Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,690   Posts: 1,548,834   Online: 1022
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by ericdan View Post
    I usually shoot 35mm Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600iso with my GR1v.
    The GR only goes to shutter speed of 1/500th so I use an orange or 2 stop ND filter during the day.
    I develop with ID-11 (1+1) for 13 1/4 mins. I really like the grain it gives me.

    We've been having good weather here in Tokyo and I was planning to head down to the beach for the weekend.
    I am now wondering if I should be using a different film or just rate it slower.

    I've shot it at 400 ISO with flash indoors before with mixed results.
    I know that trying it out is the best way to figure this out, but I any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Thanks!
    I had to look up what a GR1v is first. No I'd like to recommend another approach to your issue. What about just getting another camera? They should not be too expensive from the source where most of us get their used cameras from. I suspect it would be cheaper to get an second one than to buy a new ND filter.

  2. #22
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    705
    Images
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    If you've heard of the "straight line section" of film curves, rating Tri-X at 200 or even 100 still places your beach exposure on the straight line - so you can use the same development time as normal.

    But since your normal is push processing, that's not what I mean by normal. momus has a good answer, shoot it as if you had 100 speed film in the camera, develop it normally - but not as you normally do - develop as if you had rated it at 400.
    Bill,

    Wouldn't you still have dense negatives using this method? Even though Tri-X is so wonderfully versatile as to land ISO 100/200 in the straight line?

    Seems like your highlights would still need some burning and you could save yourself some trouble by reducing development.

  3. #23
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,852
    I would just take the film out and use a slower one.
    Ben

  4. #24
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by pstake View Post
    Bill,

    Wouldn't you still have dense negatives using this method? Even though Tri-X is so wonderfully versatile as to land ISO 100/200 in the straight line?

    Seems like your highlights would still need some burning and you could save yourself some trouble by reducing development.
    Dense negatives, yes (suppose you expose 2 stops over, it's going to take twice as long to print) but the contrast would remain the same.

    But even though I think the contrast of the negatives would be the same, I see your point. Overexposed film might make better quality negatives with less developing. Other qualities of the negative would be improved compared to an overexposed and normally developed negative.

  5. #25
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8

    Tri-X 400 at the beach?

    Have shot many many rolls of TriX400 at the beach and am choosy over time of day. Try at 400 or 320 and enjoy.
    Last edited by Nicole; 04-25-2014 at 10:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #26
    ericdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    157
    Thanks for all your suggestions.
    My orange filter eats 2 stops. That would put my 1600 back down to 400.
    I think it's worth investing in another 2stop ND filter to stop it further down if necessary.
    I have a strong feeling that with a blue sky and white sand, even at iso 100 i'd be very close to the 1/500th shutter speed most of the time.

    The GR1v stops down to f22 although I haven't shot it at that aperture much I assume it'll be fine at f22.
    The only problem being it's aperture priority only.
    sunny 16 for blue sky:
    f16 @iso100 1/125th
    f22 @iso100 1/60th
    But with sand at the beach I am probably looking at something brighter than that.

  7. #27
    markaudacity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    88
    Sand reflects light, yes. For ISO100, f/22 @125 will give you the correct exposure with blue sky. You won't need 1/500 unless you open the aperture to f/11. If you're wanting to use wide apertures at the beach, a point-and-shoot is almost certainly the wrong tool. :P

    I don't know if anyone has mentioned pulling your film yet. Pulling is overexpose/underdevelop, the opposite of a push. Tames contrast, increases tonal resolution.

    Tri-X looks very nice at EI 200 in bright light.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin