Please advise on my scenario...

[BimmerJake]

This one is easy. No flash, windows only, church interior, bride and groom (white and black extremes). This means harsh contrasts, and mixed with a fine-grain requirement...

This one has Ilford XP2 written all over it.

i've already dealt with that temptation, i would LOVE to use xp2 but i think my wife and sister in law are wanting a more traditional look

 

[Vonder]

What sort of photography is this? If you're taking a few "snapshots" then does it really matter what you use? Tmax 400 or Delta400 will do you fine. If you are looking to do formal portraits with proper lighting, or the full wedding where you need to know what's happening all the time and anticipate what will happen next, Tmax400 or Delta400 will do you fine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i've already dealt with that temptation, i would LOVE to use xp2 but i think my wife and sister in law are wanting a more traditional look

What are you talking about? It doesn't look any different just is virtually grainless. Is this traditional enough for you? Shot on XP2 and enlarged on fiber-base paper, then toned.

 

[BimmerJake]

i'm talking about the high level of contrast. i love it, but i think they're looking for a softer look, meaning more grays and less striking black and whites. my understanding is that xp2 is somewhere in between "normal" film and infrared. the "normal" look is really what i think i'm aiming at for this specific instance.

but, i'm going camping in Shenandoah national park in a few months and plan on photographing lots of water and i think i'll take along some xp2 on that trip, your result is really pleasing to my eye.

 

[BimmerJake]

i stand generally corrected... i was confusing xp2 and sfx. now i'm back to square one. is the high contrast due to your development or the film?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i stand generally corrected... i was confusing xp2 and sfx. now i'm back to square one. is the high contrast due to your development or the film?

Ilford XP2 is ideal for high-contrast scenes. It has an exposure latitude beyond belief. This image was taking in Wales. Direct sun was hitting the white water and the shores were in deep the deep shadow of the forrest. I took the same image with Tmax, which was totally hopeless. The XP2 printed with ease. In the end, I liked a bit more contrast in the image, so, I printed it down in the shadow are, but all the detail is in the negative without the highlights blocking up.

I believe this film may be ideal for your wedding. You will have to deal with dim ambient lighting, but have bright sunlit windows in the frame as well.

By the way, XP2 is useless for low-contrast scenes. You end up using grade-5 paper and it's still too soft. but in high-contrast situations, there is nothing better.

 

[BimmerJake]

xp2 is c-41? that's something i was thinking i wanted to stay away from. i'm just getting familiar with regular developing, c-41 seems a little complex for me. although i think i still might shoot it in addition to others on my hiking trips, i really like to results you got ralph.

 

[2F/2F]

You don't really know what the lighting at the wedding will be like until you get there. Window light may create high contrast within the composition, and it may not. The majority of weddings I have shot in window light only have been incredibly flat within the compositions, even if the over all scene (meaning the whole room including the windows themselves) was high in contrast. There are areas within every high contrast location that are low in contrast, and you may be shooting inside of one of them. It depends on lots of things. As I said before, come prepared to handle anything. I'd bring some T-Max and shoot it if the light is on the flat side of things, or pretty normal in contrast, and some XP-2 if the light is super contrasty. Most of all, if you are not going to use an incident meter or a grey card, learn to tweak what your camera's meter is telling you. It will not give you the ideal exposure in anything but an average-contrast composition.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

xp2 is c-41? that's something i was thinking i wanted to stay away from. i'm just getting familiar with regular developing, c-41 seems a little complex for me. although i think i still might shoot it in addition to others on my hiking trips, i really like to results you got ralph.

C41 is done by a lab near you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Jake,

Do you have time to go to the church before the wedding and shoot a few rolls of film of your wife at the wedding location from where you think you will be sitting? That could answer a number of questions for you.

Steve

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You don't really know what the lighting at the wedding will be like until you get there. Window light may create high contrast within the composition, and it may not. The majority of weddings I have shot in window light only have been incredibly flat within the compositions, even if the over all scene (meaning the whole room including the windows themselves) was high in contrast. There are areas within every high contrast location that are low in contrast, and you may be shooting inside of one of them. It depends on lots of things. As I said before, come prepared to handle anything. I'd bring some T-Max and shoot it if the light is on the flat side of things, or pretty normal in contrast, and some XP-2 if the light is super contrasty. Most of all, if you are not going to use an incident meter or a grey card, learn to tweak what your camera's meter is telling you. It will not give you the ideal exposure in anything but an average-contrast composition.

I agree with the contrast bit and taking two film as described by 2F/2F is a good way to cover the issue if you have more than one camera or back, but I wouldn't go there armed with too many different films just to be prepared. You know where the wedding takes place, and you have some time. Go there, take a friend and stage a couple typical scenes. Try your top choices of films (XP2, Tmax400). After that, you know what you need.

 

[fschifano]

You know, I wasn't thinking of XP-2 initially, but it can be an excellent choice if you have enough light to work with. The latitude is enormous compared to traditional B&W films, and it prints very easily onto standard variable contrast papers. As far as it not looking "traditional", that's bunk. You can make it look any way you want when you print the negatives. Processing is as easy as taking it to your local photo finisher and having them run it through the exact same process as any other color print film. No muss, no fuss, reasonably priced, and, provided the lab is reasonably careful, you get the same results every time. If your local lab does shoddy work, then you have a problem and it's time to find one that does good work.

 

[BimmerJake]

Jake,

Do you have time to go to the church before the wedding and shoot a few rolls of film of your wife at the wedding location from where you think you will be sitting? That could answer a number of questions for you.

Steve

i'm trying to work out a pre-visit, would definitely take some of the guess work out.

 

[BimmerJake]

You know, I wasn't thinking of XP-2 initially, but it can be an excellent choice if you have enough light to work with. The latitude is enormous compared to traditional B&W films, and it prints very easily onto standard variable contrast papers. As far as it not looking "traditional", that's bunk. You can make it look any way you want when you print the negatives. Processing is as easy as taking it to your local photo finisher and having them run it through the exact same process as any other color print film. No muss, no fuss, reasonably priced, and, provided the lab is reasonably careful, you get the same results every time. If your local lab does shoddy work, then you have a problem and it's time to find one that does good work.

traditional is bunk, i like that... i have a very good local lab, so i can outsource the c-41. i'm thinking i'll get a few rolls of each (xp-2 and tmax) and try them out. what's the harm in that.

 

[Matt5791]

I always use HP5 for black and white work at weddings, processed in Aculux. There's loads of other possible film/developer combinations (XP2 is an excellent idea) but I just stick to the same thing.

Here is one from a recent wedding, very low light, hand held - I forget the exposure but the room was lit with really only one small window, plus tungsten. I don't think the grain is intrusive - it's there just enough. If anything the scan makes it look more grainy (it's not a very good scan). These negatives will print with pretty low grain 8x10".

The film was developed for 14 minutes at 20degC in Paterson Aculux 1:9.

 

[BimmerJake]

thanks for all the input, i've ordered a few rolls of tmy-2 and xp2 as well as some xtol for the tmy-2. i'll keep you posted of the results i get in my playing around for the next few weeks.

thanks again :

 

[EASmithV]

Something to keep in mind, IME Tmax films are very tolerant to over exposure, but do not take well at all to underexposure. Use Xtol and try pushing the film to 800. You may want to do a test roll before you go off and do it though.

Personally I have taken to TMY-2 n 4x5, pushing it to ASA 1600 and shooting it hand held in a Speed Graphic. I usually use D-76 and HC-110 which are not exactly shy about grain, but I can make a 16x20 with way less grain than Tri-x 135 printed to 8x10. It's a beautiful thing.

You may also want to experiment with higher dilutions and maybe even stand development to get the grain you desire (or rather don't desire).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Something to keep in mind, IME Tmax films are very tolerant to over exposure, but do not take well at all to underexposure.

True for all B&W negative films.