3200 v. 3200

[katt]

I need to get some super high-speed b/w film for an indoor shoot. I don't know what the lighting situation will be, but, I"m sure it will be pretty minimal.
I've shot with both, but never in a compare and contrast situation so I don't know which would work better for me.

So, come on people, tell me which is better: Kodak or Illford or is there something else?

Thanks!

[photophorous]

Hi Kat,

I've only shot a couple of rolls of each, but I think they are both good films. Neither is clearly better.

How do you plan to have it developed?

If you're doing it yourself, you should really shoot and develop a few test rolls before you do anything important with it. Dialing in your developing process is far more important than the differences between these two films. Just pick one, and shoot a few rolls.

If you're taking it to a lab, then you might want to ask the lab which they prefer to work with. They will know better than anyone what works best with their processes.

Are you sure you really need 3200 ISO? If you can get away with 1600, you have a lot more choices. I like Neopan 1600, but I think I like pushing TriX to 1600 just as much...maybe better. Some people push HP5, Delta 400 or Tmax 400 also. Any of these films at 1600 ISO will give you finer grain than the 3200 ISO films shot at 3200 ISO. Another option is to shoot the 3200 ISO films at 1600 ISO, which would give you better shadow detail and lower over all contrast, but the grain will still be pretty big.

Paul

[katt]

i would take it to a lab.

i don't play w/ film much, so, that is great info!

[another view]

They're totally different films - but so much depends on how they're developed. There used to be a pro lab here in town that used T-Max developer and I got fantastic results with TMZ (Tmax 3200) and Delta 3200; both of which I used to shoot at 1600. Big diffence in the amount of grain at 1600 vs 3200, but again it depends on how they're processed. IME, there's more grain with TMZ but it's a really nice looking grain - heard it referred to as "film noir" which sounds about right. Delta 3200 has more contrast but shoots better (IMO and IME) at 3200.

If you can shoot at 1600, do it but be sure to tell the lab. And it really needs to be someone that's comfortable with these films (good pro lab). These films especially aren't meant to only be shot at the ISO speed listed on the box, unlike slide film (well, there could be some debate there).

It's all so subjective though... Never got around to trying either of these myself.

[Xia_Ke]

I can't comment on either of the films you mentioned but have been very happy with the results I have gotten from pushing Ilford HP5 400 and Fuji Neopan 400 to 3200. Keep in mind that some labs may charge extra to push/pull film, or at least I know the lab here does.

[Greg McCary]

I think I would take several rolls and decide when on location. Take some 800, 1600 and 3200. Color would work and you could always convert to B&W in PPing. I have used Fuji 1600 and if exposed and scanned right you can get good results. Also take a fast lens.

[katt]

ok, it was pretty much a moot question (although the answers were fabulous) because I needed to find it local and couldn't mail order it . There was 1 store in the area, and they only had Kodak 3200. I did get some Fuji 1600 color as well to try pushing that. We'll see what happens.

Thanks! I never would have thought of pushing the film if I hadn't asked!