What sheet film pushes the best?

[paul stimac]

I need to push to iso 3200 (maybe 6400) to get a fairly fast shutter speed (1/60 or faster) in a dimly lit bar. Is there a sheet film, BW or color, that can do that fairly well?

[Matthew Cromer]

Why not just borrow a dSLR and 50/1.8? I mean I love my Shen Hao and everything but I would never try and shoot in a dimly lit bar with a f/5.6 lens wide open. ISO 6400 film sounds pretty grainy.

[Oren Grad]

The short answer is no, that's really a stretch. If you absolutely must, I'd suggest Ilford HP5 Plus. Be sure to run some tests first under similar conditions, to make sure the results are tolerable. Better would be to drop back to a medium-format camera if you own or can borrow one, which will likely give you access to faster lenses and also allow you to try Ilford Delta 3200, which is available in 120 rolls but not in sheet film.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't think you'll get that much speed either, but you might try HP5+ in RAF pyro-metol. Here's the formula and my findings with it in TX and TXT--

www.apug.org/forums/article.php?c=11 (http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?c=11)

It gets a lot of speed with films that have a short toe, not as much with films like TXT. I used it for some 8x10" portraits I did not long ago in gallery lighting on TXT, and they print nicely on grade 3 Azo.

[John_4185]

:) If you can find some HSIE, or something similar, you could put an IR filter over a bounce-flash.

[John Flavell]

Once again, the newpaper background may be helpful. We commonly pushed Tri-X to 3200 and over developed like crazy. You might try acufine or diafine if you can find it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Tmx 400......

[Oren Grad]

We commonly pushed Tri-X to 3200 and over developed like crazy.

But was that TX roll film, or TXT/TXP sheet film? Two completely different animals...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Acufine will get you about a stop of real speed, measured as shadow detail. Above that, and it's all just pushing up the contrast.

[mark blackman]

Rollei R3 film will push to 6400 no problems. You need to use their High Speed developer to get the best results.

[Bob Eskridge]

Ditto: T-Max 400

[Stephan_6145]

I second the R3. Amazing possibilities with the dedicated developers.

[Donald Qualls]

I've gotten acceptable image quality from TXT (the old sheet film version of what's now 320TXP) that was accidentally exposed through the base, then reproduced the results with the same film intentionally exposed at EI 5000.

I used a developer I cobbled together for the occasion:

Dektol 1:9

HC-110 syrup for Dilution B (taking the Dektol as dilution water)

4 g/L ascorbic acid

2 tsp/L washing soda

Developed for 15 minutes with *vigorous* agitation (shake it like mixing up salad dressing!) every 30 seconds; the film (a couple years past date) shows distinct fog, but prints with approximately normal contrast and has good (not excellent, just good) shadow detail. It might be possible to push the contrast still further by developing longer, which would increase the EI still more, but I wouldn't want to count on it...

Of course, if you're using 4x5, you should also consider a 545 back and Polaroid Type 57, which is rated at ISO 3000 right out of the box. Even better, you can process the prints on the spot and *know* that you did or didn't get the exposure you want...

[Oren Grad]

Any R3 fans out there have a high-EI sample that you could scan and post here?

[mark blackman]

here's a sample of 10x8 R3 film rated at 6400 iso. This is a piece of film 9 mm x 6 mm. This enlargement is approximately 20x the orginal, at 72 dpi. This equates to an enlargement 160" x 200", or around 3 x 4 metres.

http://www.markb.me.uk/r36400small.jpg

[paul stimac]

Thanks everyone... I'm going to try the R3 thanks to Mark's sample. Mark, did you use the Rollie high speed developer?

[mark blackman]

yes, Paul. Don't forget the pre-wash! As I usualy shoot FP4 it's not something I'm used to, and have found out the hard way it must be done.