StS Posted October 8, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Good evening, a friend will have a performance with his band in a jazz club and asked me to take some photos. Apart from the M8, I'm planning to take the M6. Since jazz clubs are notoriously well illuminated , I will probably need some very high speed film. The offering seems to be: Kodak T-max P3200 Ilford Delta 3200 Fuji Neopan 1600 Could you please share your experiences with very high speed film under these conditions? Did I forget a film? Would a C41 film such as BW400CN do under these circumstances? Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Hi StS, Take a look here Experience with very high speed B/W films?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
abrewer Posted October 9, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 9, 2008 I think the issue will not be light, but grain, with those films. The other important variable is what speed lens are you going to use? A f4-5.6 zoom, even on a Leica body, will be pretty useless in a dimly-lit room Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2008 Id trawl through Jans (telewatt) images then ask him some specific questions about the films. ps...Originally I wrote "troll through" but thats another word perverted by the internet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leitzmac Posted October 9, 2008 Share #4 Posted October 9, 2008 Hi Stefan, There are many parts to this story, max lens aperture (as Allan mentioned), choice of developer, concentration, development time etc. The films themselves: I shoot quite a bit of Delta 3200, also HP5 rated at 800 and sometimes 1600 (maybe a little too much). Instead of pushing the HP5 two stops I have recently got hold of Neopan 1600 to see how I get on. Delta 3200 is GRAINY, but that's what you'd expect from a very fast film. It seems to be easier going tonally than the T-MAX 3200 judging by prints I've seen (I must confess I've never used T-MAX 3200 personally, only 100 and 400). The Kodak seems to have a rather busy, intense grain too. Again it's all personal preference, but I think Delta might be a little more forgiving which is a handy thing in low light - I am sometimes in situations where I'm aiming to shoot it at 6400 and still having trouble getting enough light to the film and that's on the Summicron 35 and Noct - not exactly slow lenses, but the results seem to come out OK with a little TLC! Incidentally the vignetting on the Noct (wide open of course - we're shooting in loooow light remember) is so severe that some exposure compensation is necessary at times, I try for a balance somewhere between exposure at corner and centre. Obviously this depends where the subject is relative to the lens axis, if they are fairly central I won't compensate, but if they're way off to the edge of the frame I may give an extra half stop, possibly more depending on the situation as the fall-off is so severe. Wish I could help more but my Neopan experience is only recent and as mentioned I've never used T-Max 3200, however I'm confident someone has shot them all many times and you'll get the replies you need. Enjoy the music! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted October 9, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 9, 2008 This is Delta 3200, albeit in pretty good light. I have had mostly disappointing results from the few rolls I have used. I suspect it is sensitive to development, and as I have been sending my film out for development (in a provincial area) I prefer to assume he problem has been the lab rather than me If you process yourself you may be happier... [ATTACH]106808[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongrelnomad Posted October 9, 2008 Share #6 Posted October 9, 2008 I love Neopan1600 and use it regularly in low-light situations: I personally find 3200 much too contrasty and grainy for my liking: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted October 9, 2008 Share #7 Posted October 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I prefer Neopan Superpresto 1600PR (bar shots) (Both Noctilux at f/1.0 and either 1/60s or 1/125s) or Fuji Portra 800 (on stage with better light conditions than in a bar): (Noctilux at f/1.0 1/60s) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongrelnomad Posted October 9, 2008 Share #8 Posted October 9, 2008 @Maddoc: Have you pushed Fuji 800Z? I've got a roll@1600 in my MP at the moment (Noctilux) and after my recent experience with pushed 400H (blown away) am really looking forward to getting them processed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddoc2003jp Posted October 9, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 9, 2008 Julian, I have pushed Kodak 400UC one stop (self-developed, Naniwa Color-kit N): and Kodak Portar 400 VC-2 two stops (at 1600ISO) also self-developed: Cheers, Gabor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 9, 2008 Share #10 Posted October 9, 2008 I shoot Tri-X at 1250 or 1600 and developed in Diafine or P3200TMZ at 1600 or 3200 developed in XTOL. From what I've read, its pretty much an even split on Delta 3200 or P3200TMZ. Some people like the grain more on one, some like it more on the other. Neopan 1600 is NOT as fast as the other two highspeed films. Not knocking it, but if you need speed, pick one of the other two. Tri-X at 1250 or 1600 in Diafine is VERY usable in a concert setting. A lot depends on how you meter. The following pictures were taken at different shows, so the lighting was different at each show. The last show had really strong contrasty lighting - I did NOT need to shoot at such a high speed... I think the Tri-X shots have the most normal tonal range and its hard to blow out highlights with Diafine. Tri-X at 1250: P32000TMZ at 1600: P3200TMZ at 3200: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted October 9, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 9, 2008 Fuji Portra? Kodak Portar? I must have missed those on the shelf at Roberts' The Neopan 1600 looks like it scans real nice If there was enough light to use it I'd probably make that choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted October 9, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 9, 2008 My only experience is with NP1600 and I really like the film. It gives a nice noir look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted October 9, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 9, 2008 I use a lot of Neopan 1600 and just LOVE it! I do my own development using 510-Pyro, and I really love the tones, blacks, whites and the grain of Neo 1600. I used a little of Ilford 3200 years ago and liked it as well, though is more grainy and contrasty than Neopan 1600. Just my .02... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted October 9, 2008 Share #14 Posted October 9, 2008 I would seriously consider Tri-X or TMAX 400 depending on the lens/aperature you have even if you have to expose at 600-800 and increase development times. If you don't have f2.0 or larger than these very high speed film may be needed but the images will be very grainy. One thing you can do if you have time, is to go to the venue before hand and at least meter the light if not able to take some test shots. Otherwise you really have no idea of what you final results will be.-Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted October 9, 2008 Hi Allan, Rob, Mac, Guy, Julian, Gabor, Peter, Vieri and Richard, thank you very much for this abundance of tips and your excellent images – having seen it, I’m now extremely keen on doing the pictures. Besides, the band is pretty good . I have the feeling the Neopan 1600 seems to be the easiest material to start with ultra high sensitive films. The fastest lens I have is a Summicron 2/50, the slowest an Elmarit 2,8/24, which will probably go with the M8 (I’ll convert the images to B/W, which makes digital noise less annoying). Anyhow, I will bring some extra rolls, since I’m really looking forward to the film part . Thank you again for your advice Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share #16 Posted October 9, 2008 One thing you can do if you have time, is to go to the venue before hand and at least meter the light if not able to take some test shots. Otherwise you really have no idea of what you final results will be.-Dick This is a good tip, it will be also an opportunity to test the material. I have recommendations of two very good labs, however am enticed to develop the films myself, which should also be tested beforehand... Actually taking photos saves also some weird questions: "Excuse me, would you mind, if I meter the light in here a bit?" Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.