PaulN
Monkey
I find myself shooting pics in bad lighting situations. Overhead fluorescent lights, dimly lit rooms, etc.. Very flat light, very low contrast. I've been shooting Tri-X souped in Diafine and am not too pleased with my shots rated at EI 1600/3200 in these lighting situations.
Based on everyone's collective experience, what is the best film/dev combo for these poorly lit scenarios. Typically, I'm shooting stuff for friends/family at their homes, and I'm obligated to take pics, even though the light is less than ideal. I'd love some depth-of-field as well, shooting about f2. I can do f/1.4 with my summilux, but it doesn't work for group shots.
Tri-X in Rodinal? Neopan 1600?
-Paul
Based on everyone's collective experience, what is the best film/dev combo for these poorly lit scenarios. Typically, I'm shooting stuff for friends/family at their homes, and I'm obligated to take pics, even though the light is less than ideal. I'd love some depth-of-field as well, shooting about f2. I can do f/1.4 with my summilux, but it doesn't work for group shots.
Tri-X in Rodinal? Neopan 1600?
-Paul
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Having done a lot of shooting under similar conditions, I'm guessing that what you'd like is more highlight density, so the highlight areas of your photos will pick up a bit more "sparkle" and stand out clearly from the surroundings.
My suggestion: Try T-Max P3200 film processed in T-Max liquid developer at the normal 1:4 dilution. The recommended developing times are a good starting point. Compared to your present setup, this will give you better shadow detail and somewhat "harder" highlights, which will heighten the apparent contrast of the scene. Shooting at 3200 produces higher contrast than 1600, but also noticeably more grain and less shadow detail; you'll need to decide which works better for the type of result you have in mind.
Most of the newer photos in my gallery were shot with this film/developer combination.
Unlike using Diafine, working with a conventional single-solution developer such as T-Max liquid will let you fine-tune your negative contrast by adjusting developing time. If the shadow areas of your negatives look OK, but the highlights lack density, try increasing the developing time by 10% to 20%.
Another thing to watch is agitation; you may not get full highlight density if you agitate too gently. With a single-roll tank, what I like to do is stretch out my arm straight and invert the tank by twisting my arm sharply, then back, so the inversion and return is very snappy; three inversion cycles in a five-second period is pretty standard.
My suggestion: Try T-Max P3200 film processed in T-Max liquid developer at the normal 1:4 dilution. The recommended developing times are a good starting point. Compared to your present setup, this will give you better shadow detail and somewhat "harder" highlights, which will heighten the apparent contrast of the scene. Shooting at 3200 produces higher contrast than 1600, but also noticeably more grain and less shadow detail; you'll need to decide which works better for the type of result you have in mind.
Most of the newer photos in my gallery were shot with this film/developer combination.
Unlike using Diafine, working with a conventional single-solution developer such as T-Max liquid will let you fine-tune your negative contrast by adjusting developing time. If the shadow areas of your negatives look OK, but the highlights lack density, try increasing the developing time by 10% to 20%.
Another thing to watch is agitation; you may not get full highlight density if you agitate too gently. With a single-roll tank, what I like to do is stretch out my arm straight and invert the tank by twisting my arm sharply, then back, so the inversion and return is very snappy; three inversion cycles in a five-second period is pretty standard.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Since you already have TXT, just try rating it at 1600 but using a dev other than Diafine. I use Microphen, but Rodinal would work, too.
allan
allan
VinceC
Veteran
These being obligatory pix for friends, you might think about carrying a small bounce-flash (something that tilts up to the ceiling while the auto-thyristor sensor remains pointed at the subject). Use a rubber band to hold a business card or index card for fill light. For example, a Sunpak 144 costs about $40 new and would let you shoot TriX rated at at 400 @ f/2.8 (flash would be set to f/4 but rule of thumb with bounce flash is to open up a stop). Keep a nice slow shutter speed (1/15 or so) to preserve ambient room light, and the results can look surprisingly natural.
Just a thought.
If you're not interested in bounce-flash, a fast-ish 35mm (f/2 or f/2.8) lens will help give you lots of depth of field while being able to hand-hold down around 1/15th.
For souping 1600-rated Tri-X, you might consider HC-110. Behaves a lot like D-76, but it's a lot easier to work with if you mix the one-shot batchs at 1:30. Being kind of goopy, it's also not very messy to work with.
Just a thought.
If you're not interested in bounce-flash, a fast-ish 35mm (f/2 or f/2.8) lens will help give you lots of depth of field while being able to hand-hold down around 1/15th.
For souping 1600-rated Tri-X, you might consider HC-110. Behaves a lot like D-76, but it's a lot easier to work with if you mix the one-shot batchs at 1:30. Being kind of goopy, it's also not very messy to work with.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've recently been doing the same thing Paul.
I think, instead of pushing Tri-X; while I've done it in the past and it works out "ok", I'm going to stick with Neopan 1600 @ 1600 or try it at 3200. I've seen prints of it at 3200 and it looks good. Only issue is, what soup to use - currently I would suggest Xtol merely for the fact that I know how it looks at 1600 in Xtol and I prefer it's look over D76.
You can, apparently, push Neopan 1600 to 6400 but I am hesitant to push it that far.
I would use Tmax 3200 but I shoot it at 1600 - so that doesn't really help in the 3200 category
Cheers
Dave
I think, instead of pushing Tri-X; while I've done it in the past and it works out "ok", I'm going to stick with Neopan 1600 @ 1600 or try it at 3200. I've seen prints of it at 3200 and it looks good. Only issue is, what soup to use - currently I would suggest Xtol merely for the fact that I know how it looks at 1600 in Xtol and I prefer it's look over D76.
You can, apparently, push Neopan 1600 to 6400 but I am hesitant to push it that far.
I would use Tmax 3200 but I shoot it at 1600 - so that doesn't really help in the 3200 category
Cheers
Dave
peter_n
Veteran
I'm with Dave. Neopan 1600 in XTOL. I rate it at 1250. Below is a pic from my gallery that shows how it looks when you manage a semi-decent snap. Taken with a Canonet.
VictorM.
Well-known
VinceC describes how I used to do this kind of picture taking. I even took family photos at Xmas with a Mamiya C220, Tri-X and Vivitar flash the same way. Another technique I've used is direct flash with a very weak manual flash with a couple of layers of tracing paper over it to weaken it further. Then combine the flash with the ambient light by manipulating the aperture/shutter speed. I remember getting about 1/15 at f/4. This also opens up the shadows around the eyes from overhead fluorescent lights. The white bounce card described by Vince does the same thing. These techniques allowed me to shoot and process Tri-X normally. Much nicer skin tones and happier clients.
Last edited:
PaulN
Monkey
jlw said:
Nice pics! I really liked 98-02-05_36. I will definitely have to pick of the t-max film/developer up and give it a shot.
It seems like my weekly development schedule is going to be changing soon. One week it will be diafine, the next T-Max, then rodinal, xtol, hc110, etc. I think I've been bitten by the soup-it-yourself bug.
-Paul
PaulN
Monkey
VinceC said:
I have been toying around the idea of carrying a small flash around with me. At the moment, I only have a canon 550ex and it is completely overkill. Part of me is drawn to the allure of the shooting without a flash. However, I'm finding that I'm missing some shots due to the razor thin depth-of-field. Don't get me wrong, I love the bokeh, but at times, I'd like two people to be in focus
I forget the fellows name, but a Magnum photographer used the rangefinder/flash combo quite successfully. Very interesting street photography pics taken with the flash held at arms length. Speaking of flashes held at arm's length, what is the easiest way to accomplish this with a flash? I don't care about the TTL, I want to calculate manually. I stopped by my local Calumet, looking for a simple cable that would extend the hotshoe contact from the camera to the flash, and they looked at me like I was crazy. I know that my Dad has one for a 20 year old Vivitar 283. They were trying to sell me a pricey TTL cable for my canon, even though I need nothing more then a cable to connect the two large dots on the hotshoe. I could have cobbled one together by taking two hotshoe adapters and connecting them via a pc sync cable. It just doesn't seem right. Am I missing something? Is the cable I remember some proprietary Vivitar solution?
-Paul
PaulN
Monkey
peter_n said:
Off hand, do you remember the lens/aperture setting? You have a good amount of depth-of-field. The benefit of a wide angle opened up at a >3 meters?
While I like the pic, I wish I had similar lighting conditions! Think overhead kitchen light with dim energy saving bulbs
-Paul
photodog
Well-known
Your problem is the Diafine! Try using HC-110 or Rodinal. Diafine is a compensating developer which does not work well in flat lighting situations.
VinceC
Veteran
Off camera flash is easiest with a PC terminal, if your camera has one. You can usually get a 3 to 4 foot extension cord. If you've still got access to the Vivitar 283, they used to make a really cool extension cable for it. The sensor on front is removable, and you could attach a five or six-foot cable while keeping the sensor on the hot shoe. For off-camera flash, I used to have a friend hold the 283 way out at six or seven feet. Nice effects.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I really agree with Photodog on this one. As a starting point, just try a different developer with TXT. You already got the stuff.
The main reason why Neopan 1600 has so much punch is that it's a pretty contrasty film to begin with. But contrast goes nuts past 1600 in the examples I've seen (including some in one of my classes, where I had a much closer look at the processing than just viewing examples on the web). You gets lots of punch, sure. But you might as well push TXT at th point, IMHO.
Obviously, you are welcome to try whatever developer and film combo you want. But you might be pleasantly surprised at how flexible TXT is already.
allan
The main reason why Neopan 1600 has so much punch is that it's a pretty contrasty film to begin with. But contrast goes nuts past 1600 in the examples I've seen (including some in one of my classes, where I had a much closer look at the processing than just viewing examples on the web). You gets lots of punch, sure. But you might as well push TXT at th point, IMHO.
Obviously, you are welcome to try whatever developer and film combo you want. But you might be pleasantly surprised at how flexible TXT is already.
allan
peter_n
Veteran
Paul I think it was f4 at 1/15s.PaulN said:Off hand, do you remember the lens/aperture setting? You have a good amount of depth-of-field. The benefit of a wide angle opened up at a >3 meters?
While I like the pic, I wish I had similar lighting conditions! Think overhead kitchen light with dim energy saving bulbs
-Paul