Guess the ISO

I have to admit I was also confused by the wording of the OP. So, are we to understand that the image shown is a still image taken as an aside during the video production? Or is it a "frame grab" from the video production? Would that video production be on film?? Seems unlikely, but the confusion is here.

But, making the assumption this is film, and its 6x9cm format, I think its a tab-grain film too. Leaves us with TMax or Delta. Now, there's the box ISO of the film, and the ISO it was rated during exposure. My guess (its down to a guess) is TMax 400 rated at 1600 or 3200. A short-ish shutter speed -- 1/30 about. And a moderate aperture -- 5.6/8

When do we find out the TRUTH? ;)

BTW, I know there's at least one motion-picture film format with a 1.5:1 aspect ratio (6x9), and others that begin to approximate that. If that's what we're dealing with -- trick question!
 
Truth coming tonight!

Sorry for any confusion. I've posted links around but I do occasionally make film photography based videos. In my excitement I hastily posted up some vaugueish information but knowing RFF figured the more info I get out there the quicker someone would guess!

Lots of good thought put into the guesses so far. I would expect no less from RFF!
 
tzeH said:
Something is realy wrong with that lensflare... it has no symmetry at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's lens flare and I don't think she has a headlamp (what would she be doing with a headlamp there, dressed like that?)

I think it's a crack in the glass of a flatbed scanner.
 
I have to look at the footage to see what it actually is. I didn't see it when I shot the image. So far its blamed on spirits. Someone call the ghost hunters.

Edit: Scanned on Nikon Coolscan 8000. No other frames had this effect, its in the negative!
 
I'll guess she has on a headlight as used for cycling at night. 'Star" effect of the light on her head would suggest stopped down lens and long shutter time (seconds), but would need a tripod for this, and no other star effects seen in the distance. Tmax400 or HP5 at iso 400 or 800, but will go with:

Tmax400 at iso 800.
 
AND Redsky is the big winner today!

This is Delta 3200 pushed to 12,800 in Xtol.

Now shutter speed wasn't a requirement but camera settings were 1/30th F3.5. Basically wide open. The scene was VERY dark, amongst the darkest from the evening. Only being lit by far streetlights and whatever car headlight that has bounced around. Shot with a fuji G690 and the 100mm F3.5 lens.

Many were on the right track looking at films with a T grain structure. I think though the level of noise/grain here managed to deceive many of you!

I'll be including in the video how I managed to achieve such a low level of grain in the image for such an extreme push. I would like to try the same thing with 35mm but cranking out a roll of 36 in one night is quite difficult!
 
BLKRCAT said:
AND Redsky is the big winner today!

This is Delta 3200 pushed to 12,800 in Xtol.

Now shutter speed wasn't a requirement but camera settings were 1/30th F3.5. Basically wide open. The scene was VERY dark, amongst the darkest from the evening. Only being lit by far streetlights and whatever car headlight that has bounced around. Shot with a fuji G690 and the 100mm F3.5 lens.

Many were on the right track looking at films with a T grain structure. I think though the level of noise/grain here managed to deceive many of you!

I'll be including in the video how I managed to achieve such a low level of grain in the image for such an extreme push. I would like to try the same thing with 35mm but cranking out a roll of 36 in one night is quite difficult!
Click to expand...

:)

Part of my reasoning is that it had to be a crazy push, otherwise you would not have created this thread. Looks really good.
 
redsky said:
:)

Part of my reasoning is that it had to be a crazy push, otherwise you would not have created this thread. Looks really good.
Click to expand...

I would love to know blackcat's method. When I have a lab develop my 120 Ilford 3200, it is super grainy. Even at small sizes. This leads me to believe they process all B&W film the same way.
 
This has been fun indeed. I like the image, by the way.

What's not fun:
...trying to get Ilford Delta 3200 developed and scanned at Ilford Photo Lab in the US. The stuff looks horrible!

Back in the day, I would get beautiful proof prints from Delta 3200 sent to A&I with good scans of the keepers on a minolta scan multi pro.
 
Huss said:
I would love to know blackcat's method. When I have a lab develop my 120 Ilford 3200, it is super grainy. Even at small sizes. This leads me to believe they process all B&W film the same way.
Click to expand...


I think so. I believe the use Ilford Ilfotec DDX for everything!
 
I'll be including how I've processed in the video I'll be posting up.

Also, its not stand development but rather the conventional development technique with a bit of modification.
 
^^^^ In reference to "Huss" remark , this was with Ilford 3200 at 1600 on an old
chinon CM-3 with an Industar lens , developed at home and I'm still surprised at the lack of grain . And when used in 120 it's barely visible!
U41336I1474951383.SEQ.0.jpg
Peter
 
Blackcat: Wow -- I have the exact same artifact in one of my recent images! See the comparison between yours and mine below.

The artifact is not a reflection or a glare: I made almost the exact same picture 5 sec before and the artifact is not there. I strongly believe that this is spark inside the camera body, possibly inside the film canister. Might have been caused by rapid winding in combination with low humidity, who knows. Note that the two artifacts are at the exact same horizontal distance from the top (or better: bottom of the camera), which I believe is not a coincidence.

What camera are you using? My picture was taken with an M4 and FP4.

spark.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom