iso1600 film?

[winjeel]

I'll be doing some night events using both film and digital. The last time I did a night event I used Fujifilm iso1600 (I forget which type) and wasn't so thrilled with the results. Any suggestions? I'll be working at about F2, 1/125, 50mm handheld, no flash.

If I do decide to use a flash, (Minolta 5400HS), iso100 should be fine, shouldn't it?

FYI, here's a sample of what I'll be doing: http://ablyth.photoshelter.com/image/I0000p6M4QAroiwE

 

[TSSPro]

You will be able to expose your subj fine with ISO100 film and flash, but the ambient light will be very limited in what you get get. Some images may look like a person floating on a black background. Try Delta3200. Not color, but it gets you the speed you need and can be pushed well.

ALl the best.

 

[fschifano]

Question is what is it about the fast film that you don't like? Using a slow with flash will not help. All you'll get are subjects in a black hole.

 

[totalmotard]

The fastest film I've shot in color is Fuji 800 press. If you use a flash with it you'll get close to what you want. That will give you some ambient light at least. But the flash needs to be TTL to balance fill. It won't look as good as that photo though, that was probably shot digital @ 3200 iso or better.

 

[winjeel]

Thanks. That photo is mine, at iso1600 (on digital). What I'm hoping for this year is smoother, less grain, and less noise... but going black and white film and making it intentionally grainy is the other way to go Much prefer grain than noise anyway.

 

[pentaxuser]

If we are talking colour neg only then the Fuji 1600 is the fastest I know of but it can be quite grainy even at 10x8 inches print size. At least one person here on APUG believes that the Fuji Pro 800 can be pushed to 1600 with less grain and just as good colour balance than the 1600. He/they may respond.

If you want to try B&W and an EI of 1600 is sufficient then Fuji Neopan might fit the bill. From what I have read D3200's true speed is inherently faster than Fuji 1600( neither has a true box speed as stated) but that's not to say that Fuji won't look as good at 1600 as D3200 downrated to 1600.

You may prefer the look of Fuji Neopan 1600. I suspect that as you are in Japan you will certainly prefer its price compared to imported D3200 :

pentaxuser

 

[totalmotard]

Here's a shot with Neopan 1600. I like the look and feel. It's kind of smooth and grainy at the same time:

 

[holmburgers]

Why not 1/60th?

You could then use Portra 800 or Fuji 800z. I've never used the Fuji variant, but Portra is amazing IMHO. I shot this whole set with Portra 800... http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceholmburgers/sets/72157623168651497/

Granted, I had f/1.2 though

 

[fotch]

totalmotard, that is a good example. Makes me want to try it out. If I may ask, what developer did you use?

 

[totalmotard]

Thanks, I used a local camera store called Creve Coeur Camera. $6 to develop, $3 to put on disk. I'm not ready to do my own developing yet. Here's another with a bit more light:

 

[pentaxuser]

This is not intended as a crticism of you but if these are both an accurate scan of the prints then while the first shot is a reasonable advert for Fuji Neopan 1600 B&W, the second as a potential user of this film would give me cause for concern about the featureless highlights on her face and chest. The woodwork in the background is similar but less important.

It may be my monitor or your scanner but on the original print does her forehead exhibit this patchiness which almost makes her forehead look as if it has a birthmark where the skin lacks pigment. If she does have such a mark then I apologise for drawing attention to it but at least it relieves the film of the blame as it were.

I don't know how to put it more delicately while still asking the question

pentaxuser

 

[lns]

I get good results pushing Tri-X to 800 or 1600 in either X-Tol or Ilford DD-X developer.

Fuji makes a beautiful 800 speed color film called Pro 800Z, but I believe it may be discontinued.

-Laura

 

[totalmotard]

pentaxuser,

In the original there's a bit of hair running down her forehead right where the shadow starts. It's making the transition look a little strange. That scan is from the lab. I'll scan it myself and see there's any improvement in the highlights.

 

[2F/2F]

The fastest film I've shot in color is Fuji 800 press. If you use a flash with it you'll get close to what you want. That will give you some ambient light at least. But the flash needs to be TTL to balance fill. It won't look as good as that photo though, that was probably shot digital @ 3200 iso or better.

I was about to suggest the same film, but I don't agree with any of the other technical advice.

1. On-camera flash will never give you the same look as ambient light in such a situation. Not even "close." The only way to get close with flash would be to have flashes on stands in the same general location of the lamps providing the ambient light, and to modify the fixtures in such a way that the quality and color of light is similar to these lamps.
2. The flash does not need to be TTL metering to balance itself with ambient light. This is a rather bold statement that really could not be much farther from the truth. You will get far better results balancing the two with 100 percent manual exposure (ambient and flash).

I would also look for remaining stock of Fujicolor Pro 800Z. It has the same speed as the Superia 800, but softer grain and more saturation. In 35mm, I usually opt for the Superia, but the Pro 800Z is (or was) a very amazing film. It will certainly give you something closer to the results you get from a digital camera shot at high ISO, like the one you posted

 

[Athiril]

+1 for Tri-X for B&W, pushed Tri-X imho will beat down Delta 3200, I use Rodinal with, works extremely well, keeps grain nice and fine when done right (only a little agitation+gentle).

Pro 800/Z is still around, plenty of it, though I look for my film in 120.

You may want to see if you can order from this site - http://translate.google.com.au/tran...n&u=http://www.film09.com/shop/main/index.php

They dont list all their stuff they sell on ebay, they have some very good deals just on their site

Ultramax 800
Portra 800
Superia 1600

XTRA 800 can be found on ebay in 35mm

 

[winjeel]

Thanks. I think I have enough suggestions to keep me busy all that night.

 

[fschifano]

You can easily get 1600 from Tri-X developed in Diafine, especially if you use a bit of bounced fill flash. If you're going to go with B&W this is a good combo, but the trick is to use a diffused fill flash, preferably off camera. You don't need TTL flash to do this as some would have you believe. All you need is a auto thyristor unit with a translucent dome on it. You don't need a lot of flash, just enough to fill in the deep shadows.

 

[jimmyp]

I'm with holmburgers. Use a slower speed. Use 1/60 or 1/30. Those drum sticks will show some dynamic motion and you can get away with some 400 speed film.

 

[winjeel]

I'm with holmburgers. Use a slower speed. Use 1/60 or 1/30. Those drum sticks will show some dynamic motion and you can get away with some 400 speed film.

Arrrr now that you put it that way... One more week then I can try it at a small festival, and then another week, and try it at a larger one... now I'm more eager than before.

 

[djacobox372]

Along with the other recommendations, make sure you're using the fastest lens you can.

 

[winjeel]

Along with the other recommendations, make sure you're using the fastest lens you can.

Minolta 50mm 1.4 should do the job.

 

[E76]

This is not intended as a crticism of you but if these are both an accurate scan of the prints then while the first shot is a reasonable advert for Fuji Neopan 1600 B&W, the second as a potential user of this film would give me cause for concern about the featureless highlights on her face and chest. The woodwork in the background is similar but less important.

It may be my monitor or your scanner but on the original print does her forehead exhibit this patchiness which almost makes her forehead look as if it has a birthmark where the skin lacks pigment. If she does have such a mark then I apologise for drawing attention to it but at least it relieves the film of the blame as it were.

I don't know how to put it more delicately while still asking the question

pentaxuser

As an avid user of Neopnan 1600, I can assure you that the film does not look that bad when developed and exposed properly. I use Diafine and expose at 2400 and it looks great! Highlights are not blown out and it does have that "smooth-yet-grainy" look totalmotard describes. It is a bit contrasty, however, as I often have to print the negs at grade 1 or even 0.

 

[chris00nj]

Both Superia 1600 and Neopan 1600 are good possibilities. Here are some examples.

Superia 1600:

Neopan 1600:

 

[totalmotard]

Okay, I went back and rescanned and the highlights were fine. I underexposed a bunch of the shots and the lab compensated for them, leaving the properly exposed shots overexposed. Here is the rescanned version:

I even took out the hair that was bothering pentaxuser.