Help With Shooting TXP 320 For Wedding

[jamusu]

My friend asked me to shoot his wedding as a favor. It will be a small wedding outside in a park at 3:00 p.m. this Sunday. I will be using my Pentax K-1000 and Tri-X for general shots.

For the bride and groom shots, I will be using TXP 320 and my Pentax 645 (I do not have much experience using either of them).

My subjects are African-American. The groom will be wearing a white flannel leisure outfit. The bride, as of now, will be wearing a white dress. I was thinking of pulling the film to either 200 or 250 for better shadow detail while over-exposing a couple of stops to ensure the white outfits show accurately. I have been told that TXP 320 does not like white clothing and I am a bit worried due to the importance of the situation.

What will be the best way to use this film based on the criteria listed above? Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Jamusu.

 

[archphoto]

What I would do: FP4 and a good lightmeter, incedent-reading, so you measure the light that falls onto your bride and groom, esp if it is outside.
If you over-expose a bit it should be not a big problem but under-exposure is a risk with white+white.
If you want to use the camera's lightmeter: take a reading from an area next to bride and groom and use that shutterspeed+aperture.
If you can bare the thought: take D with you as a back-up.

Good luck,
Peter

 

[mike c]

Be careful about losing detail in the brides dress ,over exposing film can do that to white dress's . Why not use pro color flim like VPS III, or a B&W film that is designed to be processed in color film chemistry , they have more latitude for over exposer of high tones.

 

[2F/2F]

Your plan sounds good. Rate lower and underdevelop (if the light is "average" in contrast). If too flat in the end, you are still OK, as it is much easier to add contrast than to tame it. It is a great film for the task, as would be HP5. Tri-X 320 is just fine for white clothing. It is flatter in the highlights than Tri-X 400, so you could probably downrate and develop normally if you wanted to; *especially* if the light when you take the pix is a bit flat.

The most important thing will be being able to print the skin to the zone you want. The dress can be managed easily compared to printing up an underexposed face to make it look "good". So, my advice is to expose for the skin, and develop for the dress. You will need to roughly judge the light at the scene to decide how to develop, in other words...unless you have a spot meter. Then you know for sure.

I am assuming you are using an incident meter for this. I would not use an in-camera reflected meter for this situation, unless it is used to meter a grey card. Too much possibility of error with an in-camera meter unless you have the time to think about exactly how to tweak every single shot, IMO.

The real key is how you choose your lighting and your attention to how its qualities will affect exposure and development, not just film choice.

I personally favor faster films for thing like this, due to their greater hand holdability and/or D of F, and because they are generally lower in contrast and have more latitude and malleability than slower films.

Additionally, for me, Tri-X 320 and FP4 tested at the same exact EI. Consider the following from a recent post I made about my experience with Tri-X 320:

"When I used Tri-X a lot, it was using it the classic zone system way explained in "The Negative". For me, the 320 variety ended up being shot at EI 200 in D-76 1:1 at 72F (seemed to be my average water temperature at the time of the testing, so I stuck with it) in both 4x5 and 120/220. I used a time-temp chart if the water was not 72F. I used the combo for everything black and white, pretty much, except sometimes I used FP4 when I wanted its different contrast and color response characteristics. (Strangely enough, it also tested as an EI 200 film for me, so Tri-X had no real speed advantage - just a malleability advantage and less contrast.)"

 

[BobNewYork]

Your exposure needs to be very accurate - ensuring that you don't overexpose the white dress and leisure suit - but also making sure you have sufficient exposure for the African-American skin tones. IIRC TXP has a long toe - which means that shadow separation, (i.e. the couple's faces) takes a bit of exposure to pick up. I'd have to second the FP4 with it's shorter toe and good long straight line.

A year or so ago I did a wedding where the bride was a blonde wearing the white dress and the groom was African American - wearing a black tuxedo. I rated TMX at EI 80 and pulled the development. Printing was real tough - but it was all there on the negative.

Hope this helps.

Bob H

 

[mike c]

Well that sounds good Bob, but I would think it would be more easier to use a Chromegenic film (film that's developed in C-41) or a color neg film designed this type of shooting and not have to worry so much about your hi and low tones. I worked for a wedding studio and we used VPS III 120. I don't know what its called know but it gave me great latitude in my exposers an let me apply myself to the job at hand. Getting people together,thinking how to pose them,flash or no flash,and the most important element I never had enough was time.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

If you can, shoot a test roll on a willing subject and try exposing the skin on about Zone IV. See where that puts the clothing in sunlight and shade and how the skin is rendered and go from there.

 

[mike c]

jamusu please excuse me I did not realize you were talking about the one portrait,that would work out very nice with b&w film, there was a lot of wedding I would have preferred to use B&W for a portrait of the B&G.

 

[BobNewYork]

Well that sounds good Bob, but I would think it would be more easier to use a Chromegenic film (film that's developed in C-41) or a color neg film designed this type of shooting and not have to worry so much about your hi and low tones. I worked for a wedding studio and we used VPS III 120. I don't know what its called know but it gave me great latitude in my exposers an let me apply myself to the job at hand. Getting people together,thinking how to pose them,flash or no flash,and the most important element I never had enough was time.

Yes - your point's well taken Mike. I tried XP-1 when it first arrived and didn't get on with it for some reason, (more likely me than the film!) and Ijust never went back. I did like the Vericolor though. Your point about having too little time is well taken. I only do "events" now on referral - it's amazing how exhausting taking photographs can be!!!

Bob H

 

[mike c]

Yea , I thought Jamusu was going to do the whole wedding thing with b&w. But just a few where there enough time to make sure of your exposer and stuff would be great.
mike

 

[jamusu]

Your plan sounds good. Rate lower and underdevelop (if the light is "average" in contrast). If too flat in the end, you are still OK, as it is much easier to add contrast than to tame it. It is a great film for the task, as would be HP5. Tri-X 320 is just fine for white clothing. It is flatter in the highlights than Tri-X 400, so you could probably downrate and develop normally if you wanted to; *especially* if the light when you take the pix is a bit flat.

The most important thing will be being able to print the skin to the zone you want. The dress can be managed easily compared to printing up an underexposed face to make it look "good". So, my advice is to expose for the skin, and develop for the dress. You will need to roughly judge the light at the scene to decide how to develop, in other words...unless you have a spot meter. Then you know for sure.

I am assuming you are using an incident meter for this. I would not use an in-camera reflected meter for this situation, unless it is used to meter a grey card. Too much possibility of error with an in-camera meter unless you have the time to think about exactly how to tweak every single shot, IMO.

The real key is how you choose your lighting and your attention to how its qualities will affect exposure and development, not just film choice.

I personally favor faster films for thing like this, due to their greater hand holdability and/or D of F, and because they are generally lower in contrast and have more latitude and malleability than slower films.

Additionally, for me, Tri-X 320 and FP4 tested at the same exact EI. Consider the following from a recent post I made about my experience with Tri-X 320:

"When I used Tri-X a lot, it was using it the classic zone system way explained in "The Negative". For me, the 320 variety ended up being shot at EI 200 in D-76 1:1 at 72F (seemed to be my average water temperature at the time of the testing, so I stuck with it) in both 4x5 and 120/220. I used a time-temp chart if the water was not 72F. I used the combo for everything black and white, pretty much, except sometimes I used FP4 when I wanted its different contrast and color response characteristics. (Strangely enough, it also tested as an EI 200 film for me, so Tri-X had no real speed advantage - just a malleability advantage and less contrast.)"

_________________________________________________________________

I will not be using a light meter because I have yet to purchase one, but I do have a gray card. Should I meter off of the gray card and use the exposure settings that it gives me?

Jamusu.