Film choice for concerts?

[Fawley]

There will always be enough light in the spotlite areas on the performers to expose TriX without pushing. So its really a choice of how much contrast you want. Shooting something like Ilford Delta 3200 will allow you to pick up much more shadow detail, if thats what you want. Pushing TriX in a situation like this has the danger of leading you to believe you have more film speed than you really do. Since you have such a large brightness range, its really a matter of exposing correctly no matter which film you use.

 

[Jesse3Names]

Ah ok. I'll shoot both Delta-3200 at 1600 and Tri-X and push 2 stops with Xtol. Have you ever developed Delta-3200 with Xtol and had good results?

 

[lukitas]

This is Delta 3200 developed for 3200 at a commercial lab

 

[Jesse3Names]

This is Delta 3200 developed for 3200 at a commercial lab

Not bad. I think I like D3200 at 1600 better, of course, but we'll see how much I need at the show.

 

[hrzlvn]

Try Cinestill. Cinestill.com

 

[leicapixie]

You are going against the experiences of so many replies.
Film is beautiful.It has features you admire.
I love my film and film cameras.
If I was still a working pro, this assignment, only digital.
Instant feedback, high ISO setting a sheer joy.
If you still determined do a shoot prior to the gig, at same location.
Try out your films, the developing. Use a digital after.
In pre digital days i always did tests..

 

[davidbivins]

I don't mind grain at all from older-style films like Tri-X. I routinely push it to 1600 and 3200 and I like the look. Delta 3200 comes out nice at 3200 with Rodinal, in my experience, but it's far too expensive for me. I buy my Tri-X as Arista Premium 400 for less than $3 a roll at Freestyle Photo and use it for 75% of what I do. That said, I think it also performs at that level of underexposure better than Delta 3200. I shot both recently at a dance performance so you can see them side-by-side under some unusual lighting. I have notes on development in here as well:
http://davidshootsfilm.com/2013/07/03/shooting-the-people-to-come-delta-3200-pushed-tri-x/
I agree with leicapixie about testing. Go hit a show and shoot a couple short rolls of each film you're considering and try a couple of different development recipes. I always think doing that is fun. If you can't do that, shoot a lot at the show and only develop the rolls one at a time so you can adjust development if necessary.
Short answer: shoot Tri-X at 1600 or 3200 and develop in HC-110B (or H for a bit better shadow detail) for 1600 or Rodinal for 3200. See the linked post for details.

 

[Tim Gray]

There will always be enough light in the spotlite areas on the performers to expose TriX without pushing.

I have not found this to be true at all venues, particularly the smaller ones. I've done a few shows where I was at ISO 6400, f/1.8 and 1/25 s where I was still underexposed.

If the lighting is good, you can get away with a 400 speed film, or push it to 800. If it's not so good, pull out the TMAX or Delta 3200 and shoot it at 1600 - 6400 as you need. You can also think of shooting something like Tri-X and push it to 1250 in Diafine or 1600 in XTOL. I've had some success doing all of those. Personally, I eventually settled on Tri-X in Diafine rated at 1250 for the bulk of my concert photos. It was much cheaper than the 3200 push films, easy to develop in Diafine, and had some compensating effect to help tame the sometimes high contrast of the lighting. And if the lighting was great, I could just rate the Tri-X at 400 and just develop it in XTOL instead.


Looking at the pictures from the venue that someone posted, I saw exposures of ISO 4000, f/4, and 1/500s. That works out to something like ISO 500, f/4 and 1/60 s. Sounds like plenty of light to me. You should be able to get by with a 400 speed film, but I might bring some faster film just in case.

I have a variety of shots from B&W film on flickr. Some venues had good lighting and some were poor. The larger venues (see The Hold Steady sets) were a pleasure to shoot at because of the great lighting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/collections/72157601395778568/

 

[Jesse3Names]

Those examples actually look very nice, but I'm not positive I may just shoot both types of film at 3200 and develop with Rodinal. If I get a chance, I'll shoot a roll of Tri-X at 1600 and develop with HC-110 to see the comparison. I really don't know what kind of shutter speeds I'll be able to achieve at 1600, so I think I'll have to push it to 3200. At least it'll be twice as fast shutter speeds - that's slightly reassuring. Rodinal should control the grain fairly well.

I may bring my friend's D800 & 35/1.8 as well to start with, get some decent exposures, then set up my film camera accordingly. I think if I meter to get a rough range of what works during the support acts, once the headliner comes on I'll be ready to go and a little more witty about how I change settings and what I aim to achieve. And then I can also keep shooting the D800 all night. I wish I had the Bronica SQ-Ai and 40mm lens I want to get, then I could use the larger negative size (and effectively smaller grain size) to my advantage. However, shooting with a waistlevel prism is impossible over top of a crowd... I'd be guessing the whole time!

 

[Jesse3Names]

I've been reading up on developing film times and chemicals. Just to be clear, saying 1:50 and 1+50 for dilution mean the same thing, correct? 1 part developer to 50 parts distilled water? And does "stock" mean the dilution Rodinal suggests on their bottle and any further dilutions are to be made from that or is "stock" straight out of the bottle?

Also, will Kodak's stop and fixer products be adequate for push-processing 400 Tri-X or should I use other products for developing at higher rated ISOs?

From the looks of it, I've seen some pretty solid results from stand developing techniques. The current one I found on the "Massive Dev Chart" for 400 Tri-X rated at ISO 3200 with a 1:50 dilution (denoted 1+50 in the chart, which is why I asked) is for 33 minutes with minimal agitation. To me that sounds like stand developing. The results I've seen from quick Flickr searches make me thing that higher dilutions for longer times (even if it is stand developing) produce better results on high ISOs... better tonal gradation, lesser grain, fewer cases where dark shadows are crashed to black, etc.

Are there additional slower developing time schedules that seem to work well for pushing Tri-X? I plan to develop all of my ISO 50/100 b&w film with Xtol, so if there are good approaches to pushing with that, that'd be nice to be aware of. Thanks.

 

[gsgary]

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.

This is a scan of the wet print i did

 

[cosmonaut]

What film did you shoot, 400TX? And how far did you push it?

Yes it was 400TX at 3200. It was very dim light.

 

[tycho]

Color Tugsten film 800T Cinestill

Color Tugsten film 800T Cinestill

I want to try this badly, backordered at Freestyle. 800T Cinestill.

Cinestill Film. This is not intended for daylight. Check out some of the examples on the site.

Great lattidute.

Recommended ISO and acceptable exposure for push processing:

ISO 800 - No push - EI 200-1600
ISO 1250 - 1 stop push - EI 800-2000
ISO 1600 - 2 stop push - EI 1250-3200
ISO 3200 - 3 stop push - EI 1600-3200 (added contrast)

 

[x-ray]

You get this out of control contrast for a couple of reasons. One TX is more like 250 ISO not 400. At 400 shadows are thin at best. Second you're trying to push with conventional developers. When extending development times you mainly push highlight density which results in this out of control contrast.

Using ACUFINE you actually increase shadow density and detail. Acufine DOES increase ISO. It is not simply increasing highlight density. Grain is finer and shadow detail is finer with Acufune. HP-5 and ACUFINE are a perfect combination. I know, I've done it with great results, full shadow negatives and more open highlights.