Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,879   Posts: 1,520,417   Online: 944
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    Thanks for all the good advice. I ended up shooting two rolls, one in the EOS (Delta 3200) and one in the Fed (TMZ). The latter roll, I bracketed about half the exposures so I'm optimistic that I'll get at least a few useable shots.

    The 'EOS' roll I tried partial metering off faces and also just letting the meter do its thing, so I'll see -- as it happened, the 'stage' lighting was fairly dim but the ambient lighting not as dark as I thought so the lighting was less contrasty than I feared and less likely to fool the meter (I hope).

    I'm going to develop tonight in DD-X (I think) and will hopefully be able to scan tomorrow.

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Keep us posted ! The DD-X is a good choice.

    don
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    Ara Ghajanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    14
    This is a great topic that I hope we can keep going in order to get some good tips collectively. I do a lot of club and ambient light shooting, but have not developed a technique other than using the camera's 80/20 center weighted metering. I agree, the camera meter is not very reliable because of the hot lights. The last concert I shot (see link below) I had a lot of white faces and dark backgrounds. It definitely gave the shots a nice mood and the band loved them, but for a perfectionist like myself, they were only adequate. I shot both Delta 3200 and TMZ and developed both in TMAX developer at the times recommended by the Digital Truth charts. Like I said, they were adequate, but I'm striving for more shadow and midtone detail. Am I correct to assume that XTOL is the way to go with these films? I've been wanting to try it for a while and maybe now is my chance. Can anyone give me a little critique on the photos I have in the link below? Would the stand development technique as suggested by Roger Krueger help?
    Ara

    http://www.lichtaffen.com/cobramatics032406
    Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    So, I developed the films and scanned 'em. I think I like the look of the P3200 more than the Delta 3200.

    Almost every shot came out on both films and nothing was drastically under or over-exposed. With the Fed I just went with between f2 @ 1/60 at the fastest end and f2.8 @ 1/125 at the slowest and I seem to have been lucky.

    Some of the negatives scanned a bit flat so needed a slight contrast tweak.

    Here's a few shots.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails fed_kodak9_small.jpg   fed_kodak7_small.jpg   fed_kodak24_small.jpg  

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    Hmm, those uploaded attachments look darker than the larger sized jpegs I have on my flickr page.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/8536110...7594098586256/

    That contains the entire roll from the Fed with all exposures guesstimated, with P3200 developed for 11min in DD-X @ 1:4

  6. #16
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Looks great matt

    cool


    don
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/8536110...7594098719198/

    Is the Delta 3200 shot in the EOS-650. 9.5min @ 1:4 Ilford DD-X.

    Noticeably more contrast but there was better light for those.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    Images
    18
    What was the name of the film that gave you the best results? And, did you rate the film any different than box speed. Your photos looked really good. Just last week I shot some nightclub stuff under horrible lighting with a Nikon D2X and a 70-300 2.8 lens. The good thing is I could make adjustments for exposure the bad part is that I hate digital noise. I have the opportunity to shoot in night clubs often because my sis in law is a singer/songwriter. I would love to master B&W film for this work. Great topic!
    Thanks
    Nancy

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    Hi Nancy. It's hard to say which one gave me the best results.

    The Ilford Delta 3200 had better contrast and was a little sharper than the Kodak T-Max P3200. The Kodak had a more 'subtle' tonal range but was a little flatter.

    All three of the pictures attached to the message above are from the Kodak film -- the second of the two flickr galleries is with the Delta 3200.

    I'd use either one again.

    I haven't tried printing from either film yet -- I'm in the process of setting up a temporary home darkroom -- but I ought to be able to do so later this week and will get a sense for which is easier to print.

    Both films were rated at 1600 ASA but developed using the standard times in Ilford DD-X for 3200 ASA. Helpful advice I'd read elsewhere on this site suggested rating both films at 1600 but processing for 3200 and that seemed to work well.

    In the case of the Kodak 3200 film, I didn't really rate it at 1600 -- rather I just opened the camera lens wide and shot at 1/60 most of the time. However, I think, given the lighting conditions that was roughly approximate to rating it at 1600.

    Matt

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    Images
    18
    Matt
    Thanks for the informative explanation! I'm gonna pick up some film for the show this Friday night and see what I get. I'll be shooting with Nikon N90s. I'll bring along the big lens and a 50mm 1.4. Wish me luck!
    Nancy

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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