Question for Current or Former film shooting pro's

MJB DIGITAL · 07-27-2009, 05:41 PM

What was the highest ISO you would use for a particular job?

I am aware that you might want to use a super high speed film for a particular look, or for some special situation, you can average that into your answer.

The information I want is: During your usual shoots on film, what is the highest speed film you would bring/use?

Thanks!

p.s. I want to compare the results to the high iso performance of today's cameras. I shoot dark wedding receptions at iso320 with a light on the camera and a wireless light doing magic elsewhere. 320.

You wont really catch me going up to iso twozillion and a half.

MJB DIGITAL · 07-27-2009, 05:56 PM

Damn I can't post a poll right...oh well you can still answer i guess...

Ratmagiclady · 07-27-2009, 06:27 PM

I'd rarely push hard unless there was no other way to get the shot. Usually I'd confine it to like 800 if I were shooting Tri-X: if I had to go to a pro lab, that'd be about as much as I'd let someone else do, and it'd get done faster. If I was doing the processing, 1600 was no big deal.

Where I got paid was mostly for like weddings, (Pretty much used the 160 Vericolor for that,) ...the occasional sports gig, but rarely anything where high speed colorwas really worth it given the stuff of the time. Used some Ektachrome 200 somewhere along the way, and I seem to recall playing with the Kodacolor 400s here and there, but they kept changing the stuff, anyway. Usually not for the better, to my mind. Brighter and brighter and brighter till every darn Coke can you didn't even spot at the time seemed to take over the shot. (And there were a lot of them thrown around all the time) Drove me out of using much color at all before long.

I usually kept the color pretty slow, though.

Nowadays I don't think I'd hesitate to shoot some of the faster color films for a lot of things, though.

puderse · 07-28-2009, 11:52 AM

Generally, the slowest film that would get you the shot. Grain structure used to be important. Used lots of 4X5, 120, & 35mm Tri-X. More or less standard. Could soup mixed sizes at once in 3 1/2 gal. dip & dunk tanks. Shot lots of Ektachrome. Not much color neg.

MJB DIGITAL · 07-28-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

I'd rarely push hard unless there was no other way to get the shot. Usually I'd confine it to like 800 if I were shooting Tri-X: if I had to go to a pro lab, that'd be about as much as I'd let someone else do, and it'd get done faster. If I was doing the processing, 1600 was no big deal.

Where I got paid was mostly for like weddings, (Pretty much used the 160 Vericolor for that,) ...the occasional sports gig, but rarely anything where high speed colorwas really worth it given the stuff of the time. Used some Ektachrome 200 somewhere along the way, and I seem to recall playing with the Kodacolor 400s here and there, but they kept changing the stuff, anyway. Usually not for the better, to my mind. Brighter and brighter and brighter till every darn Coke can you didn't even spot at the time seemed to take over the shot. (And there were a lot of them thrown around all the time) Drove me out of using much color at all before long.

I usually kept the color pretty slow, though.

Nowadays I don't think I'd hesitate to shoot some of the faster color films for a lot of things, though.

sounds like you stayed between 160 and 400 with the occasional bump to 800. 1600 came in if you really needed it....

07-27-2009, 05:41 PM	#1
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170	Question for Current or Former film shooting pro's What was the highest ISO you would use for a particular job? I am aware that you might want to use a super high speed film for a particular look, or for some special situation, you can average that into your answer. The information I want is: During your usual shoots on film, what is the highest speed film you would bring/use? Thanks! p.s. I want to compare the results to the high iso performance of today's cameras. I shoot dark wedding receptions at iso320 with a light on the camera and a wireless light doing magic elsewhere. 320. You wont really catch me going up to iso twozillion and a half.

07-28-2009, 11:52 AM	#4
puderse Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: where the west begins Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 102	Film Generally, the slowest film that would get you the shot. Grain structure used to be important. Used lots of 4X5, 120, & 35mm Tri-X. More or less standard. Could soup mixed sizes at once in 3 1/2 gal. dip & dunk tanks. Shot lots of Ektachrome. Not much color neg.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best tips and advice for shooting pro photography.	MJB DIGITAL	General Talk	2	08-26-2009 04:41 PM
Poll for Current or Former film shooting pro's	MJB DIGITAL	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	3	07-28-2009 06:22 AM
Question for ex-K10D/current K20D owner ...	leeak	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	12-04-2008 08:17 AM
current vs Fullframe question...	beaumont	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-23-2008 12:43 AM
Client Etiquette, Question for the semi-Pro/Pro Photographers	metalfab	Photographic Technique	29	07-06-2008 07:04 PM

07-27-2009, 05:56 PM	#2
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170 Original Poster	Damn I can't post a poll right...oh well you can still answer i guess...

07-27-2009, 06:27 PM	#3
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I'd rarely push hard unless there was no other way to get the shot. Usually I'd confine it to like 800 if I were shooting Tri-X: if I had to go to a pro lab, that'd be about as much as I'd let someone else do, and it'd get done faster. If I was doing the processing, 1600 was no big deal. Where I got paid was mostly for like weddings, (Pretty much used the 160 Vericolor for that,) ...the occasional sports gig, but rarely anything where high speed colorwas really worth it given the stuff of the time. Used some Ektachrome 200 somewhere along the way, and I seem to recall playing with the Kodacolor 400s here and there, but they kept changing the stuff, anyway. Usually not for the better, to my mind. Brighter and brighter and brighter till every darn Coke can you didn't even spot at the time seemed to take over the shot. (And there were a lot of them thrown around all the time) Drove me out of using much color at all before long. I usually kept the color pretty slow, though. Nowadays I don't think I'd hesitate to shoot some of the faster color films for a lot of things, though.

07-28-2009, 01:59 PM	#5
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady I'd rarely push hard unless there was no other way to get the shot. Usually I'd confine it to like 800 if I were shooting Tri-X: if I had to go to a pro lab, that'd be about as much as I'd let someone else do, and it'd get done faster. If I was doing the processing, 1600 was no big deal. Where I got paid was mostly for like weddings, (Pretty much used the 160 Vericolor for that,) ...the occasional sports gig, but rarely anything where high speed colorwas really worth it given the stuff of the time. Used some Ektachrome 200 somewhere along the way, and I seem to recall playing with the Kodacolor 400s here and there, but they kept changing the stuff, anyway. Usually not for the better, to my mind. Brighter and brighter and brighter till every darn Coke can you didn't even spot at the time seemed to take over the shot. (And there were a lot of them thrown around all the time) Drove me out of using much color at all before long. I usually kept the color pretty slow, though. Nowadays I don't think I'd hesitate to shoot some of the faster color films for a lot of things, though. sounds like you stayed between 160 and 400 with the occasional bump to 800. 1600 came in if you really needed it....