3200 Speed Film

[cheesecrackers]

I've stuck with an issue with a roll of 3200 speed film.
I don't know what to do with this. I'm stuck on ideas since I've never worked with such a high ISO before.

Granted it's just for a project, the ideas don't have to be crazy extraordinary.
Now, before I get jumped on, I'm just T-MAX 3200, I know this isn't exactly 3200, more like 400-800. But whatever.

I know time + high speed film = grainy. I kinda want to do a long exposure, at night with 3200 film. Just to see how the grain would look. Would this film be fine for that, or would I just look stupid? I have a roll of 400 speed, should I just work with the 400 speed for the long exposures *talking around 10-30 minute exposures here* and do something else with the 3200?

My teacher hasn't gone over what 3200 is good for, do you guys have any suggestions? They would be appreciated. :3

 

[hpulley]

Generally 3200 speed film is used when you need short exposure times, not long. For long times you should just use a slower film. Indoor shots hand held without flash, indoor sports, fast motorsports, or just applications where you want a grainy look are good for 3200 film but not really for long tripod night exposures. T-Max 3200 has worse reciprocity failure than T-Max 400 which has worse failure than T-Max 100. A 10 minute exposure probably won't capture much more than a 5 minute exposure.

But if this is for fun then you might as well experiment. Might be interesting to do some 10 and 30 minute exposures with 400 and 3200 to see how they look. Just have to decide what speed you're going to use for development.

 

[Brian Legge]

What have you shot before where you wish you either had more light or a higher shutter speed?

 

[bblhed]

You have a roll of 3200 film, your a student, your taking photography right? Take the roll of film, put it in your camera, get a notebook and go out and shoot whatever you want to and take notes, long exposures, short exposures, dark, light, moon, stars, traffic, whatever you want to shoot or think will look good on that film and take lots of notes. Take note of the frame number, where you are, time of day, camera settings, setup (tripod or handheld), flash, meter reading, and anything else you can think of. I swear to you that there is more film out there to be had, and if you shoot this roll as I have told you to you will learn what does and doesn't work, loose the fear and do some learning, that roll of film can either teach you how to shoot high speed film, or sit in storage you have to decide.

 

[Tim Gray]

I typically use TMZ when I am shooting either in low light or when I want a grainier image. I've read that TMZ has a effective ISO for 2 minute exposures of around 600, so it should still be faster than a slow film in that the 1 or 2 minute range. Whether or not you like the look is personal taste - it will be a LOT grainier than something shot with the new TMY or TMX. But I like it.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I tested both TMZ and delta 3200 (some time back for TMZ), and have found both to be very good films for use at 800 ISO. Using TMZ with T-Max developer might get you good separation of values in the shadows. These films were, as I understand, designed as ~800 ISO films with good characteristics for producing usable images by "pushing", which sacrifices shadow values. I believe that Ilford supplies information that gives developing times for delta 3200 in various developers when the film is exposed at different ISO values.

It should be pretty easy to find.

 

[hpulley]

The Ilford film development chart may be found here:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216122447.pdf

 

[tkamiya]

High ISO film is good for low-light situations. OR situations where light is there but you need a really small aperture and high shutter speed. (or both) As a side effect, grains are larger. One can see this as problem or benefit - depending on the desired outcome. Longer exposures are one of the ways one can compensate for insufficient amount of light or lack of sensitivity. If one takes a highly sensitive film and expose it for very long, it can be over-exposed.

I think this is a problem commonly seen in early stages of learning of anything.

That is, wanting to know the right answer before starting and committing to start only when the process that leads to the right answer is known - rather than taking a stab at it and seeing what it does - then learn from it in the process. At some level, this is beneficial but when taken too far it results in very little actual learning as failure is never seen or experienced. I suggest taking your ideas and try it. You have 36 frames to experiment with all of this. See what it does!

 

[VaryaV]

Hey Cheesecrackers -

My main film I use is D3200 and I absolutely love it. I know my conditions are controlled and completely different then yours, but if you click on the APUG link on my signature below you will get an example of what kind of results you can get. - I shoot in a pitch black room with little tiny microscope lights. I rate the film at 1000 and dev it for 6400. I love the results. I have seen a lot of folks do night photography with it pushed out to 12,800 with incredible results. Let the grain work for you.

CHEERS and have a blast!

 

[cheesecrackers]

Hey Cheesecrackers -

My main film I use is D3200 and I absolutely love it. I know my conditions are controlled and completely different then yours, but if you click on the APUG link on my signature below you will get an example of what kind of results you can get. - I shoot in a pitch black room with little tiny microscope lights. I rate the film at 1000 and dev it for 6400. I love the results. I have seen a lot of folks do night photography with it pushed out to 12,800 with incredible results. Let the grain work for you.

CHEERS and have a blast!

I. Am. In. Love. With. Your. Pictures!
Ohmygosh those are amazing!

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/dirado.htm
Seeing these images does make me a bit less paranoid about working with the 3200 film and long exposures.

I'm still not sure about what times I should work with. I know my aperture will be as wide as it can.
I have 36 exposures on my film, and the lens I'll be using is the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. I don't know how I can possibly get 36 exposures on this film without being in the desert until the early hours of the morning.

Even with five seconds to 30 minutes, I've only got 18 exposures. I don't wanna waste that whole roll of film. Ahh.
I could work one aperture lower, and do the five seconds to 30 minutes on a smaller aperture, but that'll be three hours in the desert, and it's a two hour trip home. o.o

 

[lxdude]

You're not really clear here. The pictures you linked to were, according to the text, all taken at 30 seconds with a 28/2.8 lens, or 40/f4 lens, both at max aperture. A rule of thumb to keep the stars looking like points is 700 divided by the focal length: 700/28= 25 seconds, 700/40= 17.5 seconds, so his images will have some streaking visible. Note he says he uses the same time with lenses of different aperture (a full stop different), which shows that at night exposure can vary and still produce a good image.
No need to use the whole roll out in the desert. Pick a subject you like, and bracket a few shots, i.e., expose at different times for the aperture you choose. I'd suggest varying time by a full stop, e.g., 4-8-15-30-60 seconds. If you want to try a 30 minute exposure, go ahead. The stars will appear as streaks, but a phenomenon known as reciprocity failure will probably limit overexposure enough that you will get a usable image. The moon is a factor-it's still close to full. I'd try a shorter exposure too- maybe 10 minutes or so, and maybe 3 minutes. All the increments you mention are not needed-reciprocity failure will reduce sensitivity so much that large changes will be needed to produce significantly more or less exposure. I have not used it for long exposures, so maybe someone here with direct experience can give you more info. As mentioned, usually slower film is more suitable for what you're talking about, except for the effect you can get.
Don't forget the tripod.

Why not use the film in a variety of situations? Pictures are everywhere. It's usually used handheld in fairly dim light, so inside a building, on the street at dusk or at night, etc. will show you its versatility. How about at the ocean early in the morning or late in the day?
The cloudy days we've had are perfect for using it outside during the day, as the light is reduced enough, and the evenness of the lighting cuts the contrast. On the other thread you started about where to shoot in SoCal a couple suggestions have been made, and if its known where you are and what your subject interests are, more suggestions will come out.

 

[Diapositivo]

For night shots you normally use a tripod and, if you use a tripod, it does not make usually sense to use a high-iso film (well, you might like the grainy effect, de gustibus...)

Very high ISO is needed in those situations where available light is scarce and you cannot use a tripod and/or cannot use a flash.

Being Christmas eve, I do suggest that you bring your camera and your ISO 3200 roll with you when you are with your family. You can use it to make some portraits in available light indoors, some "candid" portrait as well. The flash would certainly attract the attention of the people. A silent camera and a high ISO film is the ideal combination in those cases.

You could also bring it with you to your Christmas eve mass if you go to the church, and try to capture the "atmosphera". A silent camera would be best, discretion is mandatory and is also conducive to better pictures.

In general, the most common situations in which a high ISO film is needed are when you have to make do with little available light and need to use the camera free-hand and without flash. That typically means indoor scenes, such as concerts, ceremonies, parties etc.

Merry Christmas to everybody
Fabrizio

 

[VaryaV]

The "Rite of Spring" would never have been written had Stravinksy been concerned about following the rules.

The reason I started using D3200 in the first place, was the ad several years ago for the film in a major photo magazine. It was shot in snow in bright sunlight. It was the most beautiful shot I'd ever seen and the grain was spectacular. I wish I could locate that ad as it goes against all preconceived notions for shooting film in low light conditions.

In art history all the greats who we know about today broke rules and went against those notions. Beethoven's 5th another example and I could go on. All the great artist's felt free to break the rules to further their creativity.

I agree with LXDude... try a whole bunch of different lighting and exposure settings and take notes. Something will jump out and speak to you.

And, many thanks for the lovely compliment.

CHEERS!

 

[lxdude]

I agree with LXDude... try a whole bunch of different lighting and exposure settings and take notes.

Credit to bblhed.

 

[cheesecrackers]

Thanks for your help. :3
I think I know what I'm gonna do.

I'm going to save off 15 exposures for the desert, just to experiment. *With the stars streaking, I wouldn't mind that at all, to be quite honest*

The rest of the film, I'll use the 3200 for what it's for. I'll probably hit up Venice around dusk on Sunday, granted the weather be pleasing. I just hate the rain in general, so I will refuse to go out. xD

Ohh, but Sunday afternoon I do have a trip to the Getty planned. Do they allow pictures there?

 

[VaryaV]

Credit to bblhed.

Opps. that's my A.D.D...

I agree with bblhed!