Printable View
Delta 3200 is not really 3200 speed film. The actual film speed is closer to 1000. You can shoot Trix as you would have shot Delta 3200 and develop it the same way and get the same awful results you would have, that might have been useful incase some super important event was captured on those photos and nowhere else, say like the hindenburg explosion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg
I know Delta 3200 is not really 3200, it is more like 1200. The results are not awful, I've gotten excellent shots using it. Of course, it depends on what you're comparing it to. I'm happy to have a fast film for use in shooting in dimly lit nightclubs.
The film speed is 1000-1200 but really low contrast. It's designed to be pushed (increase in contrast). Though in dimly-lit bars or streets often there is already a lot of contrast (light sources vs. shadows) so YMMV with regard to situation.
I always liked T-Max 3200 more than Delta but that's gone anyway, and wasn't available in larger film, even 120.
"Awful" results come from the photographer. While the film may be grainy, it's only limited by one's usage, IMO. Just being less grainy does not automatically mean better.
This is Tri-X pushed to 2500 IIRC. Banding is from my old scanner, not on the negative. I need to rescan this one sometime, if I can find it. Shot hand-held with an Aero Ektar wide-open:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ab9w4CfWn_.../s640/0126.jpg
We don't know. Simon Galley canvassed APUG for interest in Delta 3200 sheet film back in 2007, the response was lukewarm, and nothing ever came of it. I'd guess the major problem is just that at current sales volumes for sheet film, it's unlikely that the R&D effort needed to tweak the emulsion for the different base would be paid back in sufficiently increased sales, especially taking into account that at least some Delta 3200 sales would likely come at the expense of HP5 Plus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg
But I think it's been quite a while since this was last discussed. Perhaps it would be worth a query to Simon over at APUG to see whether thinking on this has changed at all.
Thanks for that info, Oren, perhaps it is worth bringing up again. I'm surprised that the handholders wouldn't have been excited about getting a faster film. Perhaps the backers of the TravelWide could see a need for such a film.
Aghh, I can't wait to see what you guys do with this camera! To my eye, TMAX or even HP5 looks pretty good pushed to ~1600 in 4x5… You won't have deep shadow information, but if you want punchy blacks, that's not an issue.
Even ISO 1600 is not going to let you do much night shooting (not at ƒ/6.8 anyway), but it does let you reach 1/500 at ƒ/22 on an overcast day. So it's great for zone focused street shooting, where you probably want contrast anyway.
Hmm, that seems a little too optimistic, Ben. 1/500@f/22 at ISO 1600 is EV 18. Bright sun is EV 15.
Still, I'm all for zone focusing on the street, I do it all the time. I like f/11 when I can get it, which is 6 feet to infinity on my 35mm Lux.
Here is how Garry Winogrand worked: "Winogrand had a simple way of working. He carried two Leica M4 rangefinder cameras, 28mm and 35mm prime lenses, and lots of Tri-X film. He often underexposed the ISO 400 speed film by rating it at EI 1200 and then pushing it 1.5 stops in processing. This allowed him to use a faster shutter speed outdoors, often 1/1000 sec" from http://www.shutterbug.com/content/sh...erhaps-revised
Garry worked fast and was good about practicing ineptitude. He'd take a shot and then look at the camera as if something was wrong with it, and he'd smile. I try to work fast and be unobtrusive but people are very conscious of cameras these days.
It will be cool to shoot sheet film in the street because we'll be able to write down plus and minus times per shot for zone system work.
Oh yeah, what is going to be the close focusing distance on the 65? I guess we'll be able to adjust it with shims.
I'm off in a different direction with the TW90. It's really too expensive, at least for me, to use film in 4X5 so......I'm going to use paper as a negative. It is not as crazy as it sounds. With pre-flashed paper ISO is about 12, so about 1/10 sec @f16 in bright light. At f8 that would be 1/30 or so. I've already pretested this on my other 4X5 with the 90 f6.8 Angulon mounted and in sunny conditions I obtained reasonable density with those exposures. I suppose someday I will spring for a box of Arista 100 from Freestyle but the cheap paper will let me experiment and make mistakes on the cheap and the whole process can be carried out under safelight.
I guess you can save some money that way but an ISO of 12 would frustrate me. I think Edward Weston's personal ISO was 12, LOL, but his shell exposures went on for hours.
You'll save electricity developing film in the dark, ha ha. Working in the dark is a learned skill.
Usually we normalize EV to ISO 100, so that EV 15 is always bright sun… So 1/500 @ ƒ/22 is only EV 18 at ISO 100. At 1600, it's EV 14, which is admittedly a bit bright for "overcast." :) That was actually from a real meter reading, so it must have been a very bright overcast day here in Chicago! And I may have metered a bright subject (the house across the street).Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg
In any case, we can knock it down to 1/250 and ƒ/16 to be more realistic. :)