So, I've been thinking about this for a little while. It kindof seems like fast film is a "better deal", optically/photographically when you factor everything in.
I mean, I don't use strobes or anything and I'm always painfully aware of how there is never any light. Even outside during a cloudy day, f/8 at 125th is nowhere near enough depth of field, and at like f/16 at 1/30th, people can have motion blur, etc. It's tough.
I mainly have shot 100 speed film, because I figured, well, I'm shooting 4x5 so that I can get big, sharp, grain-free prints. But, I've shot some 400 speed film, HP5... I really like how it looks, and the grain is pretty small. I can tell a difference between FP4 and HP5 in terms of grain, but it's really not that much. So it got me to thinking... aren't fast films kindof a better deal, like per photon of light hitting your film? I mean, HP5 is 4x faster than FP4, but I would muuuch rather have a 4x5 HP5 neg than a 6x6 FP4 neg (which is around 4x smaller). Similarly, a little 35mm neg on, say, plus-x doesn't seem like it'd hold nearly as much detail as a 6x6 tri-x neg. It's 4x faster, but not 4x grainier.
But shooting that kind of thing would give you *around* the same depth of field, shutter speed, etc, right? Like, 80mm lens on 6x6 looks kindof like a 150mm on 4x5. 80mm/8 = 10mm aperture, 150/15 (round to f/16) ~ 10mm aperture. So 80mm, F8, 125th sec on 6x6, 100 asa film, and 150mm, f/16, 125th, on 4x5, 400 asa film, should give you similar depth of field, field of view, same shutter speed, etc.
Right? Or is something off about that...
I'm just kindof working it out in my head. I haven't actualy tested anything like this out, I don't even have a MF camera anyways, and I'm trying to be less nerdy about film, grain, developer, blah blah blah and just shoot more photos.
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you shoot fast film?
Bookmarks