's also 1/3 less expensive than Portra 160 or 400.

[premortho]

Films each have their own signature. I happen to like the new Arista 100, exposed at 64. For high speed film, I use Tri-X, but that very rarely. I also use Ortho-Plus, from Ilford. I think films around the hundred speed mark have a really nice tonality that I like.

[Jim Andrada]

Specifically for 4 x 5 (well, OK, for any size) I often like to use the slowest speed film I can get my hands on - EFKE 25 is nice when I want a hint of motion blur in the clouds. It's pretty bright around here and I often like to work with the lens fairly wide open to get shallower DOF. When I'm using barrel lenses I also want a slow film so I can get long enough exposures. I have to admit to occasionally using up to 6 stops of ND when it's the only way to get a longer exposure and wider aperture.

Very rarely see any reason to go above 100 - 125 for LF, although I'll use Tri-X and Tmax occasionally when their characteristics fit the shot or when it's windy and the camera is shaking or the branches are waving, Or when hand holding the Graphic.

For my Mamiya 7 I always use 400 ISO (usually Provia) because it's normally shot handheld, but I use 100 ISO film in the RB67 because it's normally on a tripod.

To net it all out I use both 100 AND 400 depending on circumstances