Push Process Film for Night Photography

[htmlguru4242]

I just processed my first roll of Efke KB25, the last few shots of which were night photos. This was the first time I've ever tried night phography, and Efke KB25 was (obviously) not a good choice. Exposure times in the range of 2 to 30 seconds are not particularly useful, though the images that I obtained were incredible but underexposed.

I'd really like to try this with a high speed film (ISO 1600 - 6400 range), though I'm not sure what's best. I'd like something that can be push-processed quite extremely, but can also be exposed at a more normal (400 - 800 ISO) setting. Any suggestions?

 

[glbeas]

You need a film with good recprocity characteristics, not neccesarily speed. I'm told Tmax works well for that, and try a compensating developer if the highlights get too blown. The secret is to get enough light and with a tripod you can be comfortable with a several minute exposure.

 

[df cardwell]

TMX 100 in Xtol is superb. TMY 400 in Xtol is superb.

Kid tested, mother approved.

 

[Lee L]

Reciprocity failure exacerbates contrast issues because the darker parts of the image "fail more rapidly" than the brighter parts of the image as the length of the exposure increases. This drives up contrast, and the contrast is again multiplied when you extend development, aka push process. If you're going for seconds long exposures anyway, high speed, high reciprocity failure, and increased contrast from increased development are not necessarily the way to go.

I'd suggest Fuji Acros, as it reportedly has the lowest reciprocity failure of available B&W print films. Gary was correct to suggest T-grain or Delta grain films, as these tend to have less reciprocity failure than traditional emulsions.

A few years back Kodak had Ektar films available in 1000 ASA and 25 ASA versions. Astrophotographers found that the 25 ASA was "faster" for long exposures (minutes) because it's reciprocity characteristics failed at a much slower rate than the 1000 ASA version. This is still true for a number of films today, especially color films, where 100 to 400 ISO versions commonly capture more detail with lower contrast in minutes long exposures than their 800 to 1600 ISO siblings.

Lee

 

[Paul Sorensen]

There are really two strategies for night photography. One is to use a slow film with good reciprocity characteristics, such as Acros or Tmax 100, and the other is to get a super fast film or push the heck out of something.

My personal preference is to use TMX, pull the heck out of it and develop it in D76 1:3. I get exposure times that range from about a minute to 20 minutes or more, depending on lighting conditions. I don't meter but use experience and a list of "standard" exposures as a guide. Works really great for getting incredible shadow detail and fine grain.

 

[htmlguru4242]

Thanks for hte advice. I probably should have been clearer; I'm looking for two differnet things. One is a film with good reciprocity characteristics so I can do long exposures; because I do know that reciprocity failure tends to be a problem. The advice you gave will help with this.

Also, I am looking for a super fast film that I can push, for normal photography (at concerts, shows, etc. where a flash isn't allowed, and for night scenes where long exposures would be rediculous (i.e. with people in the scene). What are the reccomendations for these films and developers to use with them?

Also, on the articles seciton, there is a "HOWTO" on pushing Ektackhome to ISO 20,000. Has anybody ever tried this ??

 

[df cardwell]

Don't.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For night photography, go to unblinkingeye.com, and look up the article on XR-1--

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/XR-1/xr-1.html

I experimented with this for a while and didn't find it contrasty enough for normal photography, but it does give you a legitimate two stop increase in speed with conventional films, and the low contrast should be ideal for night photography. It's not too hard to mix up, and it's what I would try, if I were really interested in night shots.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, 4242,

Lots of good advice above. I completely agree with the recommendations for either T-100 or Acros if you're doing time exposures. My first preference for developing in those circumstances is Technidol. I use a single packet to make up TEN ounces instead of the eight ounces Kodak indicates. My typical time for four 4 x 5 sheets in a rotating drum is around 12 to 15 minutes. I think that stand development in HC-110G using a time of somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes may turn out to be my choice eventually, but that's only because HC-110 is a lot cheaper than Technidol. I'm still experimenting with the HC-110G and stand development.

Konical

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I know that 1600 with Tri-X works really well and can be done with any number of developers. I have done Tri-X with Diafine at 1250 and have been very happy with it. For faster film, I have found that Delta 3200 works well at 3200, plenty grainy, but nice. I just used HC110, but I am not sure that it is the best developer for that film. Others will have more experience with it. I also know that Delta 3200 is supposed to be pushable up to 6400 or even 12800, but I have never tried that.

Paul.

 

[thebanana]

I've had good luck using both HP5 and Tri-X (400), developed in D-76 using the water bath method.

 

[gr82bart]

One is a film with good reciprocity characteristics so I can do long exposures

I've used T-Max at night - good reciprocity. Also, for colour, I've used Ektachrome Tungsten film with decent results.

Also, I am looking for a super fast film that I can push

I've pushed Ilford Delta 3200 to 12800 with some grainy but decent results. You need ti get this developed at a dedicated B&W lab though - well I do, since I hate developing film.

There's a bunch of us here in New Haven who are experimenting with night pics - a couple of us even shoot film! Ektachrome 200 seems to work really nice for long exposures and pushing.

Scala is terrible for long exposures. Unless I am doing it wrong?

Art.

 

[df cardwell]

The reason TMX works with XTOL is that they give full shadow speed, a normal length straight line, and a gentle shoulder where brightest highlights normally fall. Because you can simply expose for the shadows, and develop normally, it is superior to the 1970s techniques of Tri X and soft developers. In low light, for example, TMX is actually FASTER than Tri X because of reciprocity failure characteristics. I don't think, in this case, there is a readily available substitute for XTOL, because it adds a half stop of shadow density over D76.

On the other hand, TMY works well because it is two stops faster than TMX with similar reciprocity charecteristics. Instead of a shoulder to compress the brightest highlights, TMY has a long straight line which holds all the highlight detail. With XTOL, again, you simply need to expose for the shadows and develop normally. You will need to use a softer-than-Dektol paper developer, however, to get all the detail out of the negative.

Both approaches work well, and work EASILY. There is no comparison to how it had to be done 'in the old days'.

For shooting in concert without a flash, try TMY or Neopan 400 for starters. Stage light is a problem of contrast more than brightness, and 'pushing' the film doesn't really increase the shadow speed but increase the contrast.

If you can't do it with a 400 speed film, only a personal test will tell you whether you prefer the look of TMY pushed in XTOL to 1600 better than TMZ or Delta 3200.
TMZ and Delta 3200 are basically low contrast 800 speed films which can be pushed while retaining overall pleasant characteristics. There is a big difference in grain and acutance, and if you were to try the faster films, I'd advise using XTOL to maximize the speed while not making the image coarser than need be.

For color, please think about shooting color neg instead of a chrome. The problem is contrast, and the contrast of slide film is naturally so much higher than negative, you are fighting a losing battle from the start. Either Kodak or Fuji 800 films are a good place to begin.

Finally, the availability of lenses like Nikon AF 180/2.8 ED lens at give-away prices should encourage you to pick one up if you want to do much of this kind of work. The lens can be used wide open and be contrasty and sharp. It makes the work MUCH easier.

goodluck
.

 

[timeUnit]

For that superfast film I find Delta 3200 to be good. It's quite flat for it's speed, which is great in high contrast situations like urban night shots. Last time I used it I developed in XTOL 1+1 @20°C for 22 minutes. One example:

Dead Link Removed

*h

 

[htmlguru4242]

Thanks for all of the advice, everyone. I'll try to see what I can do. Looking at the results, it seems like long exposures give infinetely better results than super fast film, so I'll probably try that.

Pushing film rediculously far sounds like it could be a fun challenge, though, aso a roll of Tmax p3200 might be worth it.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

I wouldn't think pushing a film is the best route to take for night photos. You'll just be eating up shadow detail - which there is obviously alot of at night.

My personal preference for longer exposures is Acros at EI 64, developed N-2 in Rodinal 1:50. When you consider the range of contrast you'll find in a typical urban night scene, from neon lit sign, to a barely lit sidewalk; it's not all gonna 'fit' on a normally developed neg. I wish I could pull off an n-4 successfully, to be honest, as I still have to make sacrifices with my exposures that I rather not make. Particularly when trying to keep the highlights in the aforementioned neon signs in check.

At any rate - that's with a tripod. I also do alot with my little Olympus 35sp. It's got a f1.7 lens, and I'll use tri-x developed in diafine. I get what everyone gets, around 1250, but with decent shadow detail. Diafine is good with high contrast scenarios, and it keeps things relatively in check. Compared to tri-x in hc110, it's a minor miracle for night scenes. I can hand hold under normal street lighting at around 1/30s which is okay by me. Grain is very tolerable (I don't go for 3200 speed in 35mm; too much for me)

It's nice to have both methods in the arsenal, that's for certain. Right now, in Toronto, the sun seems to be setting at around 5:00pm - so there's lots of time to practice!

Good luck!

 

[Marco Buonocore]

BTW: timeUnit - that's a glorious shot you've got there! It's inspired me to get off my arse and finish off a roll of film I've got sitting in my camera. Cheers!

 

[timeUnit]

thank you very much! a scalpel, a little tape, ball point pen, sticker letter... things that do wonders for almost any shot!

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

"thank you very much! a scalpel, a little tape, ball point pen, sticker letter... things that do wonders for almost any shot! "

I thought William Mortensen was 'disappeared'.

Smile.