shooting Trix in a dark bar

[zauhar]

Dear Randy,

By ISO criteria, the film is optimally exposed at 400 (not "dense") and thin but usable at 800.

Remember that ASA standards (precursors of ISO arithmetic, and themselves descendants of Kodak speeds from about 1940) were changed in about 1960 and film speeds "doubled" overnight. This reflected the rise of 35mm, where overexposure leading to less sharpness and bigger grain is much more important than with larger formats. Many LF users still give (at least) an extra stop because they prefer the tonality, and not a few Zone System users (where generous exposure is endemic) are saved by the enormous tolerance of most emulsions for overexposure.

There is no magic in ISO speeds: they are merely replicable, and are likely to give adequate shadow detail, unlike the speeds devised by marketing departments and the more deluded "experts" on photographic forums.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger, thanks for the comments on this. I have in fact been amazed at how 'pliable' tri-x is, I have accidentally overexposed by three stops and had a very usable image!

Randy

P.S. Are you implying that Tri-x is 'saving' Zone system users from themselves? ;-)

 

[Nokton48]

If you already have the Tri-X and that is what you want to use, I would second the use of Acufine developer. It does really increase film speed somewhat. You can get a very decent 1000 EI image using Acufine. I used it extensively for newspaper work back in the seventies. Everybody used Acufine, it's an old friend.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger, thanks for the comments on this. I have in fact been amazed at how 'pliable' tri-x is, I have accidentally overexposed by three stops and had a very usable image!

Randy

P.S. Are you implying that Tri-x is 'saving' Zone system users from themselves? ;-)

Dear Randy,

The flexibility of neg/pos B+W photography saves many Zone system users from themselves.

As long as you wet print, or as long as your scanner can penetrate the negative, the only important penalties for even 3 stops overexposure are (as you have seen for yourself) bigger grain and reduced sharpness. Neither matters much on roll film and neither matters at all on large formats.

Cheers,

R.

 

[viewfinder-m2]

You may be interested in seeing a good examples of pushed film in bars and such. Buddy of mine in Moscow shot a long series of such pictures in 2004-2005, take a look. He pushed one or two stops.
This is one of the examples when "push" is very appropriate and plays on the theme well, in my opinion.

http://www.photographer.ru/nonstop/series.htm?id=6274

Agreed, very impressive work... Are they scans of the film? Or prints?

 

[Bingley]

FWIW, I get very nice tones with Tri-X when developed in Diafine. I usually expose at 800, although some folks expose at 1000 or even 1600. Regardless, Diafine gives you the equivalent of a one or two stop push b/c of the way it works. I've done night photography with Tri-X in Diafine with results that are not overly grainy.

 

[Harry Lime]

Tri-X @1250 in Diafine is about the best you are going to get out of that film. Especially if the Diafine has been 'ripened' with a dozen rolls. The true speed of Tri-x is about 400.

Tmax 400-2 @1250-1600 in Diafine is even better. The response curve is more linear, giving you more detail in the shadows. Grain is also much tighter, so it will be less pronounced when you push it. The true speed of TMY-2 400 is about 400, although Kodak says you can push it to 800 with little impact.

Ilford Delta 3200 is the fastest and most expensive b/w film around. True speed is about 1000-1200 asa in Ilford DDX. I've also developed this in Diafine with very good results.


If the bar is really dark shoot at 1.4 @1/30th and suck in as many photons a you can. Obviously adjust that setting if someone is directly under a pool of light. Then rely on the compensating action of the the Diafine 2-bath developer to prevent your highlights from getting fried. The riper the developer, the better this will work. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Pretty awesome photos over there!

I second that -- really really strong photographs. Content-wise, and their technical quality, too.

I know they're terrific because I wish to hell I'D taken them....

 

[Colin Corneau]

To the OP, don't overthink it.

Tri-X and HP5+ have a lot of latitude -- ability to handle a bit of over and under exposure...they're made that way and that's why photojournalists and documentary photographers used so much of it.

You'll see some grain of course, but not as much as you may fear. Get a good developer, ideal for pushing or extra speed (I've had great luck with DD-X for this, but there's many others) -- this is key.

Good luck!

 

[Pherdinand]

in a dark bar, most important is not the speed of the film you are pushing, most important is to meter correctly.

You HAVE to meter for the parts that you want correctly exposed.

Typically a musician will have some strong spotlight on him, while the rest of the bar is dark. So if you just use an average meter, you will probably blow out the face of the musician (will be way too bright) because the meter fails due to the black background.
If, however, the strong lights are directed towards the public, where you are, situation will be inverse: meter will underexpose everything you wanted to make visible, because of the strong headlights.
So keep in mind: you should meter for what you want in the frame to be correctly exposed, NOT for the average.

 

[Pherdinand]

Tri-X @1250 in Diafine is about the best you are going to get out of that film. Especially if the Diafine has been 'ripened' with a dozen rolls. The true speed of Tri-x is about 400.

Tmax 400-2 @1250-1600 in Diafine is even better. The response curve is more linear, giving you more detail in the shadows. Grain is also much tighter, so it will be less pronounced when you push it. The true speed of TMY-2 400 is about 400, although Kodak says you can push it to 800 with little impact.

Ilford Delta 3200 is the fastest and most expensive b/w film around. True speed is about 1000-1200 asa in Ilford DDX. I've also developed this in Diafine with very good results.


If the bar is really dark shoot at 1.4 @1/30th and suck in as many photons a you can. Obviously adjust that setting if someone is directly under a pool of light. Then rely on the compensating action of the the Diafine 2-bath developer to prevent your highlights from getting fried. The riper the developer, the better this will work. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

That last sentence while in general valid, can lead to failure in such a probably high contrast situation.
Even diafine cannot compensate for the failure of metering the important parts.
Again, if your important parts are highlighted, let the background just go black, and expose for the subject of the photograph, not for the shadows.

Highlights in a bar will be 8 stops stronger than the shadows. If you put shadows in the middle, you get white (and additionally, motion blurred due to too slow shutter speeds) blotches instead of faces.

Tri-x can indeed be very nice in diafine at even 1600. Better than Delta3200 in Diafine, actually.