If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
Ok, not digital, but many here will know.
I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. Also, any suggestions for a good place to buy would be helpful. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
On 2016-07-22 13:15:41 +0000, Peabody said:
Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. Also, any suggestions for a good place to buy would be helpful. A good place to start would be B&H and I would look at: Ilford Delta 100 Ilford FP4 (ISO 125) Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50) Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros All of those are finer grained than Tri-X. However, the way the grain shows in shadows is very effective and less harsh than pushed Tri-X, giving much more workable contrast. or Kodak 400Tmax (gives better leeway than Tri-X) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
Peabody wrote:
Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. I've shot quite a bit of Tri-X and other 400 speed films in old folding cameras like the Kodak 66 with a maximum shutter speed of 1/200. Tri-x with normal development is probably best exposed at a meter setting of 200 and has lots of overexposure latitude. On a guess-focus medium format camera, small f-stops are your friends. Even if your lens has f/5.6 available it is very difficult in general to guess the distance well enough with a 75mm lens on a 6x6 camera. It is pretty easy to guess medium distances well enough for f/11. If your camera uses the red window film advance system, then you are likely to find that the numbers on the back of Ilford films are a bit faint. They are usable, but you have to look more carefully at the red window. In every other way Ilford films are a good choice. If you want a 125 speed film after all, Ilford FP4+ is very good old technology B&W film. Peter. -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
On 7/22/2016 3:58 PM, Peter Irwin wrote:
Peabody wrote: Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. I've shot quite a bit of Tri-X and other 400 speed films in old folding cameras like the Kodak 66 with a maximum shutter speed of 1/200. Tri-x with normal development is probably best exposed at a meter setting of 200 and has lots of overexposure latitude. On a guess-focus medium format camera, small f-stops are your friends. Even if your lens has f/5.6 available it is very difficult in general to guess the distance well enough with a 75mm lens on a 6x6 camera. It is pretty easy to guess medium distances well enough for f/11. If your camera uses the red window film advance system, then you are likely to find that the numbers on the back of Ilford films are a bit faint. They are usable, but you have to look more carefully at the red window. In every other way Ilford films are a good choice. If you want a 125 speed film after all, Ilford FP4+ is very good old technology B&W film. Peter. FP4 was always my favourite B&W film. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
newshound wrote:
FP4 was always my favourite B&W film. Adox KB-17 and KB-21 were fabulous films that I used in the 1950s in Europe. Latterly, they were made in Yugoslavia,and I do not know if the quality was the same. Memories. Mort Linder |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
Savageduck says...
A good place to start would be B&H and I would look at: Ilford Delta 100 Ilford FP4 (ISO 125) Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50) Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros All of those are finer grained than Tri-X. However, the way the grain shows in shadows is very effective and less harsh than pushed Tri-X, giving much more workable contrast. or Kodak 400Tmax (gives better leeway than Tri-X) Thanks, but I've shot a roll of 100 Acros in the camera, and didn't like it. That smooth look is what I'm trying to get away from. I know that some of the grain in Tri-X results from it being 400 speeed, but I thought part of it was also because it isn't a t-grain film. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
Peter Irwin says...
On a guess-focus medium format camera, small f-stops are your friends. Even if your lens has f/5.6 available it is very difficult in general to guess the distance well enough with a 75mm lens on a 6x6 camera. It is pretty easy to guess medium distances well enough for f/11. The camera is a Kodak Medalist, with very capable range finder focus. It's 6x9, with a 100mm lens. Focus isn't the issue, but I would like to be able to not have everything in focus, and thought a slower film would let me use larger apertures for shallower depth of field. But mainly, I like the character of the Tri-X grain. If your camera uses the red window film advance system, then you are likely to find that the numbers on the back of Ilford films are a bit faint. They are usable, but you have to look more carefully at the red window. I only have to look on the first frame. After that, the camera automatically advances the right amount. If you want a 125 speed film after all, Ilford FP4+ is very good old technology B&W film. Yes, it looks like that's the one I need to try. The film type indicator on the camera has these options: Kodacolor Plus-X Super XX Panatomic X Verichrome So a 125 would fit right in. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
On 2016-07-22, Peabody wrote:
Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. Also, any suggestions for a good place to buy would be helpful. You're going against the flow of more than 100 years of film makers trying to get rid of grain ) Look into 'pull processing'. Essentially, giving less chemical development to compensate for over-exposing in the camera. A nominally ISO 400 film might give acceptable results exposed as ISO 200 or even ISO 100. Different developer chemicals also give different 'grain' and 'speed'. Check out the 'Lomography' site for ideas and to see what materials are currently available http://shop.lomography.com/en/films. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
On 22/07/2016 11:15 @wiz, Peabody wrote:
Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. Also, any suggestions for a good place to buy would be helpful. I'm currently using Ilford Pan F Plus which I have found exceptional when developed in a home brew. I'd say using a developer like DDX or similar would be ideal. But like anything in film - half the fun is in experimenting. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Slower Tri-X?
In article ,
Peabody wrote: Ok, not digital, but many here will know. I want to try out an old film camera that shoots 120 rolls. No, actually 620, so I will have to re-spool. Anyway, the camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 and I have no ND filters for it. So I thought for shooting outside it might be good to use a slow film, like ISO 100, which is more what the camera was made for in 1944. But I've never liked the non-grainy films. So I wonder if there isn't a Tri-X type film that's slower than 400. Does Ilford make one like that? Anyone else? Apparently Kodak doesn't. Also, any suggestions for a good place to buy would be helpful. May I suggested "The Negative" by Ansel Adams... -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
flash is suddenly slower to recharge | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 1 | December 25th 11 12:32 PM |
CF cards - speed vs slower types (WHY?) | Faz | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 7th 07 08:13 PM |
SDHC card slower than SD? | Pierre | Digital Photography | 5 | November 20th 06 05:44 PM |
20D 1 1/3 Stops Slower Than 5d? | David | Digital Photography | 2 | April 25th 06 12:28 AM |
Why not slower ISOs? | Bob Alexander | Digital Photography | 58 | September 22nd 04 03:20 AM |