Best B&W Film for Low Light Photography

[bwcolor]

I still have a dozen or so rolls of Fuji Neopan 1600 in 35mm, but need to transition to another film since it seems to be in short supply in the U.S.. I usually rate it around 640-800 and I'm wondering what my options might be. Do I push TMax400, Tri-X? What are you using and why?

[RobVinc]

What about Kodak P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200?

[Brian Legge]

...in an appropriate developer like xtol or ddx.

[f16sunshine]

I've pushed tmax400 to 1600 in Tmax developer without problems other than a bit high contrast. To me it seems high iso bw and high contrast are the norm. Never have tried 3200. Do others use it rated or hold it back?

[Roger Hicks]

The true speed of Neopan 1600 and HP5 in any given developer is about 1/3 stop apart, and both push very gracefully indeed. True maximum ISO of Delta 3200 is around 1250, about 1/3 stop faster than TMZ, but both arguably look better at a slight push (1/3 to 2/3 stop) than at their respective ISO speeds and look as good at a push of a stop or more as they look at the true ISO speed.

Cheers,

R.

[bwcolor]

I love Delta 3200 in medium format and shoot at EI 1200 in TMax Developer.

I'll try pushing TMY2 to my usual 640 in XTOL and TMax Developer.

[semilog]

TMAX400 (version 2) in XTOL 1:1 looks great at EI 800, and Kodak recommends identical development times for EI 400 and EI 800, which is convenient. I have had good results doing this.

As others say, TMAX400 pushes well to at least 1600, and I think the new revision even has very pretty grain — none of the "oatmeal" of the earlier versions.

Roger is (of course!) right about HP5+. That's another really great film. HP5 and HP5+ in D76 were almost all I shot for a loooong time.

That said, I love Neopan 1600 and I really hope we're wrong about it going away.

[ashrafazlan]

Tri-X for me, I've been getting wonderful results rating Tri-X @ 1250 and souped in Diafine.

[dyao]

I like Delta 3200 at 3200 EI, developed in DD-X. Some of the recent night shots on my tumblr were taken with this.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm a big fan of Tmax 3200, a film I have used hundreds of rolls of over the years. I usually shoot it at 1600 and develop in Tmax Developer.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Been revisiting Neopan 400 again.
This time, pushing to 1600.
I find it less grainy than Neopan 1600.

Attached pix is np400 pushed to 1600, souped for 10mins in d76 1+1 at 29.5C.

[Turtle]

I find Neopan 1600 approx 2/3 of a stop to a stop faster than TriX in a given developer and this is not insignificant. For real speed, I will keep D3200, but to fill the gap I will push TriX. Reduce development to semi stand and it is amazing the real speed that can be pushed out of TriX without blowing highlights. The key is heavily reduced agitation though and while this works fine with some subjects, its not a smart idea with smooth even sky tones as there can be issues.

I am sure HP5 can do the same but I prefer TriX in the main.

D3200 is much grainier and cannot be pulled to 640 or 800 with the same quality that TriX can be pushed to that speed. When TriX is pushed to a real 1000 by virtue of stand development and long times the quality of the two (D3200 and TriX) is very similar in terms of grain, but I will take the film that requires conventional development with less chance of artifacts any day.

I used to use a lot of Neopan 1600 and this one will hurt, but less so now that I have some sort of a handle on TriX in the 640-800 speed range.

[Tim Gray]

Ditto what Roger Hicks said.

To expand upon that, take what you read here with a grain of salt. Some people like high contrast with no shadows but despise grain. Others would rather have real shadow speed and don't mind the increase in grain. The former crowd seems to recommend Neopan 1600 and pushing Tri-x/HP5+ up around 1600 or more. The latter crowd likes the extra stop (and a bit more) that Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200 give you.

I also find that most films look good at their true speed (duh) and also don't look too shabby pushed one stop (Tri-X -> 800, TMZ ->2000ish, etc.) Once you start going with two stop pushes, the loss of shadow tones and the increase in contrast is very noticeable. Not that it's a bad thing, just unavoidable. So for EI 1600, I'd take TMZ over Tri-X any day - and I've shot a lot of Tri-X in Diafine, yes.

[varjag]

T-Max P3200 for when I shoot at 6400 and over. Somehow never came to using it at 3200.


karlskoga3 by varjagg, on Flickr


karlskoga5 by varjagg, on Flickr


Elections Day by varjagg, on Flickr

For 1600 and below I stick to Tri-X.

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I'm a big fan of Tmax 3200, a film I have used hundreds of rolls of over the years. I usually shoot it at 1600 and develop in Tmax Developer.

nice shots, real nice.

[smk]

In the past I used a lot of Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 with sharp but very contrasty results. Never really liked Delta 3200 in DD-X, though other people seem to like it. I do not have experience with TMAX3200.

I also used Delta400 a lot, pushed to 800 and 1600 developed in DD-X. Very consistent results, tight grain structure.

More recently I use Tri-X pushed to 1, 2, 3 or even 4 stops (ISO 6400). For extreme push (+3,4) I like the looks of it when developed in Rodinal, 1+100 for 120 minutes (1 inversion per 30 minutes). But for +1,2 stops I stay with DD-X.

Savvas