Question for those still shooting film

I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for a long
time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

--




-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:
: I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
camera, where there may be important money at stake.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:
: : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

: Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
: camera, where there may be important money at stake.

I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to
see if others have any experience with the films.
--




-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money

Graham Fountain wrote:
: On 6/07/2011 4:42 AM, Frank Pittel wrote:
: Robert wrote:
: : On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank
: : wrote:
: : : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: : : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?
:
: : Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
: : camera, where there may be important money at stake.
:
: I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to
: see if others have any experience with the films.
: My personal preference is to the Kodak. Could be because of
: my developing, but I found that although Kodak seemed to
: have larger grain, it had a smoother tonal range. I've only
: shot 1 roll of the Ilford, and it seemed very contrasty.
: Could have been my developing, but I didn't like it that
: much. I prefer HP5 pushed to 1600 as a fast high contrast
: film over Ilford 3200 - it's cheaper and I prefer the result.

: From the Kodak, I've found optically printed 8x10 & 5x7s
: from 35mm have clearly visible grain (which IMO can add to
: the look), while on the other hand I've scanned, done
: minimal digital grain removal, & printed to 6x4 and had
: prints that look smooth and sharp.

: Personally, I don't use it for times when I need 3200ISO - I
: use it for the look the film gives. I've even used it in
: bright daylight.

I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot of very visible grain when printed at
8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could add a lot to the image.


--




-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money

On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote:

I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot of very visible grain when printed at
8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could add a lot to the image.

Surely.

The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push.

Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push process 2 or more
stops. That will give you interesting contrast, tone and grain effects
as well.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Graham Fountain wrote,on my timestamp of 13/07/2011 6:51 PM:

The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push.

Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push
process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting
contrast, tone and grain effects as well.

erm... do that & you'll have an interesting effect all right - if you can
extract anything from the black neg.

I assume you either mean underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to *12800*), or you
mean to *overexpose* by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then *pull* process by 2
stops.

If you mean the latter, Kodak 3200 should give a fairly normal neg - IIRC it is
technically an 800ISO film anyway.


Of course: the totally incorrect advice was noted before. Why bring it up again?
Ah yes: you have half the world in the sin bin...

Graham Fountain wrote:
: On 9/07/2011 11:36 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot
: of very visible grain when printed at
: 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could
: add a lot to the image.
:
: Surely.
:
: The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push.
:
: Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push
: process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting
: contrast, tone and grain effects as well.
:
: erm... do that & you'll have an interesting effect all right
: - if you can extract anything from the black neg.

: I assume you either mean underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to
: *12800*), or you mean to *overexpose* by 2 stops (EI 3200
: to 800) and then *pull* process by 2 stops.

: If you mean the latter, Kodak 3200 should give a fairly
: normal neg - IIRC it is technically an 800ISO film anyway.

I've always heard that with zone system type testing it works out to ~800iso but
has the interesting quality of being a truly "pushable" film with significant
desnity increases in shadows resulting from extended development time.

I shoot little to no 35mm anymore so most of this is me playing around. Although if
I like the Ilford stuff I could see doing more with it in 120.
--




-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money

On 2011-07-13 09:08 , Frank Pittel wrote:
Graham wrote:
: On 9/07/2011 11:36 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot
: of very visible grain when printed at
: 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could
: add a lot to the image.
:
: Surely.
:
: The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push.
:
: Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push
: process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting
: contrast, tone and grain effects as well.
:
: erm... do that& you'll have an interesting effect all right
: - if you can extract anything from the black neg.

Indeed - as Frank said, 12800 vice 800. Just didn't think it through as
I wrote it.

Didn't see your post either as I filter out gmail.com posts.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.