taylan
Street Dog
i am using tri-x at 200 and it is okay for day light. also i am pleased with my prints. but in low light i need extra stops and whenever i need it, i am in the middle of the film. i have some options about this challenge.
1) Switching to higher iso value for daily usage
2) Buying an extra body and pushing film only low light situations.
3) Buying an faster lens.
These all three situation have drawbacks. Firstly, i do not get shadow details at higher iso values and i do not like this. In second situation, it seems reasonable but i have to arrange some budget and i have hesitation about the weight. For third option, i have to arrange budget, too and my lens also considered as fast
.
By the way i have M2+summicron 35mm/f:2.
I will be appreciate if you will give your opinions about my problem. which option do you choose or do you have another solution?
1) Switching to higher iso value for daily usage
2) Buying an extra body and pushing film only low light situations.
3) Buying an faster lens.
These all three situation have drawbacks. Firstly, i do not get shadow details at higher iso values and i do not like this. In second situation, it seems reasonable but i have to arrange some budget and i have hesitation about the weight. For third option, i have to arrange budget, too and my lens also considered as fast
.By the way i have M2+summicron 35mm/f:2.
I will be appreciate if you will give your opinions about my problem. which option do you choose or do you have another solution?
Arjay
Time Traveller
If you develop the film at home, you might consider using a compensating developer, e.g. Diafine or even Prescysol EF. The benefits of this approach are that you can work at box speed and still get good shadow detail. For examples, look for posts on film topics and sample pictures by mfogiel - he offers some very interesting insights.
If your budget allows this, then that might be a good idea. Alternatively, check out how you could do a mid-roll film change, and see how many frames you would lose on your camera by developing some kind of routine for re-loading a half-spent film at mid-roll (I do that a lot on my Konica Hexar RF, as that camera works fairly repeatably in that regard).
Not sure how much you would gain by getting an even faster lens - consider all you could do is getting a lens that's 1,5 stops faster. But could you afford the budget that would be necessary for such a purchase? And then you should also consider that ultra-fast lenses are specialty tools that work best wide open, but that mightr suffer from deficiencies when they are closed down to normal aperture values. That would effectively mean you might need two lenses of the same focal length - one superfast and one with a normal max. aperture. That again might confront you with budget questions.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
1600 ISO or double it as needed.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Since you are talking 35mm and not MF (where you can change film backs) or LF (one sheet per photo) I would first try the route of changing the film in the middle and then consider buying a second body.
Changing the film in the middle using a Leica M2 should be without to much loss since the film transport (advance) is very reliable from my experience. Buying a second body involves some gambling since you don`t know how well it will works (be prepared for some surprises, the cameras are old ...)
A faster lens would be more heavy and most properly also different at f/2.0.
Changing the film in the middle using a Leica M2 should be without to much loss since the film transport (advance) is very reliable from my experience. Buying a second body involves some gambling since you don`t know how well it will works (be prepared for some surprises, the cameras are old ...)
A faster lens would be more heavy and most properly also different at f/2.0.
filmfan
Well-known
Look into ISO 3200 speed film and pull it back one stop to 1600 for more shadow detail if this is what you are after.
No need to buy an extra camera to do this. Just change it out mid roll and take note with a sharpie on the film canister as to which frame was shot last. When you want to shoot that roll again, load it up, put on a lens cap and advance through to the frame you last shot.
No need to buy an extra camera to do this. Just change it out mid roll and take note with a sharpie on the film canister as to which frame was shot last. When you want to shoot that roll again, load it up, put on a lens cap and advance through to the frame you last shot.
ferider
Veteran
Use faster film and yellow filter in day-light (loosing 1.5 stops). Take the filter off at night. 400 ASA film can be really excellent, and 400 ASA, a 35/2 and 1/8th of a sec can get you photos almost anywhere - no real need for faster film or lens.
Other than that, if you have the budget, a second body helps more than a faster lens.
Other than that, if you have the budget, a second body helps more than a faster lens.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Sometimes you need to plan ahead. However, when that is not possible what I do is always keep my tri-x at 400. If my meter gives me a reading that is positive at the shutter speed of 1/15 I return the shutter to 1/60 and shoot away. Modern Tri-X, and for that matter all B&W films at ISO 400 have a 2 stop leeway. But, here I must say when I do this I am only interested in the subject that is lighted not the background i.e. a muscian on stage or a politician or writer giving a speech.
kxl
Social Documentary
Second body would be best. Or, choose 400 speed film (or faster if needed) then use an ND filter in bright light situations.
taylan
Street Dog
firstly, thanks for responds
Arjay;
i am developing my films but i can not find a variety of developer at my local store. i can find D76; T-max; ID-11; ilfosol 3; X-tol and some time DD-X. i tried all of them except DD-X and i conclude at D76 for several reasons. i read mfogiel's thread. if i can find i want to try Diafine and Prescysol EF.
Of course budget issue is a problem for second body)
Arjay;
i am developing my films but i can not find a variety of developer at my local store. i can find D76; T-max; ID-11; ilfosol 3; X-tol and some time DD-X. i tried all of them except DD-X and i conclude at D76 for several reasons. i read mfogiel's thread. if i can find i want to try Diafine and Prescysol EF.
Of course budget issue is a problem for second body
)
taylan
Street Dog
I want to clarify something. i don't want to push Tri-x in day light. i am pleased with my day light prints and i don't want to change any thing about this.
Pablito
coco frío
Use TMAX P3200 (TMZ) Great film. Develop in TMax developer.
Tim Gray
Well-known
If you are ok with an increase in grain, I'd recommend TMZ at 800. I usually shoot it at 1600, but it's really around ISO 800. If you are using your Tri-X at 200, shooting TMZ at 1600 might give up too much shadow tones.
Again, if you ok with the grain increase, it's a wonderful film. Especially printed in the darkroom. I develop it in XTOL 1:1.
Obviously a lens that goes to f/1.4 buys you an extra stop. It is useful to have a 2nd camera so you have two different speeds of film at any given moment.
Again, if you ok with the grain increase, it's a wonderful film. Especially printed in the darkroom. I develop it in XTOL 1:1.
Obviously a lens that goes to f/1.4 buys you an extra stop. It is useful to have a 2nd camera so you have two different speeds of film at any given moment.
Peter R
Established
For what it's worth, after struggling recently with the same issue, I bought both a faster lens and a second body, in that order.
Out of the two options, I've found the second body by far the best solution if you care about the look of the film.
It's an absolute pleasure to be able to reach for 100-400 films in the 'daylight body' and 1600-3200 in the 'night body'.
The difference between a 2 and a 1.2 lens in reality didn't quite allow me to use film rated at 400 for low light photography.
Not that I regret buying the 1.2 lens, but I'm much happier swapping between films to suit the light than swapping between lenses.
It does help that I'm almost always in a position to swap camera bodies before going out in the evening, so in practical terms I'm very rarely lugging two bodies around. I could see that getting old fast.
Out of the two options, I've found the second body by far the best solution if you care about the look of the film.
It's an absolute pleasure to be able to reach for 100-400 films in the 'daylight body' and 1600-3200 in the 'night body'.
The difference between a 2 and a 1.2 lens in reality didn't quite allow me to use film rated at 400 for low light photography.
Not that I regret buying the 1.2 lens, but I'm much happier swapping between films to suit the light than swapping between lenses.
It does help that I'm almost always in a position to swap camera bodies before going out in the evening, so in practical terms I'm very rarely lugging two bodies around. I could see that getting old fast.
Last edited:
damien.murphy
Damien
I wrestled with the same issues recently, and for what it's worth, this is what I found (some of which points have already been mentioned);
With a 400 iso film, you can shoot in most situations, from full daylight (1/500 @ f16) to low indoor light (1/15 @ f2). If you are having trouble getting a full box speed of 400, consider switching developer to one that will give you full box speed, rather than one that will give you an EI of 250/ 320. If you need more flexibility to use wider apertures during daytime shooting, buy an ND filter.
If you need more than iso 400, consider the situations in which you need a higher speed film. For me, I've started to shoot at night again, where light levels drop significantly (urban streetscape: 1/15 @ f1.4 @ 1600 to 1/30 @f2 @ 1600), and the contrast of scenes are very high. Pushing film in this case with a regular developer would result in overdeveloped highlights, in order to develop at times long enough to net me enough shadow detail from a 2 stop push (400 -> 1600).
My chosen solution has been to push TriX from 400 to 1250/ 1600, and develop the resulting films in Diafine, with great results. I don't use higher iso film, and although I have a second body, I only ever bring one with me at any given time. 400 iso film is sufficiently cheap that I have no qualms about taking out a half-shot roll from the camera to put in a new roll (which will be pushed) when the need dictates. For me, this is a lot cheaper than high iso film, which is commonly twice the price where I live.
There are other knock-on benefits, and factors that influenced my decsion. Those are the ability to stick to one film stock for all my shooting (I have a mountain of TriX), as well as keeping the cost of my low-light shooting down, and not having to worry about freshness/ fogging issues with superfast film. Also for travel, I would prefer not to have to deal with high iso film and x-rays, as well as the fretting about bringing the right amount of different film stocks.
So there you go - one body, one film stock, and two developers. I've also bought a superfast f1.1 lens recently for my night shooting, but do not think this a pre-requisite, as I can usually get away with 1/15 or 1/30 @ f2 @1600, with the urban street and landscapes I shoot. Your needs may be different, so figure out what aperture, shutter speed and iso ranges you need, and work backwards from there.
With a 400 iso film, you can shoot in most situations, from full daylight (1/500 @ f16) to low indoor light (1/15 @ f2). If you are having trouble getting a full box speed of 400, consider switching developer to one that will give you full box speed, rather than one that will give you an EI of 250/ 320. If you need more flexibility to use wider apertures during daytime shooting, buy an ND filter.
If you need more than iso 400, consider the situations in which you need a higher speed film. For me, I've started to shoot at night again, where light levels drop significantly (urban streetscape: 1/15 @ f1.4 @ 1600 to 1/30 @f2 @ 1600), and the contrast of scenes are very high. Pushing film in this case with a regular developer would result in overdeveloped highlights, in order to develop at times long enough to net me enough shadow detail from a 2 stop push (400 -> 1600).
My chosen solution has been to push TriX from 400 to 1250/ 1600, and develop the resulting films in Diafine, with great results. I don't use higher iso film, and although I have a second body, I only ever bring one with me at any given time. 400 iso film is sufficiently cheap that I have no qualms about taking out a half-shot roll from the camera to put in a new roll (which will be pushed) when the need dictates. For me, this is a lot cheaper than high iso film, which is commonly twice the price where I live.
There are other knock-on benefits, and factors that influenced my decsion. Those are the ability to stick to one film stock for all my shooting (I have a mountain of TriX), as well as keeping the cost of my low-light shooting down, and not having to worry about freshness/ fogging issues with superfast film. Also for travel, I would prefer not to have to deal with high iso film and x-rays, as well as the fretting about bringing the right amount of different film stocks.
So there you go - one body, one film stock, and two developers. I've also bought a superfast f1.1 lens recently for my night shooting, but do not think this a pre-requisite, as I can usually get away with 1/15 or 1/30 @ f2 @1600, with the urban street and landscapes I shoot. Your needs may be different, so figure out what aperture, shutter speed and iso ranges you need, and work backwards from there.
Last edited:
btgc
Veteran
In similar case I'm choosing between pushing/faster film + more DOF and regular film+narrower DOF. Distance to subject and my idea how to represent subject is what dictates choice.
taylan
Street Dog
thanks for all responds. it seems i have to save some money for second body. i must try mid-roll film change until get second body.