# Super slow films



## earthmanbuck (Jan 10, 2018)

Has anyone here ever tried shooting a "super slow" film with an ISO rating of under 50? I just learned such things exist and am intrigued—some of the examples I've seen look pretty cool. I've never shot anything below 100 myself, but would love to hear about anyone's experiences with them.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 11, 2018)

Panatomic X...ASA then ISO was 32...very fine-grained 35mm with traditional grain structure...T-Max 100 is similar in granularity, but with newer emulsion technology. Ehhhh.... I didn't like it, shot only a few rolls of it.

I shot a fair number of Kodachrome 25 color slide rolls...immensely disliked it...crappy shots due to BLURRED motion on all types of shots, due to the pathetically low film speed of ASA/ISO 25...wind-motion, subject motion, HUGE problems with a film speed of 25. 

Kodachrome 64 on the other hand, I shot a ton of, and yes, the ASA/ISO of 64 was not the best...I typically rated it at an Exposure Index (also called E.I.) of 80, and shot it for multiple years, from 1981-1991. 

Slow-speed films of 25 to 64 are marginal for any kind of action, except in very bright lighting and with fast-aperture lenses. But they are REALLY handy for classic, pro-level studio flash type shooting, where the low film speed pairs up absolutely splendidly with high-powered flash units like the Speedotron 1,600 Watt-second and 2,400 Watt-second power supplies and two or three or four or even five flash units attached to the power supply, and large amounts of flash power being divided among the connected flash units.

A 2,400 Watt-second Black Line pack with six flash heads can easily allow you to channel 400 "real", not-inflated-like-Alien-Bee, Watt-seconds of power through each flash head, so using a low-speed film of 25 or 64 ASA/ISO was pretty commonly a "good thing" back in the day. We're seeing the same thing now in high-end Nikon cameras that offer lower and lower native ISO levels to their sensors, as well as "Minus ISO" setting capability...at times it's actually advantageous to have the lowest possible film/sensor speed possible.

Long exposures are perfect for slow-speed films! Wanna' shoot some 10-second exposures? Low-speed film can be helpful!


----------



## OldManJim (Jan 11, 2018)

I've shot a fair amount of Velvia 50. While not "super slow", it does give nice images IF you have a ton of light (think bright sunshine), well lit scenes, and don't try to use shutter speeds of 500 or more. The big advantage of Velvia in my opinion is the color saturation. It makes E-6 images that can be stunning - if I do my part. View attachment 152060 Shot with Velvia 50. Not the best image


I agree with Derrel's comments; I tried the T-Max films and got OK results, but I need to learn how to work with that better.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 11, 2018)

I have shot Adox CMS (CHS?) 25 film for architecture.  Supposed to give much finer grain than their 50 ISO version but I didn't really see a difference.

As Derrel said, it would be good for long exposure shots.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2018)

I've never used any, but I can see the advantage.  I just wish modern digital cameras were capable of similar low speeds.

I shot god-only-knows how many rolls of K25 back in the day with few issues.  But I wasn't shooting sports either.  But I rarely had problems even shooting down to 1/2 sec hand-held, either.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 11, 2018)

Like Derrel, I played around with Panatomic X and Kodachrome 25.  I like the Kodachrome for landscapes and cityscapes. Sorta sucked for non-scrapes.  I never liked what I got from the Panatomic X.  I never put in the time to figure out an good/optimum exposure to development equation. But if I remember correctly was quite grainless, not as sharp as mhy standard (Tri-X), but not a lot of zones. Most likely that was more me than the film. If I wanted to go long exposure, I preferred filters to Panatomic X.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 11, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> Like Derrel, I played around with Panatomic X and Kodachrome 25.  I like the Kodachrome for landscapes and cityscapes. Sorta sucked for non-scrapes.  I never liked what I got from the Panatomic X..


  I really liked Kodachrome 25; never much of a fan of Panatomic X.  My 'go to' was always Ilford Pan F; at ASA 50, it was a 'fast' landscape film, but I loved the results.  Wayyyyyy back in highschool, we h ad a box of single-digit ASA sheets, either 6 or 8, don't recall that I played around with in the 4x5 camera...  I don't recall being overly impressed.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2018)

I routinely shoot Ilford Delta 100 at both 50 and 25 (N-1 and N-2) and pull process.  I really like the results. Especially with 4x5.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 11, 2018)

I really liked Konica 50 color print back in the day. Pan-X 32 was the bomb! And if you really wanted low speed the inter-neg film I used to make negs from slides or prints was 8 ASA!


----------



## compur (Jan 11, 2018)

What's wrong with "motion blur"?

I like it:
motion blur - Google Search


----------



## earthmanbuck (Jan 11, 2018)

Thanks for the replies, all. Most of my shooting is of the walking around in the city type, but it seems like a neat thing to try on a nature hike someday with a tripod.

This was all spurred on by looking for film deals on eBay and finding some stuff apparently rated at ISO 3. I was just curious how low you folks had gone and what you thought—I certainly don't think my eyes are discerning enough to make going that low worth it.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 11, 2018)

Things to consider with something like that are (1) it's possibly very, very old; or (2) it's very, very specialized and would require a unique development process and/or chemicals.


----------



## Orrin (Jan 11, 2018)

Back in the early 1950's, Kodachrome was ASA 10. I used a lot of it before the
"superspeed" Anscochrome came out at ASA32.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 11, 2018)

I have got 100 feet of Kodalith Ortho that i shoot between iso6 and iso12

I saw an empty can on the kitchen worktop waiting for recycling and thought i could make a shot

iso6





Swans






Someone mentioned motion blur, in the wood with Kodalith Ortho


----------



## earthmanbuck (Jan 11, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Things to consider with something like that are (1) it's possibly very, very old; or (2) it's very, very specialized and would require a unique development process and/or chemicals.


The particular stuff I found says it's repackaged motion film with the remjet backing removed, so it can be developed by regular C-41 process. I know absolutely nothing about developing, however.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jan 11, 2018)

Rollei RPX 25 is the slowest I know that you can buy new and Ilford Pan F Plus is the slowest Ive shot on medium format. Great film and extremely fine grained


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 11, 2018)

I think I've used that Konica 50 some time ago, and something Rollei that was slower speed. Try taking a look at Home - The Film Photography Project . I've seen something on there about slower films, and they sell some oddball stuff. They do hand roll some film themselves that they sell. The stuff you got on ebay, who knows. I suppose shoot a test roll and see what you get. I've heard of that motion picture film, maybe on FPP.


----------



## pendennis (Jan 11, 2018)

For years, Kodachrome "II" (Later "25") was the standard by which all transparency film (whether color additive or subtractive) was judged.  Electronic Flashes were rated in terms of guide numbers based on "KII" (The large Honeywell Stronobars were rated @ 80 with KII, a bit optimistic, though).  It was extremely fine grained, and far more stable than other types of transparencies.  Kodachrome transparencies from the 1940's are routinely available for view on a number of web sites.  Their color is still stunning and amazingly well stabilized.

I used it for years for scenics, especially for slide presentations.  It had a slight warm cast to it, much better than the blue-biased Ektachrome, or Fuji's green-biased chrome films.  Fall colors with KII was always well received.  Kodachrome 64 had a definite red-bias, and later on Kodachrome 200 was a bit too grainy for my tastes.

I also shot a lot of Panatomic X when I needed very fine grain, and I could use a tripod and very small apertures.  The T-Max films, while having finer grain with tabular technology, just never had the pop of Panatomic X.

While the native ISO on many cameras is bottomed out @ 100, you can still manipulate the exposure to get an effective EI of around 25.  I've gotten some very decent results.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 11, 2018)

Remember Ektar 25.....? That was a super low grain film.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 11, 2018)

earthmanbuck said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Things to consider with something like that are (1) it's possibly very, very old; or (2) it's very, very specialized and would require a unique development process and/or chemicals.
> ...



Hmm, looks like internegative film ... not meant for shooting directly from camera.


----------



## limr (Jan 11, 2018)

earthmanbuck said:


> Has anyone here ever tried shooting a "super slow" film with an ISO rating of under 50? I just learned such things exist and am intrigued—some of the examples I've seen look pretty cool. I've never shot anything below 100 myself, but would love to hear about anyone's experiences with them.



Pan F (ISO 50) - good for long exposures and smooooooooth water  (no filter, TLR propped on a rock):




Bash Bish resized by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Slowest stuff I've ever shot? Harmon Direct Positive paper, rated at ISO 3. Homemade pinhole. Haven't broken that out in a long long time. I think I need to play with it again.




Day 350 - Snowy Caddy pinhole by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2018)

limr said:


> ............Slowest stuff I've ever shot? Harmon Direct Positive paper, rated at ISO 3. Homemade pinhole. Haven't broken that out in a long long time. I think I need to play with it again.............



ISO 3 is about what I shoot regular printing paper at.  I then scan the revered image with a flatbed and invert the colors.


----------



## OldManJim (Jan 12, 2018)

480sparky said: "ISO 3 is about what I shoot regular printing paper at. I then scan the revered image with a flatbed and invert the colors. " I'd sure like to see some of your results - that sounds really interesting.


----------



## Chucktin (Jan 12, 2018)

480sparky said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > ............Slowest stuff I've ever shot? Harmon Direct Positive paper, rated at ISO 3. Homemade pinhole. Haven't broken that out in a long long time. I think I need to play with it again.............
> ...


Can you say "watching paint dry"?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Chucktin (Jan 12, 2018)

Actually I got a roll of Oscilloscope Recording film onct, free. Blue sensitive emulsion. Since the cost was so low all I needed was cassettes and home processing. Stepping up to Plus X was a treat, then Tri X. Sure made me appreciate f 2.8!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Jan 12, 2018)

Chucktin said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Your point in making this comment being...?


----------



## Chucktin (Jan 12, 2018)

limr said:


> Chucktin said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Being - been there, done _that_ and more than once.
The "quest" for higher and higher ISO has reached  dizzying heights. But it has also highlighted (no pun intended) the short comings of that way of measuring the "correct" exposure.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 12, 2018)

I learned it as 'proper' exposure. 

Anyway I guess if you don't like slow you wouldn't care for doing lumen prints - expired photo paper in daylight. I just leave it til, oh, the next day... whenever I feel like getting it off the table in the window.


----------



## smithdan (Jan 12, 2018)

Shot lots of Kodachrome 25 in the 60's and 70's because it was on issue and a few rolls would sneak home in my pocket from time to time.  Processing was prepaid in Canada too.  

Bought a roll of Panatomic x  to use on a collection of Haida art,  mostly argilite  and silver carvings.  We moved East before I had a chance to develop, gave it to the drugstore and (no surprise) prints came back black as yer boots.  Scanned the negs a few years back and was able to salvage some pix.  I have a better scanner now and also have more pp experience so I'll try again.


----------

