4 ms·

1930s films were slower (lower ASA/ISO) than "modern" films. Focusing mechanisms were worse: the SLR was developed in the 1930s; most cameras used in that era w

1930s films were slower (lower ASA/ISO) than "modern" films. Focusing mechanisms were worse: the SLR was developed in the 1930s; most cameras used in that era were rangefinders (or 'point-and-shoot'). Cameras and lenses were technically capable of high-quality images, but actually making such a photograph required skill or luck; the results were otherwise blurry and poorly-focused. Studio portraits in those days used extremely bright lights to compensate.

ghaff 2y ago
In general, the ISO capabilities of modern digital (especially larger sensor cameras but even good phone cameras) is a remarkable advance over film even relatively latterly. With digital, ISO of 3200 or 6400 is nothing (probably better today with full frame). B&W film really topped out at about 400 in normal use and couldn't really be pushed past 1600 and even that required chemistry tricks and resulted in noticeably lower quality.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Nitpick, no (edit: chemical) tricks needed, just double the developing time.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I did this for years. I tended to use different chemistries for pushing Tri-X or HP5 to 1600+. Don't remember the details, but didn't tend to use D-76 for pushed film as I recall.
    - hypercube33 2y ago
      I love shooting BW film but Tri-X looks so newspapery or silver to me - I tend to prefer the newer Kentmere films. I've found you can still push them pretty far and not pay a large price. The film is just so forgiving compared to digital (at least to the best of 2014 sensors)
- i_am_proteus 2y ago
  I get pretty decent, if high-contrast results pushing 320TX and 400TX to 3200. Pushing does increase grain; but using a larger format (6x7 or 4x5) reduces the apparent grain in resultant prints. I can't say enough good things about HC-110 as a developer: pushes well just by increasing development time, shelf-stable for years as a concentrate, and not particularly toxic compared to other developers.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Approximately never used anything larger than 35mm. I don't remember all the developers I used over the years (though I used D-76 for a lot of standard Kodak Tri-X ISO 400 stuff). May have used some HC-110 (forget when that came in), definitely Diafine/Acufine, probably something from Ilford after I largely switched to HP-5 film, some homebrewed stuff... But it's been decades since I have done film processing. After I graduated, did a brief stint using an apartment half bathroom and drove me crazy after good school darkrooms. [ADDED: I've never used B&W film emulsions from the past 40 years or so; they're presumably at least a bit faster than what I used. 1600 was pretty much the practical limit when I was shooting B&W on film.]
hackingonempty 2y ago
> most cameras used in that era were rangefinders (or 'point-and-shoot') Rangefinders from that era are not point-and-shoot. They have two separated windows allowing light into the viewfinder and you turn the focusing mechanism until the two views of the subject merge perfectly. They use parallax to find the distance to the subject with a mechanism linked to the lens focus, hence the name rangefinder. Point-and-shoot cameras from that era were fixed focus.

ghaff 2y ago

In general, the ISO capabilities of modern digital (especially larger sensor cameras but even good phone cameras) is a remarkable advance over film even relatively latterly. With digital, ISO of 3200 or 6400 is nothing (probably better today with full frame). B&W film really topped out at about 400 in normal use and couldn't really be pushed past 1600 and even that required chemistry tricks and resulted in noticeably lower quality.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Nitpick, no (edit: chemical) tricks needed, just double the developing time.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I did this for years. I tended to use different chemistries for pushing Tri-X or HP5 to 1600+. Don't remember the details, but didn't tend to use D-76 for pushed film as I recall.
  - hypercube33 2y ago
    I love shooting BW film but Tri-X looks so newspapery or silver to me - I tend to prefer the newer Kentmere films. I've found you can still push them pretty far and not pay a large price. The film is just so forgiving compared to digital (at least to the best of 2014 sensors)
i_am_proteus 2y ago
I get pretty decent, if high-contrast results pushing 320TX and 400TX to 3200. Pushing does increase grain; but using a larger format (6x7 or 4x5) reduces the apparent grain in resultant prints. I can't say enough good things about HC-110 as a developer: pushes well just by increasing development time, shelf-stable for years as a concentrate, and not particularly toxic compared to other developers.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Approximately never used anything larger than 35mm. I don't remember all the developers I used over the years (though I used D-76 for a lot of standard Kodak Tri-X ISO 400 stuff). May have used some HC-110 (forget when that came in), definitely Diafine/Acufine, probably something from Ilford after I largely switched to HP-5 film, some homebrewed stuff... But it's been decades since I have done film processing. After I graduated, did a brief stint using an apartment half bathroom and drove me crazy after good school darkrooms. [ADDED: I've never used B&W film emulsions from the past 40 years or so; they're presumably at least a bit faster than what I used. 1600 was pretty much the practical limit when I was shooting B&W on film.]

hackingonempty 2y ago

> most cameras used in that era were rangefinders (or 'point-and-shoot') Rangefinders from that era are not point-and-shoot. They have two separated windows allowing light into the viewfinder and you turn the focusing mechanism until the two views of the subject merge perfectly. They use parallax to find the distance to the subject with a mechanism linked to the lens focus, hence the name rangefinder. Point-and-shoot cameras from that era were fixed focus.