Low light 35mm B&W film

[BeerBolus]

Hello
I am off to Argentina in November and would like to shoot some B&W film. I normally shoot digital RAW and convert to B&W later but would like to take both formats with me.
I particularly like available light photography (hand held mostly) at high ISO and would appreciate some advice on what to take.

Delta 3200 Professional obviously has the speed, or I could push HP5 Plus?
Is there a fast slide film that might be an option?

Any advice on quality, how well they scan etc would be very helpful.

Thanks for your time.

Dave

[beejaybee]

Well - I wouldn't recommend pushing HP5+ above 1600 ASA; Delta 3200 can be pushed to 6400 ASA. Both will have pretty horrendous grain if you do.

I hope the light traps in your camera are in good condition.

[AJUK]

There is also the possibility of pushing XP2, although you will need a lab to develop that.

[OneTen]

I've pushed Neopan 400 to 3200 at a football match and the results were poor, too grainy to use.

I tried Delta 3200 but didn't have much success, I think this was because I was developing it in Rodinol and the negs were incredibly thin. Things improved when developed in DDX but it was never a film I was taken with.

I use Neopan 400 almost exclusively now, though I am dabbling with the C-41 CN version at the moment so I can have them processed on the high street.

[Mojo_66]

Ilford 3200 develops well in ID11. Grain's there obviously but it isn't golfball size. If you scan it however this could make the grain more apparent.

[Benchista]

Delta 3200 in Kodak TMax dev always gave me the best results.

[BeerBolus]

Thanks for the replys.

I won't be developing myself (not yet anyway) so will be using a lab (Ideally I want a contact strip and the negs scanned). Have been looking at previous threads about that so hopefully won't have any problems there.

I think I will take a few rolls of each, some NEOPAN 1600 as well and with any luck will come away with a 'favorite'.

Will hopefully be able to post some of the results late this year.

Dave

[Garry McNamara]

Bit lateral I know, but before playing around wih film why not buy a cheaps as chips 50mm f1.4. I don't know what lens you normally use but it lets in one hell of a lot more light than a standard zoom. I don't own any 35mm lens with less than an f2 maximum aperture(except my 24mm and camera shake is not such a worry with that)and I find 400 ISO more than enough,

Garry

[BeerBolus]

Will keep a look out for one. My 50mm f1.8 just died, oil on the aperture blades. Just bought a Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 for £23 and am running a roll of HP5 pushed to 1600ASA throught the camera at the moment. As much to check it all works ok (not been used in years) as well as to see the results at 1600.
I often shoot in dark bars, pubs, by street light etc and have found on my 20D that, with a 50mm f1.8, I often shoot at 800-1600 ASA. Mind you, with f1.4 to play with...

Dave

[PeteE]

Mind the PICKPOCKETS and DON'T MENTION the Falkland Islands!

[BeerBolus]

Yes, the "Islas Malvinas" will definately not be a topic of conversation!

[Gordon_McGeachie]

Any normal lab should be able to do it.

As it is C41 process.Just tell them that you have uprated it and by how much

[domroberts]

I've always used Neopan 1600 for such things, I like the grain structure on it. Would definitely recommend a roll or two of that.

Oh and can you still buy Kodak TMZ 3200 these days?

[Neal]

Tri-X pushed in XTOL....runs at 3200 ISO quite happily and grain isnt super silly either.

[DaveS]

Delta 3200 in DD-X, but I tend to PULL it if anything, and rate it at EI 1600. I have read that its true ISO is 1000-1250.
Dave

[topoxforddoc]

HP5 or TRI-X push well in XTOL. If you're shooting low light, it sounds as if you need a rangefinder, the ultimate camera for low light shooting. You don't need to buy a Leica, a Voigtlander would do with a 35 lens faster than F2. I regularly shoot night time shots with my leica and 35/1.4 handheld at 1/15th sec on HP5 rated either at 400 or pushed to 800.

Charlie