What 800iso film would least disappoint someone who mainly likes to shoot slow film?

**goatsNdonkey** · 07-07-2018, 07:28 PM

Mostly I shoot slow film -- iso 50 - 160 -- though sometimes I will shoot some 200 or 400. Lately I've been playing around with a Pentax PZ-10, having fun with my very few af lenses, adding a rather slow long zoom, a Sigma f4.5-6.7 100-300mm DL. The lens needs to be stopped down a couple of full stops to perform at its best which makes it even slower. Also, my copy is at its sharpest at the long end, warranting higher shutter speeds to reduce effects from camera shake. Experiments with the lens on my K10D at iso 800, suggest that that iso 800 is more versatile for that lens than 400.

I can't remember if I've ever shot any iso800 film before, so I don't know what the better options would be among films rated at that speed. I'm interested in both BW and color print films. I would be sending the rolls out for developing and scanning. The PZ-10 is going to read the iso off the can, so the rating would need to be accurate, not wishful thinking printed on the package.

**twilhelm** · 07-07-2018, 07:33 PM

Not sure about black and white, the only B&W I shoot over 400 is Kodak 3200.

For color, Portra 800 is very good.

**jumbleview** · 07-07-2018, 07:36 PM

I have a co-worker, who shoots a lot of films (mostly large format, but 35 mm as well). He is very exited by kodak portra 800. For proper exposure he recommend to shoot it as ISO 400. I did not try it myself yet but I trust his judgment (he is much better cameraman than I am).

**Alex645** · 07-07-2018, 07:41 PM

For B&W, I can highly recommend Ilford XP2 Super+. It is a monochromatic chromogenic emulsion that should be developed in C-41, but I've shot on the same roll from 100-1600 ISO and at 800 ISO, I think you'll be impressed.

For color negs, it is sort of a toss up between Kodak Portra 800 and Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 800.

Kodak has the edge for color accuracy and seems to scan better. Fuji's colors pop more if you want higher color saturation. If your lab uses Kodak or Fujifilm chems, I'd use the film that matches the chems. I can't say you won't be disappointed, but I believe you will be 'least' disappointed with those options.

klappers · 07-07-2018, 10:23 PM

I would use Kodak portra 800 for colour and Ilford HP5+ pushed to 800 for black and white. Both will yield great results

**gofour3** · 07-07-2018, 10:43 PM - **1 Like**

Another vote for Portra 800.

I've also got some way old Agfachrome 1000 RS left in my freezer. Unfortunately it's previous owner did not store it well, so it's lost a few stops. If you can find some properly stored Agfachrome that could be a cheaper "Lomo" option.

Phil.

Eyewanders · 07-08-2018, 02:27 AM

I've slowly become a gigantic fan of Fuji Superia 800 over the past 6 or so year ... the first few rolls (shot at box and under exposed or even pushed) I was less than thrilled with but it's incredbly versatile and it's dirt cheap. I've shot it down to 200 and usually (in last couple years) I now rate it somewhere between 1/3 to a full stop lower. But it doesn't really matter much. It looks great overexposed and looks passable a little underexposed so it's quite the latitude you get with it.

For B&W probably enjoy pushing Delta 400 to 1600 most.

tuco · 07-08-2018, 06:39 AM

Any 400 rated BW film can be shot at EI 800 with a little time added to the developing. And Kodak says the latitude of their 400TX is enough that you can shoot it at EI 800 and develop it normally ( no pushing). And of course the new Portra 400 has a lot of latitude too and can easily be shot at EI 800 without pushing.

**goatsNdonkey** · 07-08-2018, 07:29 AM

The PZ-10, as I mentioned earlier, reads the iso off of the film canister, defaulting to iso 100 if it doesn't read an iso marking there. It is possible to do some exposure compensation, but you can't just set the iso you want directly, when you know that a certain film's rating is off. So, if jumbleview's friend is right that Portra 800 is better at 400, that means it's not the best option for the PZ-10. Likewise, the PZ-10s going to read the XP2 Super as iso 400, even if it works well at 800.

The last times I shot Portra 160 and XP2 I really loved the results, but Portra films and XP2 tend to be on the expensive side, and might not be the best match pricewise for the kinds of wild and free picture snapping the PZ-10 in program mode seems to promote.

Maybe that leads me to the Fuji Superia 800, I have some frozen Superia 400 I shoot sometimes, but I tend to find the greens on the bluish side. If the 800 gives thin negs at box speed, that could be a problem.

There also seems to be some Kodak Ultramax 800 out there. I tend to find Ultramax 400 colors kind of garish, with areas including tans looking orange. BW conversions of scans can look great, though with Tri-X-ie grain, making me wonder if the 800 might be too grainy. I'll probably have to try some though to find out.

**ChrisPlatt** · 07-08-2018, 09:24 AM - **1 Like**

I prefer the look of HP5+ at E.I. 800 over the box speed of ISO 400.
Pushing bumps up the contrast nicely.

Since the PZ-10 uses DX-coding you will need some workaround.

Chris

abruzzi · 07-08-2018, 11:01 AM

DX coding is convenient, but forced coding is annoying. Try this (I haven't so I don't know how well it works):

Hack your film: How to change your DX coding - Japan Camera Hunter

Eyewanders · 07-08-2018, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

The PZ-10, as I mentioned earlier, reads the iso off of the film canister, defaulting to iso 100 if it doesn't read an iso marking there. It is possible to do some exposure compensation, but you can't just set the iso you want directly, when you know that a certain film's rating is off.

You can make your own DX coding labels if you like as mentioned... Or just permanently set your exposure comp for the duration of the roll. I'm not familiar with the PZ-10 specifically. Does if have AE lock? If so, that's how I normally get around quick adjustments needed for a particular frame when I have my compensation already set (meter elsewhere and recompose).

Quote:

Maybe that leads me to the Fuji Superia 800, I have some frozen Superia 400 I shoot sometimes, but I tend to find the greens on the bluish side. If the 800 gives thin negs at box speed, that could be a problem.

I just threw a bunch of random Superia 800 shots in a Flickr album if you're interested. I know for certain that the shot of yellow flowers and the the shot of the brown dog on the porch early on in the collection were both rated at 400. The others are a mix of ratings, usually about a 1/3 stop extra light. I've really grown to love the stuff.

Fujifilm Superia 800 | Flickr

**gofour3** · 07-08-2018, 01:45 PM

There is also CiniStill Film 800T, but it's Tungsten. (DX coded as well).

Phil.

LesDMess · 07-08-2018, 05:20 PM

When people suggest to use ISO800 film at ISO400 it is simply to say that it is better to err on the side of overexposure when it comes to negative films. Generally speaking, color negative films have vasts amounts of overexposure tolerance - at least 5 stops. However, trying to recover excessively underexposed film can be challenging especially when it is by 2 or more stops. If you know how your meter works then there is no reason not to use box speeds on all films.

Since you have not used ISO800 film before, you may not be aware of what it looks like. Here are a couple of full res scans from Kodak Portra 800 that have been scanned using a Nikon Coolscan. Keep in mind that you can also apply grain reduction - or any other post work, on the scan file as needed.

Click for larger version Kodak Portra 800_03-08

Click for larger version Kodak Portra 800-06_20

I do not find the apparent grain of Portra 800 to be intrusive.

I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like the Lomography 800 3 pack might be the cheapest option.

Eyewanders · 07-08-2018, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by LesDMess

If you know how your meter works then there is no reason not to use box speeds on all films.

Well... rating film differently from box is rather commonplace. My personal reason is just practicality. It's a baseline. The meter works by picking or suggesting the exposure settings, so if I know that I generally want everything exposed by an extra stop for that roll, there's no reason not to rate it below box speed. The alternative is adjusting exp compensation (can also be left that way of course) or being sure to nudge the meter upward for each and every frame. It's just practicality and establishing (for instance) +1 (or whatever it may be) as the baseline and moving up or down from there.

Quote:

I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like the Lomography 800 3 pack might be the cheapest option.

I've been wondering what that stuff actually is. Does anyone around here happen to know?

07-07-2018, 07:28 PM	#1
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727	What 800iso film would least disappoint someone who mainly likes to shoot slow film? Mostly I shoot slow film -- iso 50 - 160 -- though sometimes I will shoot some 200 or 400. Lately I've been playing around with a Pentax PZ-10, having fun with my very few af lenses, adding a rather slow long zoom, a Sigma f4.5-6.7 100-300mm DL. The lens needs to be stopped down a couple of full stops to perform at its best which makes it even slower. Also, my copy is at its sharpest at the long end, warranting higher shutter speeds to reduce effects from camera shake. Experiments with the lens on my K10D at iso 800, suggest that that iso 800 is more versatile for that lens than 400. I can't remember if I've ever shot any iso800 film before, so I don't know what the better options would be among films rated at that speed. I'm interested in both BW and color print films. I would be sending the rolls out for developing and scanning. The PZ-10 is going to read the iso off the can, so the rating would need to be accurate, not wishful thinking printed on the package.

07-08-2018, 05:20 PM	#14
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	When people suggest to use ISO800 film at ISO400 it is simply to say that it is better to err on the side of overexposure when it comes to negative films. Generally speaking, color negative films have vasts amounts of overexposure tolerance - at least 5 stops. However, trying to recover excessively underexposed film can be challenging especially when it is by 2 or more stops. If you know how your meter works then there is no reason not to use box speeds on all films. Since you have not used ISO800 film before, you may not be aware of what it looks like. Here are a couple of full res scans from Kodak Portra 800 that have been scanned using a Nikon Coolscan. Keep in mind that you can also apply grain reduction - or any other post work, on the scan file as needed. Click for larger version Kodak Portra 800_03-08 Click for larger version Kodak Portra 800-06_20 I do not find the apparent grain of Portra 800 to be intrusive. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like the Lomography 800 3 pack might be the cheapest option. Last edited by LesDMess; 07-08-2018 at 05:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Parts for K1000 (prisms mainly)	Wild Mark	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	24	03-24-2018 05:19 PM
K1 with Sigma Primes Do Not disappoint.	MikeDSr	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	5	06-09-2016 10:53 PM
Error Greyed out Likes not adding to Likes total.	Kerrowdown	Site Suggestions and Help	7	10-09-2014 01:33 AM
K-mount film mainly for Pentax F 17-28mm Fisheye	VisualDarkness	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	05-13-2013 06:17 PM
Groupon likes Pentax (or K7, at least)	DogLover	Pentax News and Rumors	2	06-18-2011 10:18 AM

07-07-2018, 07:33 PM	#2
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	Not sure about black and white, the only B&W I shoot over 400 is Kodak 3200. For color, Portra 800 is very good.

07-07-2018, 07:36 PM	#3
jumbleview Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Concord, CA Posts: 1,068	I have a co-worker, who shoots a lot of films (mostly large format, but 35 mm as well). He is very exited by kodak portra 800. For proper exposure he recommend to shoot it as ISO 400. I did not try it myself yet but I trust his judgment (he is much better cameraman than I am).

07-07-2018, 07:41 PM	#4
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	For B&W, I can highly recommend Ilford XP2 Super+. It is a monochromatic chromogenic emulsion that should be developed in C-41, but I've shot on the same roll from 100-1600 ISO and at 800 ISO, I think you'll be impressed. For color negs, it is sort of a toss up between Kodak Portra 800 and Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 800. Kodak has the edge for color accuracy and seems to scan better. Fuji's colors pop more if you want higher color saturation. If your lab uses Kodak or Fujifilm chems, I'd use the film that matches the chems. I can't say you won't be disappointed, but I believe you will be 'least' disappointed with those options.

07-07-2018, 10:23 PM	#5
klappers New Member Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 20	I would use Kodak portra 800 for colour and Ilford HP5+ pushed to 800 for black and white. Both will yield great results

07-07-2018, 10:43 PM - 1 Like	#6
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	Another vote for Portra 800. I've also got some way old Agfachrome 1000 RS left in my freezer. Unfortunately it's previous owner did not store it well, so it's lost a few stops. If you can find some properly stored Agfachrome that could be a cheaper "Lomo" option. Phil.

07-08-2018, 02:27 AM	#7
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	I've slowly become a gigantic fan of Fuji Superia 800 over the past 6 or so year ... the first few rolls (shot at box and under exposed or even pushed) I was less than thrilled with but it's incredbly versatile and it's dirt cheap. I've shot it down to 200 and usually (in last couple years) I now rate it somewhere between 1/3 to a full stop lower. But it doesn't really matter much. It looks great overexposed and looks passable a little underexposed so it's quite the latitude you get with it. For B&W probably enjoy pushing Delta 400 to 1600 most.

07-08-2018, 06:39 AM	#8
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,023	Any 400 rated BW film can be shot at EI 800 with a little time added to the developing. And Kodak says the latitude of their 400TX is enough that you can shoot it at EI 800 and develop it normally ( no pushing). And of course the new Portra 400 has a lot of latitude too and can easily be shot at EI 800 without pushing.

07-08-2018, 07:29 AM	#9
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727 Original Poster	The PZ-10, as I mentioned earlier, reads the iso off of the film canister, defaulting to iso 100 if it doesn't read an iso marking there. It is possible to do some exposure compensation, but you can't just set the iso you want directly, when you know that a certain film's rating is off. So, if jumbleview's friend is right that Portra 800 is better at 400, that means it's not the best option for the PZ-10. Likewise, the PZ-10s going to read the XP2 Super as iso 400, even if it works well at 800. The last times I shot Portra 160 and XP2 I really loved the results, but Portra films and XP2 tend to be on the expensive side, and might not be the best match pricewise for the kinds of wild and free picture snapping the PZ-10 in program mode seems to promote. Maybe that leads me to the Fuji Superia 800, I have some frozen Superia 400 I shoot sometimes, but I tend to find the greens on the bluish side. If the 800 gives thin negs at box speed, that could be a problem. There also seems to be some Kodak Ultramax 800 out there. I tend to find Ultramax 400 colors kind of garish, with areas including tans looking orange. BW conversions of scans can look great, though with Tri-X-ie grain, making me wonder if the 800 might be too grainy. I'll probably have to try some though to find out.

07-08-2018, 09:24 AM - 1 Like	#10
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	I prefer the look of HP5+ at E.I. 800 over the box speed of ISO 400. Pushing bumps up the contrast nicely. Since the PZ-10 uses DX-coding you will need some workaround. Chris

07-08-2018, 11:01 AM	#11
abruzzi Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: New Mexico Posts: 788	DX coding is convenient, but forced coding is annoying. Try this (I haven't so I don't know how well it works): Hack your film: How to change your DX coding - Japan Camera Hunter

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2018, 11:20 AM	#12
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey The PZ-10, as I mentioned earlier, reads the iso off of the film canister, defaulting to iso 100 if it doesn't read an iso marking there. It is possible to do some exposure compensation, but you can't just set the iso you want directly, when you know that a certain film's rating is off. You can make your own DX coding labels if you like as mentioned... Or just permanently set your exposure comp for the duration of the roll. I'm not familiar with the PZ-10 specifically. Does if have AE lock? If so, that's how I normally get around quick adjustments needed for a particular frame when I have my compensation already set (meter elsewhere and recompose). Quote: Maybe that leads me to the Fuji Superia 800, I have some frozen Superia 400 I shoot sometimes, but I tend to find the greens on the bluish side. If the 800 gives thin negs at box speed, that could be a problem. I just threw a bunch of random Superia 800 shots in a Flickr album if you're interested. I know for certain that the shot of yellow flowers and the the shot of the brown dog on the porch early on in the collection were both rated at 400. The others are a mix of ratings, usually about a 1/3 stop extra light. I've really grown to love the stuff. Fujifilm Superia 800 \| Flickr

07-08-2018, 01:45 PM	#13
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	There is also CiniStill Film 800T, but it's Tungsten. (DX coded as well). Phil.

07-08-2018, 06:22 PM	#15
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by LesDMess If you know how your meter works then there is no reason not to use box speeds on all films. Well... rating film differently from box is rather commonplace. My personal reason is just practicality. It's a baseline. The meter works by picking or suggesting the exposure settings, so if I know that I generally want everything exposed by an extra stop for that roll, there's no reason *not* to rate it below box speed. The alternative is adjusting exp compensation (can also be left that way of course) or being sure to nudge the meter upward for each and every frame. It's just practicality and establishing (for instance) +1 (or whatever it may be) as the baseline and moving up or down from there. Quote: I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like the Lomography 800 3 pack might be the cheapest option. I've been wondering what that stuff actually is. Does anyone around here happen to know?