ASA/ISO in Large Format

[yeknom02]

Preface: I'm new to large format and trying to get through my first box of film, 50 sheets of T-Max 400, exp. 2003. I'm actually shooting a photo a day until it's exhausted, at which point I may continue the project and order another box, but I'm trying to decide what film to try shooting next.

I was having a discussion with an older pro photographer, and he was surprised that I was asking about lower-ASA film (namely Delta 100) in 4x5 sheets. He said that most Large Format shooters would ideally use 400-speed film since the format is so large and you can use faster shutter speeds at that film sensitivity.

While I was fairly sure it was bogus reasoning to apply to the whole LF community, it did get me thinking. I use a 400-speed film (HP5+) as a general-purpose film on smaller formats and switch to something like Delta 100 or Acros when I want something sharper or more fine-grained. But again, that's for smaller formats. Do you think that your philosophy about choosing a film (and it's ASA) to shoot changes once you've moved up to large format? Or do you still find yourself noticing differences in sharpness and resolution once you're dealing with a gigantic negative?

[Daniel Stone]

He's right.

When you have a larger negative, you(should) have the need to expand(enlarge) it less to get to a larger print(even an 8x10 print is only a 2X expansion, where as a 35mm negative needs 7.5-8X, IIRC to reach an 8x10 print size).

Having a "faster" film helps one to get more shutter speed, especially if stopping the lens down to achieve the desired/required DOF for the photograph.

Tmax 400(TMY, now TMY-2) is a wonderful film, IMO. It has virtually no curve contrast wise, and can be developed to the moon, and still retain detail in the highlights. IMO, a spectacle of engineering in film design!

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" I like to say. If you like the results, why change?

-Dan

[DanK]

I've personally never used a film faster than 125 with large format, typically closer to 25...but I only occasionally use a lens with a mechanical shutter...so I'm usually looking for long exposures...

It's personal preference in my opinion, I relate speed to grain, and really enjoy grainy images - but with large format I prefer no hint of grain. If I do need grain I will choose a smaller format, and faster film - or lith print a larger neg.

But, as mentioned before - depending on the size of your enlargements - I doubt the difference between 100 and 400 will be noticeable at smaller enlargements (I personally don't see a significant difference between films rated at 25 and 100 or 125 in 4x5 printed to 8x10 - but may be quite evident mural size)

Cheers,
Dan

[Herb Cunningham]

You will find a lot of 35mm shooters use 400 speed film, especially Tmax 400. They claim 16x20 enlargements of great quality. I don't enlarge 35mm that much but you can get really great prints out of 400 speed film, and I expect 4x5 and larger would depend on exposure, negative density and what kind of development. Over developing Tri X and those kind of films results in larger grain. Don't have experience with T grain. When you are exhibiting, grain is seldom an issue with the judges.

[Brian Ellis]

My standard film with LF for many years was HP5+ for the reason stated above, i.e. it allowed faster shutter speeds which was useful when foliage was moving around or in any similar situation. I also used TMax100 out of necessity when using Readyloads. If there was any difference in the technical quality of the prints from either film at my maximum darkroom enlargement (16x20) I never noticed it. Of course I had done the necessary testing to determine my rated speed and my normal, plus, and minus development times for each film.

[ic-racer]

8x10 camera + dark scene + f64 + slow film can produce a negative showing no shadow detail due to reciprocity failure in the shadows.

[Jim Noel]

To say that MOST LF photographers use 400 speed films is incorrect. A significant number do s. However a significant number also use lith film in camera at a film speed of 3-6. Significant numbers also use films with speeds in between. I always start my students with 100-125 speed films because of their finer grain, ability to be expanded and usually good film curves. Personally I use about equal quantities of lith and FP4+, with only an occasional sheet of HP5+.

[Jim Noel]

8x10 camera + dark scene + f64 + slow film can produce a negative showing no shadow detail due to reciprocity failure in the shadows.

Carry a card with reciprocity departure information for the film you are using to eliminate this problem.

[Drew Wiley]

Everything is relative. To me, anything in 16X20 printed from 35mm looks like a ball of
fuzz. I sometimes shoot TMax 400 in 4X5 just for the speed, but really prefer 400 speed films in 8X10. With the smaller f-stops typically used in large format, combined with windy conditions, having a faster film often helps. The nice thing about larger film is that you can pay more attention to tonality as opposed to grain, since the magnification required for printing is less.

[jp]

I've got two film choices. For most purposes TMY2 is hard to beat and is what I use most of the time for high quality 4x5.

I also have Fomapan 100 (which may not be quite 100 depending on the developer used) for 8x10 when shooting wide open. The 8x10 lenses' shutters don't go that fast. I think my kodak portrait lens only goes to 1/50th and my 300/5.6 scheider only goes to 1/125. portrait lenses for sf work are usually best close to wide open. A ND filter could permit use of iso400 film outdoors wide open, but it's good to have option; in bright weather I might need the ND and the slower film.

Of course, I also have fomapan 100 for 4x5 and TMY2 for 8x10. I'm just going to stick to two films for now. The kodak is higher quality material and more capable, but the foma is significantly cheaper and has an older look. Not implying TMY2 has a newer look; it has a bunch of looks as it's very versatile.

[Greg Lockrey]

I was strictly a Plus-X (ASA 125) guy trying to learn all that I could do with it. Just liked how it looked printed on the numerous papers that I liked. Camera was always on a tripod so slow shutter speeds weren't much of an issue.

[yeknom02]

Wow, I'm excited to see so many responses! Thanks for everyone's input so far.

To answer a question posed by Dan in post #2, I never did say I liked the results. I took the box of T-Max since it was even cheaper than a box of 25 sheets of fresh HP5+, which is my go-to film of smaller formats. I've had problems with my fixing, so I've had to fix for longer and mix new batches more often. And it's also just the fact that I don't like the tones I see as much as my shots on other films.

[BrianShaw]

Several years ago I felt "left out" since I never shot anything "faster" than 200 ASA so I bought a box of HP5+. I now have an unopened box of 400 speed film that is long out of date.

Maybe I should start shooting 4x5 handheld mroe often and then I'd get some use out of the faster film.

For most things, though, I never seem to need faster shutter speeds.

[ic-racer]

Carry a card with reciprocity departure information for the film you are using to eliminate this problem.

Absolutely not. The film-plane exposure value of the shadows can be 'off the scale.' Basically, a situation where not enough photons will hit the silver halide to activate it irrespective of any time allotted. The 'standard' reciprocity compensation chart is for a middle value. Highlights in the scene may respond with true reciprocity and shadows may not respond at all.

Imagine a scene where the shadows fall on LogE 0 on this graph and the highlights fall between LogE 2 and 4. As you can see, increasing time will not increase density in the shadows. Following each value of the scene out on the time axis is a little abstract but this diagram does a good job. To get your bearings with this graph, imagine cutting it with a knife straight down parallel with the arrow by "B." This gives you a 'standard' H&D curve exposed at a given time. So you need to image what is going on perpendicular to the H&D curve.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/DlogE.jpg

[Leigh]

To say that MOST LF photographers use 400 speed films is incorrect.
I agree completely. I've never* shot anything faster than ASA 100 in 4x5 or 8x10 formats.


I always start my students with 100-125 speed films because of their finer grain, ability to be expanded and usually good film curves.
I also had my students use 100-speed film. Excellent distinction between real photography and iphone point/shoot pix.

If you want the highest possible quality use Fuji Acros (ASA 100). Resolution per the datasheet is 200 lp/mm.
It has the added advantage of no reciprocity correction up to 100 seconds exposure; beyond that only a 1/2-stop increase up to 1000 seconds. :eek:

- Leigh

*Full disclosure: I did use Royal-X Pan developed in Acufine when I started shooting 4x5 in 1960, but that was a special situation. I was shooting basketball games without flash, and needed the speed (somewhere around 4800 but I'm not sure).

[Jay DeFehr]

I'd estimate my ISO/film usage as follows:

400/ 75%
100/ 20%
other/ 5%


I don't make very large prints, so the circumstances in which a slow film is an advantage are few, and the circumstances in which a fast film is an advantage are typical. In fact, the only circumstance that comes to mind in which a slow film is an advantage for me is when using my Verito/Studio shutter in bright sunlight. Grain and sharpness are simply not issues for me in LF, and especially with TMY-2.

[polyglot]

There's not much point in going slower for finer grain, since TMY2 is so fine already (at least as fine as Fomapan 100). And even if you're using a coarser film like HP5 or Tri-X, you're not going to gain much resolution going to slower speeds because you're probably diffraction limited by shooting at f/22. If you want it to look a bit smoother, TMX or Acros will give some improvement.

However if you want long exposures and shallow DOF in the daytime, that's another matter. Easier to just stick some ISO25 film in there than stack up 6 stops of ND; it will likely look a bit smoother though you probably won't get any more resolution unless you have an exceptional lens and shoot it around f/8-f/11.

[BetterSense]

TMY2 is so good, it makes 100 speed film pointless. This goes even in 35mm for the most part. I even shoot TMY in my half-frame cameras now. I find it has grain comparable to Plus-X, and two extra stops just plain give you more options.

[Bill Burk]

I always preferred the slowest speed/finest grain films for 35mm, and I was fully prepared to prefer 100 in 4x5. After all 4x5 is supposed to be an improvement. But I found when I got here that 400 looks very good on 11x14.

[Leigh]

TMY2 is so good, it makes 100 speed film pointless.
Your opinion, which I and others don't share.

- Leigh

[Robert Skeoch]

I only use Delta 100. I used it for years in 8X10 and now in 4X10.

It's not the grain I like but the film speed. If you're shooting water cascading over the rocks in a bright spot the ISO 400 gives me too fast a shutter speed to really blur the water. The ISO100 allows two stops longer and the flowing water has returned. At least that's why I started using it.

Now I shoot portraits with it and just never went back to the higher speed film. I wouldn't worry about grain. I was in a big gallery a few months back and saw a Herni Cartier Bresson shot from generations ago, with lousy film, poor lenses, and no technology. Wow what a great looking photograph. Of course for those who only test films shooting brick walls and the like, they might have found a few issues with the quality.

-Rob Skeoch

[Robert Hughes]

Horses for courses, as they say. If I'm out on a sunny afternoon I've got no need for high speed film. But under cover on a cloudy day, it can be a shoot saver.

[Drew Wiley]

I find TMY a bit gritty for 4x5, though I do use frequently use it in that size when I need the speed. I prefer it in 8X10, and generally something finer like ACROS for 4x5.
I can't personally imagine shooting something like Tri-X in any size, though many folks like it. If I deliberately want grit I shoot a high-speed film in 35mm. In large format prints, I like high acutance with good edge effect, but not any conspicuous grain.

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew, how large are you printing your 4x5 negs?

[Drew Wiley]

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.

[Jay DeFehr]

I'm surprised you find objectionable grain at that enlargement factor, but I don't USM, either. My favorite medium speed film is Acros, but I like PF+ and Efke 25, too.

[Drew Wiley]

ACROS is wonderful stuff in the mtns, especially due to the orthopan sensitivity, and I
will sorely miss it in Quickload form. I still have a few sheets of 8x10 left. The speed is
a little slow for 8x10, but it became my favorite 4x5 film.

[Louie Powell]

Different strokes for different folks - - -

LF photographers tend to obsess over 'quality'. This translates into higher speed films for those who are more concerned about contrast control, and lower speed films for those who are more concerned about grain and tonality in the final print.

LF photographers tend to use tripods. As a result, the traditional linkage between shutter speed and film speed is irrelevant. Some like longer exposures and choose lower speed films; those who do portraiture and work with models tend to use higher speed films.

Some have chosen LF because of its simplicity - one camera body, far fewer lenses, etc, and opt to standardize on a single film that they use for all applications. Some choose Ford; some choose Chevy's. Some choose boxers, some choose briefs.

I use only EI100 film that I rate and EI50; I drive a Subaru, and I wear - - - well, that's none of your damn business.

[Jay DeFehr]

LF photographers tend to use tripods. As a result, the traditional linkage between shutter speed and film speed is irrelevant

Louie, while I get your point, you seem to be overlooking some basics. Camera movement is one factor, but subject movement is another that limits the range of useful shutter speeds, and a tripod does little to still subject movement, unless your subject is also mounted to a tripod. I'd say film speed is most important when shutter speeds/apertures are most limited, for whatever reasons.

[Drew Wiley]

The wind is incessant around here. I guess I can't complain since most of the country
is roasting right now; but we might actually get up into the 60's this week! Sometimes
in the Spring I don't even dare turn my back on the camera or a gust of wind will suddenly lift and toss the whole thing, big Ries tripod and all. So film speed is an important issue, especially at f/64. Tonality is another thing that we can luxuriate upon
in large format. Having to enlarge things less allows us to worry less about grain and
pick films with the best curve shape, edge acutance, etc for our intended purposes.
So I might choose a completely different film in 8x10 than in 4x5 for the very same
subject, and certainly different than in MF.

[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 :confused:

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

Can I add it to the developer? :p

- 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.

[Drew Wiley]

I have bounced around with a lot of different films over the years. A lot depended not only on availability of a specific film, but how it responded to the printing papers available at the same time. What is interesting right now is taking some of my LF negs from earlier days and printing them on the newer papers. Subjects which were prolematic back then snap right into place now. But of course, I've also gotten more
experience along the way.

[Leigh]

We can't agree on anything.
I disagree, vehemently. :p

- Leigh

[rdenney]

The sense behind statements such as the one the OP heard is that with the larger format, the enlargement ratio will be smaller and therefore larger grain will not become a problem.

That argument breaks down if the reason to use large format is to obtain much larger prints using the same enlargement ratio. Then, the factors governing acceptable grain are the same for both formats.

But some people do large format for reasons other than printing very large. And for them, it's much more of a gray area. The usual reason is maintaining a smooth tonality. And most people who actually use large format have that in mind as much as detail and resolution, which is why generalizations are false.

I do not intend to print larger than 16x20, even from 4x5, but I want that 16x20 to have qualities that are obtainable at 4x enlargement but not at 8x. That 16x20 would require 17x from 35mm. Grain at 17x is over four times larger than grain at 4x, which is likely a bigger change in grain size than between 100 and 400-speed films. So the slower film is still valuable.

But I might accept 100-speed film for 4x5. Even that is a speed compromise. When I shot black and white in a small-format camera, I generally preferred Panatomic-X, at ISO 25. (And, yes, that tells you how long it's been since I used small format for black and white.) Processed in Rodinal, the tiny grain was still pretty sharply rendered, but it maintained the tonality nicely. With that, I could tolerate 12x enlargements for most subjects.

Rick "yes, the 400-speed films are better than they used to be, but so are the 100-speed films" Denney

[Leigh]

So what film to buy and try first is a mystery.
We can't make that decision for you, any more than we can take pictures for you. :eek:

There are times in life when you just have to make up your own mind. :confused:

- Leigh

[yeknom02]

We can't make that decision for you, any more than we can take pictures for you. :eek:

There are times in life when you just have to make up your own mind. :confused:

Yes, ultimately, I will have to make up my own mind, but that doesn't mean my decision has to be uninformed. ;)