Medium format in low light

Andrey · Jan 23, 2008

I am curious if it would be practical to use medium format cameras in low light.

I've never pushed MF film past 800 for some reason.

What camera would give better image quality:
35mm film with a fast lens (1.4 or wider) or 6*6 with 85/2.8?

I haven't seen lenses for MF faster than f/2.8

Do you have any examples of shots at ISO3200 or 6400 from 6*6 negs?

If you were to shoot in low light, what would you shoot with?

This question is largely academic, I'm not planning to shoot something in low light.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 23, 2008

Depends how low. In normal indoor lighting, you can manage with a slow shutter speed (1/15 or 1/8 sec.) and f:2.8 or thereabouts at around EI 800. In really low lighting, like a dark restaurant or bar, I find I do better with 35mm and a fast lens--usually my Canon FD 50/1.2L.

David Brown · Jan 23, 2008

Andrey said:
I am curious if it would be practical to use medium format cameras in low light.

Yes.

Andrey said:
I've never pushed MF film past 800 for some reason.

There are the 3200 speed films. I've had good results shooting them at 1600 and developing for the recommended times for 3200.

Andrey said:
I haven't seen lenses for MF faster than f/2.8.

Mamiya has an f 1.9 for the M645.

Andrey said:
If you were to shoot in low light, what would you shoot with? .

Low light is just that - low light. It means longer exposures, which usually means a tripod. Even if you are talking handheld, medium format presents hardly any more problems than 35mm, other than not having 1.4 or 1.2 lenses.

On the Texas Church Project, we are almost always shooting in "low light" in the church interiors. I am the only one using roll film - the others are using large format. We use tripods for everything. I routinely have exposures of many seconds, if not minutes, with TriX or HP5 (at 400).

Andrey said:
This question is largely academic, I'm not planning to shoot something in low light.

:confused:

Pinholemaster · Jan 23, 2008

I use a tripod.

IloveTLRs · Jan 23, 2008

Lots of good MF cameras have mirror lock-up on them, which helps keep vibration down. The Mamiya RB67 has a good mirror-up system: you use 2 separate cable releases. One pops the mirror up, the other releases the shutter in the lens. Using a tripod and this system you could get very nice low-light pictures.

Or you could try a TLR which has no mirror, or an old folding camera. I've had good luck with them in low-light. Remember to release the shutter when you breathe out.

bdial · Jan 23, 2008

Here's an example of using a MF in low light at ISO 125, with a tripod cleverly disguised as a bicycle. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Drew B. · Jan 23, 2008

Andrey said:
what would you shoot with?

A tripod.

Jim Noel · Jan 23, 2008

I use Fuji Acros at EI 100for all night and low light images. Reciprocity is at a minimum and it renders wonderful negatives in a variety of developers.

Toffle · Jan 23, 2008

I've been shooting low light for years, and am the first one to recommend a tripod. A good tripod is worth what you spend in the shots you make and the film you save. I have had quite good results hand-held with TLRs though. I'm thinking any camera with a Waist Level Finder would give you a little extra stability as opposed to shooting in the standard 35mm posture. I've taken lots of shots at 1/15 sec using a cable release with no sign of camera shake. I have pushed it to 1/8 sec, but I don't think I have anything worth bragging about at that speed. (hmm... I'm thinking I should try a roll of film at low speed...)

Cheers,

Paul.A · Jan 23, 2008

This picture was taken with a Pentax 645 IIn 150 mm f2.8 on Ilford delta 400 rated at 1600 and using flash. Its a ring tailed possum in a wandoo eucalypt in Western Australia.

Of late low light situations are all I'm using my MF kit for. Admittedly they are nocturnal landscapes with very long exposures in either colour or black and white. Here's an example taken with the Pentax and a 45-85 mm lens, Delta 400 and exposure was 1 hour wide open.

eddym · Jan 24, 2008

I have shot indoor dance classes with a Rolleiflex F2.8 and Tri-X at 800. The TLR is easy to shoot handheld at low speeds. Sorry, but I don't have any shots in jpg format to post here as examples.

Soeren · Jan 24, 2008

Far more important than film- and lensspeed is the brightness of the viewfinder. My P6X7 makes a very god impersonation of sunglases
Kind regards

Christopher Walrath · Jan 24, 2008

Yeah, I gotta agree, a tripod is the way to go as long as the action doesn't require you to be more on the mobile side. If so, then you also might try using the faster films. Master artificial lighting as long as it is permitted and not unwanted. And on the breathing out, do that first, wait a second and squeeze the shutter button, don't press and release it because it will not fire twice unless you have a more automatic model (don't know what it would be) that would fire off successive exposures. Press and release physically encourages movement, so press and hold until the mirror slaps back down again.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 24, 2008

I guess I should have specified in my post above that I was thinking mostly about handheld photographs of people in low light. If you're photographing static subjects with a tripod, there's no reason not to use medium or large format.

nick mulder · Jan 25, 2008

Heaps of these were in either 645 or 6x6 in 12800 ... (the ones without flash) - 110mm 2.8 open

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=27069&l=ca97e&id=759894202

Rolleiflexible · Jan 25, 2008

I shoot my TLRs down to 1/4 and slower handheld. But a shutter cable is essential, for me, to ensure that I do not jar the camera when tripping the shutter. In fact, I always use a 10-inch cable release, on or off a tripod, for that reason. RFXB

Matt5791 · Jan 26, 2008

Problems crop up when combining low light and MF when you are photographing anything with movement - I am often shooting wedding ceremonies in churches or other indoor venues. Flash is ruled out during cermonies, and so realisticly you have to rely on fast lenses available with 35mm - I find that I am often shooting 400ASA film at f1.4 to get a reasonable shutter speed.

However saying this, I have obtained some very pleasing shots with the Hasselblad as a result of movement in the image - this is an example where the right people moved, creating motion, and the bride stayed still! (bottom left corner - click thumb to enlarge):

Dead Link Removed

Matt

eddym · Jan 26, 2008

Rolleiflexible said:
I shoot my TLRs down to 1/4 and slower handheld. But a shutter cable is essential, for me, to ensure that I do not jar the camera when tripping the shutter. In fact, I always use a 10-inch cable release, on or off a tripod, for that reason. RFXB

I find the shutter button on my Rolleiflex very smooth and it's easy to "squeeze off" a shot without moving the camera. However, an alternative to a cable release would be using the self-timer to fire the shutter, as long as the subject is static.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 26, 2008

Almost all my shoots are in low light to some degree or another. I handhold everything. I've learned how to stay very steady when shooting, and my Bronica ETRS does a great job for this kind of work.

Terence · Jan 26, 2008

I did a nice series of friends at the bar with a Rolleicord (no mirror movement and tiny shutter) with 1600 film. I found even 400 film was fine for handheld shooting.

MattKing · Jan 26, 2008

I have taken lots of existing light photos of wedding ceremonies using the back of a pew as an impromptu camera support for my Mamiya C330. I've only used colour film, but the warm red glow of tungsten light on daylight film adds atmosphere that helps compensate for motion induced blur .

Doing this would be dreadful though if the churches switch to CFL's.

Matt

Graham06 · Feb 1, 2008

Andrey said:
I am curious if it would be practical to use medium format cameras in low light.

I've never pushed MF film past 800 for some reason.

What camera would give better image quality:
35mm film with a fast lens (1.4 or wider) or 6*6 with 85/2.8?

I haven't seen lenses for MF faster than f/2.8

Do you have any examples of shots at ISO3200 or 6400 from 6*6 negs?

If you were to shoot in low light, what would you shoot with?

This question is largely academic, I'm not planning to shoot something in low light.

I have had good results in evening room lighting with a Rolleiflex 2.8 hand held at 1/30'th of a second shutter speed. Best results so far are Delta 3200 rated at ISO 1600 developed in HC110B. 8x8 inch prints aren't too grainy. I like Fuji Neopan 400, but it didn't do as well rated at 800 or more in the same conditions.

I can't keep slower than 1/30 steady, so I just stop there and hope for the best.

I've just developed a roll of Kodak Tri-X in Diafine. Results were somewhat disappointing. You're supposed to get ISO 1200 or so but I didn't get that

Darker than that and I use a digicam (20D f/1.4 ISO 3200)

Nicole · Feb 1, 2008

Andrey much of my work is low light and hand held with various B&W films depending on the subject and at various EI's. I've found in these situations the Hasselblad and its glass really shines. 120mm vs 35mm is a judgement you need to make depending on the subject and image you are trying to make - and play, play, play. Have fun!

Andrey · Feb 1, 2008

Nicole said:
Andrey much of my work is low light and hand held with various B&W films depending on the subject and at various EI's. I've found in these situations the Hasselblad and its glass really shines. 120mm vs 35mm is a judgement you need to make depending on the subject and image you are trying to make - and play, play, play. Have fun!

I know it's my call... lol

but I want to know which picture YOU'd prefer.

And some examples if possible.

Nicole · Feb 1, 2008

Andrey you have set an open and interesting question with many variables which is not that easy to answer quickly.

Your Question: I am curious if it would be practical to use medium format cameras in low light. I've never pushed MF film past 800 for some reason.
A: Absolutely, yes. I agree with David Brown's answer above regarding film.
Your Question: What camera would give better image quality: 35mm film with a fast lens (1.4 or wider) or 6*6 with 85/2.8?
A: Between a 35mm or 120mm, the 120mm being a larger negative will give you a nicer image/tonality - depending your subject, lighting, film, developing style,.... Lens wise, it depends on how fast you need the lens. There are times when I will choose 35mm over 120mm because that extra stop is imperative to the image and am aware that I'm sacrificing a MF neg for that extra stop.
Your Question: Do you have any examples of shots at ISO3200 or 6400 from 6*6 negs?
A: I can't offer you examples as they are not scanned.
Your Question: If you were to shoot in low light, what would you shoot with?
A: I've found in these situations the Hasselblad and its glass really shines.
Your Questions: But I want to know which picture YOU'd prefer.
A: That depends on which picture we're talking about.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific at this time Andrey. I hope you can make it to the Colorado Foto3 conference in June this year.

Medium format in low light

Andrey

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

David Brown

Pinholemaster

IloveTLRs

bdial

Drew B.

Jim Noel

Toffle

Paul.A

eddym

Soeren

Christopher Walrath

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

nick mulder

Rolleiflexible

Matt5791

eddym

Cheryl Jacobs

Terence

MattKing

Moderator

Graham06

Nicole

Andrey

Nicole

Medium format in low light

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency