Something has been bothering me a bit as of late - comments like "X film is a 400 ISO film but really it performs like a 200 ISO film". Example include Fomapan 400 (I've heard things like it is better at 200 or 320) or Pancro 400 (which to me in 4x5 tends to give me thinner negatives using stock times if I rate it at 400). I'm also confused at the notion of "full speed" developers - that feels like a function of development time to attain the rated speeds. It's a question irrespective of just erring on the side of over-exposing the film a bit or intentionally pushing and pulling film.
I guess stated another way I'm not sure the relationship in development times when developing at box speed. If I'm buying a 400 ISO film I kinda expect I should judge it, at least initially, by its box speed. So if my negatives are thin, I feel like I should add time until they are the density I'm looking for then then, if desired, I might push or pull?
Or stated a third way, what is the difference in shooting, say, Fomapan 400 at 200 over just developing it longer and expose it at the box speed? Why is one better than the other (if it is)?
Hopefully that makes sense. It's been bugging me a bit because while I like the look of Pancro 400 for instance, in the 400 range I tend to lean on speed a bit more, especially in 4x5. If I don't have to worry about speed, I tend to use TMX (which I know looks very different from Pancro). If I want to take photos of flowers and it is slightly windy for example, having to loose a stop of speed before dealing with filters and what not changes things. HP5 I feel like I know well enough to be comfortable with it at box speed and pushed (I've gone as far as 1600 in 4x5 but I suspect I could go to 3200 and get good results with my process).
This is a general question but for what it's worth I tend to use XTOL (1:1 though lately I'm experimenting with replenishment).
Bookmarks