newfilm
Well-known
@jusxusfanatic what's with you? you keep making post about your gear and when advice are given but not what you want to hear you delete them?
Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?
- Thread starter jusxusfanatic
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 4K
znapper
Well-known
I think you should put on your reading-glasses and go back and read what I wrote, because that was not what I said at all.
I said you had the option of getting harsh contrast, or shoot digital, since we are talking about pushing. Most concerts are shot in very low light and I have done my share of that, I would not contemplate of using film for low-light, not because I am unable to get sharp results, but because pushing = crap.
And pushing is what you would normally be doing, unless you are very lucky, less push if you have the money for good glass, which leaves out having more than one musician in focus at any given time etc etc etc.
Why limit yourselves instead of using proper tools to begin with? If you use D, you get whatever you want to get, gritty or clean, with film there is but one option: High-contrast for the most part and grainy and that look has been done to death and back.
That is and was my point of view on this and you may all disagree, not that it matters one bit, the OP should use *D*, so he can see what he is doing right and wrong and learn, before even attempting to use film where it is the LEAST suited medium for the situation.
And for the record, I shoot film, more than digital these days, I am normally not trying to advice against film and for D, but when it comes to low-light......you bet.
Huss
Veteran
This shot was taken by Peter Figen - an extremely talented photographer who we have had shows for at my gallery. He took it in 1970-something when he was 18, using a Nikon FM and Tri-x, pushed, then toned.
It is George Thorogood, for those who may be interested.
There is no 'magic' here. You need to have some light. If the musician's face is in darkness, nothing will bring that out unless there is light shone on it. This isn't some fanciful Steve Huff test where he claims a .95 lens shoots into the night. If it's black, it's black. Doesn't matter if you have a high end super high ISO digital camera and a massive aperture lens. You still need light. Or an incredibly long exposure that really wouldn't work at a concert. Unless everyone holds still for minutes at an end.
It is George Thorogood, for those who may be interested.
There is no 'magic' here. You need to have some light. If the musician's face is in darkness, nothing will bring that out unless there is light shone on it. This isn't some fanciful Steve Huff test where he claims a .95 lens shoots into the night. If it's black, it's black. Doesn't matter if you have a high end super high ISO digital camera and a massive aperture lens. You still need light. Or an incredibly long exposure that really wouldn't work at a concert. Unless everyone holds still for minutes at an end.
mich rassena
Well-known
I suppose you're right, given your greater experience. In any case, as someone stated upthread, the limiting factor is probably not the shutter speed, but the fact the performer is moving and 1/10s won't cut it.
Corran
Well-known
Right. I've also shot dance/theatre and sometimes you need 1/500 to catch motion (if you want stopped motion) and so shooting at 1/60 with a fast 50mm is still not gonna work.
Most of what I've shot in that situation though is at the back of the audience with 80-200mm and 300mm f/2.8 lenses so as not to disturb the audience, so 3200+++ ISO is common.
Most of what I've shot in that situation though is at the back of the audience with 80-200mm and 300mm f/2.8 lenses so as not to disturb the audience, so 3200+++ ISO is common.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes.
I said "it has been done".
You choose to deny this.
Put on the reading glasses...
Cheers,
R.
znapper
Well-known
I am sure if Peter Figen had the choice, he would not push Tri-X today.
Huss
Veteran
But he did and the result was marvelous.
The advice asked for here pertains to using film equipment.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Neopan 1600, TMax RS. Dealing with the harshness of stage light was easier with film, but stopping the motion and controlling grain was harder.
Marty
Huss
Veteran
Nice shots Gabor and Marty!
mani
Well-known
I think the thread would've produced less acrimony if it had been titled "Why does film look underexposed even when metered wrong?"
newfilm
Well-known
:bang: that was brilliant!
GarageBoy
Well-known
You're shooting in the dark, figuratively and literally...
Use a meter (a Weston in the dark isn't going to do much, get a more modern meter. I know, it's not cool, but it works, and learn what to point it at) I would have aimed a spotmeter at the subject and tried to give it a stop extra.
Use a meter (a Weston in the dark isn't going to do much, get a more modern meter. I know, it's not cool, but it works, and learn what to point it at) I would have aimed a spotmeter at the subject and tried to give it a stop extra.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
There is a lot of unhelpful nonsense in this thread, and a few good suggestions which were posted early on.
Two things suggested, which are actually important when using the equipment in question:
1: meter for the subject not the background
2: bracket exposures
There are a few other helpful ideas, but the rest of this thread is embarrassing.
The OP isn't using digital, so no point bringing that up. The OP is asking for help with technique, so no point bringing up their posts about equipment, and certainly plainly stupid to criticize them for not caring about technique in a thread where they've asked for help with technique.
Two things suggested, which are actually important when using the equipment in question:
1: meter for the subject not the background
2: bracket exposures
There are a few other helpful ideas, but the rest of this thread is embarrassing.
The OP isn't using digital, so no point bringing that up. The OP is asking for help with technique, so no point bringing up their posts about equipment, and certainly plainly stupid to criticize them for not caring about technique in a thread where they've asked for help with technique.
:: Mark
Well-known
Here are a couple of Delta 400 images shot last week at EI1600, and which I think are characteristic of what I get with pushed Delta:
These were exposed at EI1600, but processed in Microphen following Digital Truth's recommendation for EI3200. I have also tried the same exposures with ID-11 with similar results (perhaps slightly less shadow detail).
I have generally found Delta 400 to be less tolerant of exposure errors than more traditional films such as HP5+, and pushing the film only makes this worse. Also, when pushed it seems to lose a lot of shadow detail - which is why I opted to use EI1600 for exposure but EI3200 for the developing time. You can see in these shots the loss of both shadow and highlight information on the negative.
The example photographs were metered using the M7's contraption, which itself is tricky to use well at night because bright point lights tend to lead to underexposure. Even with a half decent exposure there is a lot of loss of shadow and highlight detail (which is fine if that is what you want stylistically).
I have also been trying Delta 3200 shot and processed in the same way, and this does give much better shadow detail, albeit at the expense of some fairly colossal grain. I really liked the Delta 3200 results in Microphen, but the cost of the film and developer here are painful for regular use.
Lastly, the negatives should not look "thin" or excessively translucent. For me, the pushed negatives look pretty much like normal negatives except for more contrast. If they look almost completely black or transparent something has almost certainly gone wrong with either the exposure or the processing.
These were exposed at EI1600, but processed in Microphen following Digital Truth's recommendation for EI3200. I have also tried the same exposures with ID-11 with similar results (perhaps slightly less shadow detail).
I have generally found Delta 400 to be less tolerant of exposure errors than more traditional films such as HP5+, and pushing the film only makes this worse. Also, when pushed it seems to lose a lot of shadow detail - which is why I opted to use EI1600 for exposure but EI3200 for the developing time. You can see in these shots the loss of both shadow and highlight information on the negative.
The example photographs were metered using the M7's contraption, which itself is tricky to use well at night because bright point lights tend to lead to underexposure. Even with a half decent exposure there is a lot of loss of shadow and highlight detail (which is fine if that is what you want stylistically).
I have also been trying Delta 3200 shot and processed in the same way, and this does give much better shadow detail, albeit at the expense of some fairly colossal grain. I really liked the Delta 3200 results in Microphen, but the cost of the film and developer here are painful for regular use.
Lastly, the negatives should not look "thin" or excessively translucent. For me, the pushed negatives look pretty much like normal negatives except for more contrast. If they look almost completely black or transparent something has almost certainly gone wrong with either the exposure or the processing.
Similar threads
