Extreme low light

Nod

Nod

Tootles
Suspended / Banned
Messages
49,339
Name
Nod (UK)
Edit My Images
Yes
This is not a trolling post, I promise, even if it may sound like it.

What is the maximum ISO anyone here's used with any success while shooting on film? I've shot Tri-X and HP5 at 1600 in the past and got useable results, even if the grain was visible with the naked eye. Can't remember the soup used - it was well over 30 years ago. Since I've been using D7 and 8 hundreds, I've got used to being able to use 3200 and even higher - noisy, I'll admit but very useably. 25,600 is available but I've never tried it! Examples of extreme ISO shots (however grainy) would be welcome.
 
I've comfortably shot at ISO1600 using 35mm, but the grain gets intrusive even at that level (and even with a good developer, like T-Max Developer). I believe that was with Neopan 1600 (which wasn't a true ISO1600 film, so it was a push), and probably T-Max 400 at some point.

I did also shoot a roll of Ilford Delta 3200, but that was in less than ideal conditions so I didn't consider that any true indication of what the film (or the gear) could do.

I would probably only try shooting something at ISO3200 on medium format - where the negative is likely to be much more forgiving for grain - probably through the 'blad, when I get the chance to experiment.
 
Tri-X 400 at 1600, Nikon F100 Samyang 85mm f1.4 processed in Rodinal (R09) 1 + 50 18.5 minutes @ 20 degrees.

Lovely big grain :D

9408834758_6864937487.jpg
[/url]
Liam Mullone b&w-08 by Raglansurf, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
I've used colour neg Fuji 1600 and Konica 3200 ISO a few years ago and the results were very good, although I didn't really believe their ISO ratings and played safe and halved the speed for each.
 
I shot a roll of something that was ISO3200 one night in Kings Cross in Sydney a few years ago. Not sure where the negatives are, though I remember being disappointed at missing focus on many of them.
 
Delta "3200" at 6400 has been my fastest but I knackered the development and ended up with some very thin negs :/
 
Pretty sure I push-processed Neopan 1600 up to 12,800 but the results were not good - grain like gold balls.

I'll have the negs somewhere but no way to post them...
 
those arent too bad, guess medium format should be better as the grain would be effectivly smaller, but on the other hand medium format has slower lenses, like 3.5 or 4.5 average?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top