I have nothing to add to this, other than an anecdote-- decades ago, when I was young (1976, I think it was), I tried photographing Emerson, Lake, and Palmer when they appeared nearby. I was interested in photography, but did not yet have my own camera so my uncle, who worked for Eastman Kodak, rented a camera for me from the Camera Club at the Kodak plant. It was Nikkormat of some sort and was very nice, although I knew little about how to properly use it. The film, I think was slide film so probably Ektachrome 200 or maybe 400. Anyway, when I pointed the camera at the stage, I couldn't see the match needle (at all) to set the exposure properly so I pointed the camera toward the left so I could see the needle against the lit-up performers. Of course, when I got the slides back they were all very over-exposed since I was actually metering against a dark part of the stage-- :-(
Tom
Unless you want a lot of grain, there is no need to use a super fast film at a concert -- unless it's in a cellar.
I've tried P3200, D3200 and HP5, all shot between iso1000 and iso1600, and they're all good. HP5 is noticeably cheaper, so there is that to consider. And P3200 isn't available in medium format yet, which is a shame. The 3200 films will give superior results imho, but HP5 is good too.
If you ever get the chance, take the ISO 100 approach and let us know how it goes.I'll admit, I've never photographed Cirque du Soleil, but I suspect their lighting is bright enough to freeze the action even with ISO 100 film.
If you ever get the chance, take the ISO 100 approach and let us know how it goes.
I've been paid to photograph lots of concerts with Kodachrome 25 and never had a problem. If you want impressive concert color that can't be beat.
Initially I used HP5 at 1600 EI, but then switched to XP1 and then XP2 pish processed. When Ilford released XP2 it was with the standard C41 processing time, XP1 had a non-standard C41 process time and labs didn't like processing it, but Ilford also listed push process times.
The advantage of XP2 is you don't get the same contrast build up with push processing in C41 chemistry, as you do with Tri-X or HP5nin regular B&W developers.
Ian
I've been paid to photograph lots of concerts with Kodachrome 25 and never had a problem. If you want impressive concert color that can't be beat.
In B&W chemistry is there really a big difference between D3200 and XP2?
I mean apart from a stop and a bit more real speed with the former.
What are the real advantages of chromogenic
film?
Again, apart from the, now mostly nugatory, spiel about being able to process at small drugstore labs.
Smoother grain, perhaps. But that is possible, to a degree with solvent developers too.
Edge effects?
I showed the results of pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 in this thread:
Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath
This was an experiment. I was looking for big, chunky grain and was curious to see if pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 with DF96 would do it. 6 minutes dev time @ 90. Here is a selection of images from that roll (Leica M7, CV 40 1.2) taken in blazing sunlight and very dim indoor conditions. I...www.photrio.com
I'd love to see an example if you have one handy. What a challenge that must have been to expose without motion blur! Even with stage lighting literally as bright as the sun I wouldn't choose such a slow film unless there was nothing else available. (Sunny 16 would have scared me away.) Here's a shot I made using ISO125 film, but I was seeking the motion blur or I would have chosen a faster film.
View attachment 318026
My first recommendation is to avoid using "concert" and "shooting" in the same sentence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?