Film choice for concerts?

J

Jesse3Names

Established
Local time
2:44 PM
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
86
I have 2 concerts coming up in Portland and Eugene, OR within 2 days of each other I'd like to bring my not-so-expensive Canon EOS A2 body ($20 eBay purchase!) to get some good shots of the performers. One act's drummer just so happens to be a friend of mine and I'd like a printable shot (8x12 or so, maybe slightly larger) I can mail to him when he arrives back in England after their 19 date US/Canada tour. I don't mind shooting in b&w if it produces better low-light images on film, but if color is possible I would love to hear your thoughts. And of course I can always shoot a few rolls during the show to experiment - but nailing down which rolls that will be and which ISO to meter at is what I'm after.

For use with my Canon A2 35mm body, I own Canon's 16-35/2.8L II and 50/1.8 II lenses. Both perform admirably wide open - especially in low-light where the edge softness of the 16-35/2.8L II will go largely unnoticed.

If I am shooting wide open at either f/2.8 or f/1.8, depending on the lens, am I going to be able to freeze motion enough at ISO 1600 (in a general case, I know you don't know how much they'll be moving) or is it better to step up to ISO 3200 to be safe? Theoretically, I'd rather have a sharp shot than lower grain, but not necessarily at the expense of a massive grain increase between ISOs.

The b&w films I'm considering are as follows:
- Ilford Delta-3200 (if shot at ISO 1600, processed normally; if shot at ISO 3200, pushed 1 stop)
- Kodak T-Max P3200 (nominally an ISO 800 film, so pushed 1 or 2 stops when shot at ISO 1600 or 3200, respectively)
- Kodak 400TX or Ilford Delta 400 (pushed 2 or 3 stops if shot at ISO 1600 or 3200, respectively).

The color films I've found, but know NOTHING about are as follows:
- Kodak Portra-800 (shot at ISO 1600, pushed 1 stop?)
- Fujifilm Superia 800 (same as Portra)
- Rollei/AGFA Nightbird 800 (same as Portra)

With the different color temperature lights (between white spotlights and the definitely-color lights that'll be moving around on stage) would it be better results overall to shoot b&w or color in the first place? I don't want over-saturated skin tones in every shot; I'd rather go understated than overstated.

I want to develop my own in the future, so I was thinking of using Kodak's XTol or D-76 developer. I haven't given significant thought to what stop and fixer I want to use, but I don't want to own more than one developer - I'd like to keep things simple. So if you recommend a good all around developer that can process ISO 50/100 film with minimal grain and control grain at ISO 1600 rather well, I'd love to hear it. I know Xtol and D-76 are popular and well rounded, but I've never used them and am not sure how versatile they are.

It's worth noting for your consideration that I'll be scanning the film digitally in order to print. So any adjustments can be made in Photoshop, but I want to start out with the best result in-hand on film prior to scanning, of course. I do understand I won't get an ISO 100-like composition up near ISO 1600, but I do want to do the best I can. Photography is all about improvements!

Just trying to give you guys all the info I can for the best advice! My friend owns a Hasselblad 500c with a Zeiss 80/2.8 lens that may be worth giving a shot at this show (bigger negative, grain is smaller to begin with), but if I don't want to bring my own Nikon S3 to a concert with a bunch of kids/teens/people my age going mad over the music, I probably sure as sh*t don't want to bring my friend's Hasselblad!

Cheers,
Jesse
 
If it really must be colour film (any recent DSLR or EVIL camera is quite dramatically superior to film once it comes to very low light), I'd go with Superia 1600 - it has a bit less contrast than pushed 800 film, and you'll already have more contrast than you can want in most stage lighting conditions.
 
sevo said:
If it really must be colour film (any recent DSLR or EVIL camera is quite dramatically superior to film once it comes to very low light), I'd go with Superia 1600 - it has a bit less contrast than pushed 800 film, and you'll already have more contrast than you can want in most stage lighting conditions.
Click to expand...

If I want to shoot color, I could just bring my 5D II with either lenses listed above or borrow my friend's D800 with his 35/1.8. His D800 seems to do much better at ISO 1600/3200 astrophotography than my modified 5D II does (even after I cheated and put on my visible + H-a filter to get another ~1/2 stop of light into my camera than his unmodified factory visible filter), so I can extrapolate that to low-light concert photography. What I've seen from the night we both went out to shoot the Milky Way, his photos are 1 to 2 stops better than mine just based on equipment alone... a few years difference in technology, I guess.

If I want to shoot b&w, which I think looks a bit classier at concerts in many cases, what are your thoughts on shooting at rated ISOs or pushing?
 
The shortcomings of film for low light color are the main reason I usually shoot digital for shows (that & PITA short deadlines that digital makes possible) or whenever I need high quality low light color shots. Fuji's Pro 800Z is pretty good, pushed it's better than Superia 1600, & certainly useable if the lighting is really good, but that's unlikely in a small club (where even if they're using LEDs, you'll probably need ISO 1000-1250 minimum unless they're a shoegazey band that doesn't move around). I suppose Kodak's Portra 400 pushes well as might be better than Pro 800Z; I've even used pushed Provia 400F & 400X (to ISO 1600) w/decent results, but I think given the cost of all the high speed color films + developing (unless you're doing it yourself), digital's your best bet. For B&W, T-max 3200 @ 2500 is decent, but too grainy for my tastes in 35mm; Delta 3200 @ 2500 is better, but same deal in the end. Pushed Tri-X, T-max 400, HP5+, Delta 400, etc. are all usable based on one's taste in B&W & developers. Personally, I'm using up my last bricks of Neopan 1600 (@ 1000), then my last bricks of pushed Neopan 400, & then pushed HP5+ or Tri-X.
 
I've pushed Arista Premium 400 to 3200 once in Xtol 1+1, and it came out quite nice. Surprisingly, I've got virtually no additional grain from pushing. Contrast was very high, as expected. I even recommend to try Xtol 1+2 when pushing. Overall, Xtol is a great all-around developer and I like it very much since trying. Here's a couple of concert shot's from that pushed film (shooting a music performance with a Barnack Leica is tough!):


FLM201308012 by Silme EA, on Flickr


FLM201308019 by Silme EA, on Flickr


FLM201308020 by Silme EA, on Flickr


FLM201308013 by Silme EA, on Flickr

I guessed exposure, so it is a bit inconsistent. 1st photo is more like 1600 (i.e. overexposed), 2nd and 4th are about 3200 and 3rd looks like 6400 (underexposed).
 
What venue in Portland? The venue lighting will affect the quality of your shots much more than your choice of film, in my opinion. Some venues are well-lit and some are nightmares.
 
If I'm in "film mode/mood", it has to be film. Full stop!
I concur with the already mentioned suggestions. For similar low light situations (with some bright light spots) like concert stages or candle light dinner:
- HP5+ pushed to 1600 or Delta 3200 for b&w
- Superia 1600 for color

Later then scanning these high ISO color films with not too much grain enhanced is quite another cup of tea...
 
Also, while pushing Portra is theoretically possible, the range you lose while pushing gets exacerbated by wide variations in light. Your subject may come out ok, but the shadows -- very dark to begin with -- will block up (much) quicker as you push to 1600. For me, this makes it unsuitable in your basic club lighting, but with a stage with a lot of light coverage, it could be done. But by all means, give it a go. If you have unlimited access, then this will be a great learning experience for you.
 
emayoh said:
What venue in Portland? The venue lighting will affect the quality of your shots much more than your choice of film, in my opinion. Some venues are well-lit and some are nightmares.
Click to expand...

It'll be at the Wonder Ballroom in Portland. The act is "Example" from England - they're a massive tour-er over there and all over the world for that matter. I know the lights will be top-notch quality. Elliot Gleave (initials E.G. = Example) just signed with Sony and even before that he funded his tours and had unbelievable production value! I just happen to know his drummer through the e-drum company I play for out of Stafford.

...

Those shots look great. I think I agree that ISO 3200 from your shots look close to proper exposure - not too shabby for guessing! Fortunately my A2 body has a built-in meter so I don't need to carry the Sekonic handheld meter from the S3 case.

...

I have a roll of Ilford Delta-3200 that I purchased for astrophotography as a tester to see how I like it, but I haven't loaded it yet. I think I'll take that out next week with my A2 body and 16-35/2.8L II and 50/1.8 II lenses and see how the Ilford emulsion looks when shot at ISO 3200 and push-processed 1 stop. If the grain is acceptable I'll shoot the concert at ISO 3200, because then at least there will be more available light than trying to photograph the Milky Way, so I know the grain will be no worse with the additional light to expose the film more evenly... if my logic is correct? I'm used to thinking digitally so please correct me if I'm wrong. If I don't like the Ilford Delta-3200 at ISO 3200 and pushed a stop, what would you recommend trying? Pushing an ISO 400 b&w film 3 stops? Seems a bit extreme and grain-inducing.
 
It depends on the lighting, sometimes in smaller venues you can get away with quite low ISO films like 200-400 in which case TMax or even XP2 would be OK the latter works at 100-800 EI and gets processed in C41.
That said in very dark places 3200 ISO is par for the course, colour film at these speeds can be tricky the best films are all gone. Colour gels on spotlights can be a problem too even with B&W colour temperature is harder to get right as tungsten light is going to be yellow–with gels who knows.

Here are two shots the first was tungsten spots, the image is taken on Tri-x pushed one stop.
27083912.jpg


The second was taken under blue filtered spots:
55923787.jpg

Very tricky to meter and develop for...

Lastly colour film Konica SR3200 (now deleted)
111206525.jpg

A very dark club, so 1/15 wide open at ƒ1,4 you could push Portra 400 to this speed and depending on lighting it may be fine.
 
Photo_Smith said:
Colour gels on spotlights can be a problem too even with B&W colour temperature is harder to get right as tungsten light is going to be yellow–with gels who knows.

Here are two shots the first was tungsten spots, the image is taken on Tri-x pushed one stop.
Click to expand...

I have a few rolls of Kodak 400TX, so maybe I'll shoot one of those for fun and see what happens if I push it 1 stop in that lighting. I won't be able to tell until I'm there and I'll have to be able to think if my shutter speed is fast enough, or else I'll have to crank up the ISO to compensate for motion. I can adjust yellow casts and things like that enough in PS/LR I would bet, so maybe I can just ignore temperature in b&w until I get into a digital file? Is that safe?
 
(Portlander here) For me, shooting film at the Wonder Ballroom, I'd concentrate on B&W first and then color if you have extra time -- Especially if your focus will be the drummer who will not be very well lit at the Wonder unless he sets up something special. But, as I say you can always try something new. Good luck!

It may help you to search Flickr for Wonder Ballroom to see what you'll be working with.
 
emayoh said:
(Portlander here) For me, shooting film at the Wonder Ballroom, I'd concentrate on B&W first and then color if you have extra time -- Especially if your focus will be the drummer who will not be very well lit at the Wonder unless he sets up something special. But, as I say you can always try something new. Good luck!

It may help you to search Flickr for Wonder Ballroom to see what you'll be working with.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll stick to b&w for this gig then. Well, I'd like to get a cool shot of the whole band where you can see everyone, but those are seemingly more difficult sometimes since someone is always in the shadows or hiding away behind pedals/stacks.

Johnny's kit glows blue:
jenkins-main-630-80.jpg

So I'm sure he'll be well lit. He usually is, Elliot's lighting guys don't try to hide anyone in particular. When it is dimly lit it's because the song's about to drop or something - otherwise it's a light show.
 
I've shot in small clubs like the Roseland 1600 no problem. Sometimes can try 800 depending on the amount of lighting. Of course I always try to use the existing lighting to my advantage. I'm not a fan of extreme pushing of slower film unless you don't mind things super contrasty, and sacrificing detail. Usually not the look I want when photographing people. For example, look at the photos above, it can be unflattering to the performer's hair and skin.

Full disclosure, nowadays I only shoot digital at shows. The images are sharper, I can go even higher ISO, lots of detail with great colors. Plus, in low light the fast lenses with auto focus mean fewer missed opportunities.

No matter which film speed you end up trying, make sure you use well-metered exposures, bracket or err on the side of slight overexposure. You'll be fine. Good luck. Always more fun when you know the band :)
 
This is a total experiment for me. I'm willing to give film a shot because maybe I'll get something unique that you can't get with digital - appealing grain, mainly. I love my 5D II and need to stop researching the 6D's amazing low light ability (seriously 4 years for technology is like millennia, the DIGIC 5+ kicks the DIGIC 4 processor's a**), haha. I'll probably learn a whole lot in what to expect out of fast film in the first roll. But I shall try a few different rolls and see what I get. I may shoot the beginning of the show with 400TX at ISO 800, then end it with the Delta-3200 at ISO 3200 just to get a huge range of exposure options to have scanned and process.

EDIT - Of course if my exposure meter is telling me I can get away with ISO 1600 that night on the Delta-3200 film, then I'll do that. No reason to overexpose and risk blurry subjects!
 
gsgary said:
This is HP5 at 1600, the wet print looks much better, scanned with an old canon scanner
Click to expand...

I assume the glow of the lights in the background and tonal fades on their clothing are much smoother. Are there services that still do wet prints? I don't have the space, money, or time to learn wet prints at the moment, but would love to see the difference in the best inkjet print I could manage vs. the best wet print someone else could do. I assume "enlargements" are the same as "wet prints?"

That HP5 looks great as it is, though. I may grab a roll of that after some further comparison research to the Delta-3200.
 
I've done a bit of reading this afternoon and it seems that Kodak 400TX (Tri-X) pushed to ISO 1600 using XTol gives fantastic, low-grain results. It almost seems that the grain is lesser than Ilford Delta-3200 shot at ISO 1600 and processed normally! I have a handful of 400TX so I'll definitely be trying that :) Especially if it does well with an overall great developer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom