which film for night street + slow lenses?

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

She's really pretty... such a kind face.

 

I'll forward that, but what about the grain - it's about the grain!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thetoaster]

Heh yeah, back to the matter at hand. The grain is pleasing to my eye, anyway...

 

I'll forward that, but what about the grain - it's about the grain!

[Jaybob]

As we speak of …chunky grain… - some of you might be in for a big surprise, that a lot of the chunkyness is coming actually from bad scans!

 

What I wanted to state is: pushed Tri-X 400 @ 3200 can look remarkably good, processed and scanned properly.

 

The "chunkyness" that I referred to would actually be the grain structure that is visible in the film. TMax 400 grain is "finer" than Tri X, and to my eye, it looks better when push processed. Many others like Ilford or Fuji for the same reason. It has little to do with soft flatbed scans, and more to do with developer choice and processing technique. However, your example is quite eye opening.

 

I also like Tri-X as well, but I like to rate it around 250.

 

Jay

[menos I M6]

I also like Tri-X as well, but I like to rate it around 250.

 

Jay

 

;-)

 

I got used to Tri-X look from the scans, I print digital.

They inherit a strong "blotch" or "chunk" of grain in shadows, which I mostly tried to hide with a more capped black point and steeper curve into the darks.

 

Only when I saw the first carefully done DSLR "scans" with a proper light source through the neg was it, that I was enlightened.

 

The grain most of the "home scanning" people might know about Tri-X is probably not representative of what it really can look like.

 

I am very sure, Tmax even improves on that ;-)

I guess, would I have grown to Tmax film, I'd potentially would use that film.

I use TriX though and just saw the first batch of developed Neopan, shot @3200 and developed like TriX in D-76 1:1 - I like it - a bit different (flatter, "sharper" by some - maybe a placebo ??).

 

I'll use them both at same dose atm - see, which I like best in a few months (Neo is cheaper, which is good ;-) ).

[H. James Wolf]

Use a slow two-bath developer, to help the shadows. Night photos are, usually, very contrasty.

 

I use Diafine - very occasionally - and D-23 two-bath regularly. Do you mean D-23 two bath or something else? If D-23 - 5g metol/100g s. sulfite bath 1, 18 g borax bath two is what I use - is this the formula or something else.

Thanks for the help

Jim

[maxspbr]

I use a variation on a two bath developer I found inDr Jacobson formulary. Metol Hidroquinone. And Sodium Bicarbonate as 2nd bath!

[Ulev]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Amazing portrait !

I am surprised bout the result, pushing the TriX 400 to ISO3200.

 

Do you actually overexpose 1/3th stop on the spot or did you dial ISO 2400 on the camera and then develop for ISO3200 ?

 

Rgds

 

Ulev

 

 

Look at my film shots.

My 90% standard film in all cameras is TriX 400 @ ISO3200.

I shoot @3200 and meter about 1/3 stop over exposed and let the lab develop in D-76.

When I develop myself, I do Kodak Tmax developer 1:1 with standard times.

 

I recently tried Neopan 400, shot exactly the same as TriX and it looks slightly cleaner (grain in shadows), but also a lot flatter than TriX (which makes for more PP for my taste).

 

I shoot more film recently - some are in my flickr stream: Flickr: teknopunk.com's Photostream

 

Some on my (old) website: teknopunk.com

 

You don't need super fast lenses for getting handholdable speeds at night.

I recently play around with a Nikon 28 2.8 Ai-s lens on the FM3a and it is quite descent for shooting stills in the night of Shanghai (you get down to 1/15 regularly in really dark streets, but can go as high as 1/250 into well lit places during the night with ISO3200).

 

TriX 400 @3200, Noct-Nikkor@f1.2 (so it was quite dark in the room)

 

I love TriX!

[robert_parker]

Lovely portrait.

 

I've recently been trying a little night photography and Kodak 400 Professional and Fuji 400 seem to give nice results in colour on a tripod. Fuji 800 is also relatively easy to get, here in the UK

[menos I M6]

Thanks Ulev and Robert.

 

I now meter TriX 400 @ 3200 +1/3 to +2/3ev in low light, depending on the lighting condition.

The reason for this is more, that most of my film is at the moment developed in a lab and not by myself.

 

You have to either change metering or developing according to the lighting conditions, you use TriX pushed to 3200.

 

It looks very different, when pushed in daylight or dark, dark night.

 

Parallel to this, where you point your center weighted meter (especially in night shots with lot's of bright light sources) factors in big.

 

Thanks for the nice comment on the photo. It was shot with a Nikon F3HP + Noct-Nikkor @ f1.2.

[tobey bilek]

Tri X works best in high contrast street scenes.

 

Delta 3200 and T Max 3200 and Neopan are really 1000 speed. All else is a push which means increased contrast and empty shadows. Pushing does no add shadow detail. Only more exposure does it.

 

Tri X and Diafine is supposed to be very good. People sware they really get 1250 out of it.

 

I just use a tripod myself.

 

Decades back, the journalists used Accufine and tri X. I used it once in 1965. Things change.