Would you recommend Tri-X or HP5+ for pushing? (and other questions about pushing film)

[Augustus Caesar]

Film can certainly be pushed processed, within reason, using the right film, and developer.

You can overdevelop film, but you cannot compensate for underexposure. Impossible.

 

[Paul Howell]

You can overdevelop film, but you cannot compensate for underexposure. Impossible.

Yep, when working as a PJ we were always told to error on the side of overexposure, you can get print from a dense negative, but if it is not there it is not there. But in the 70 and 80s when B&W was king pushing was a necessary evil. As the paper started to print in color, for the daily, prior there was color on Sunday and on Wednesday the food section supplement, we had to revert to high powered flash and pushing became uncommon.

 

[dcy]

As I think about it, the Carlsbad caverns are well lit with spot lights. I wonder if a 400 speed film would be fast enough. Its been maybe 30 years that I was toured Carlsbad, but I renumber shooting Trix and maybe Kodacolor 400, with a faster lens like a 50 1.7 or 1.4.

Carlsbad is indeed better lit than any other cavern I've been to. With ISO 400 and F/3.5 there were spots that I could easily shoot handheld, but that was a small fraction of the shots I wanted to take. I really didn't plan this well; the trip was a spur of the moment thing. I look forward to going back, next time armed with my new TMZ in my film camera and my F/0.95 lens in my digital camera.

 

[koraks]

Caves are typically rather 3-dimensional scenes, which means that shooting at a large aperture will bring limitations in depth of field. Whether that will be a concern is up to you to decide, but personally I'd experience this as a major problem. Sufficient depth of field means stopping down, which means that no film, push-processed or not, will be adequate for handheld shooting. You can get some frames, but will they even be worth printing? Again, it's personal. And personally, I wouldn't bother.

The most suitable tool for the job would be something digital with a very small sensor (=large depth of field by default) and image stabilization. Most modern smartphones would qualify. Convenient to carry around as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Caves are typically rather 3-dimensional scenes,

And surprisingly cramped when swinging a club trying to fend off a Sabre-toothed Tiger

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Just ask Fred and his pal Barney!

 

[pentaxuser]

Just ask Fred and his pal Barney!

I like it when they use that bird's long beak as a record needle

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

I'd hate to be the bird though!

 

[dcy]

Yeah. He never looked really thrilled.

 

[dcy]

The most suitable tool for the job would be something digital with a very small sensor (=large depth of field by default) and image stabilization. Most modern smartphones would qualify. Convenient to carry around as well.

My digital camera is basically tailor-made for the task. It has a crop sensor and 5.5 stops of in-body image stabilization. It will definitely be there with me when I go back.

While being fully aware of the limitations of film, I'm going to try anyways and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I realize this is basically the path-of-most-resistance if the goal is to get a good photograph of a cavern. But film photography is never the easiest way to get a photo anyway. For me, the process itself and trying something new and interesting is a goal in itself. I now have TMZ in the fridge, T-Max developer at home, and in a few weeks I will go and try them out.

 

[loccdor]

They don't allow tripods, but do they allow something like a very miniature Gorillapod? Or there's always the "put the camera on top of a flat-ish, table-like object method"

Also the "shoot from your chest while pulling down on the neckstrap method"

 

[dcy]

They don't allow tripods, but do they allow something like a very miniature Gorillapod? Or there's always the "put the camera on top of a flat-ish, table-like object method"

Oh! A Gorillapod is a brilliant idea! I know I have one somewhere. Yeah, I am sure that'd be fine. Their concern is just about blocking the walkway and people tripping. There are handrails across the entire cavern. A Gorillapod can hold on to those. There are also a few flat-ish walls.

This reminds me, I should also bring my cable release.

Also the "shoot from your chest while pulling down on the neckstrap method"

Thanks. Somehow I didn't think of that either. I'll bring a neckstrap!

 

[ic-racer]

Looks like you have 86 replies already. Anyway, one way to think of it is pushing is for emergencies when you will cast away shadow detail for exaggerated mid tones and highlights that will make a recognizable print.

But, if you know in advance you will be in low light conditions, I'd use a faster film like Ilford P3200.

The other thing I did recently for low light situations is Nikkor 24mm f1.4. Since it is wide angle, it produces good results with low shutter speeds.

 

[grain elevator]

Everything has really been said, so an only somewhat unserious addition: compose so well that the image will be strong regardless of sharpness and hand-hold whatever speed is necessary.

 

[Agulliver]

There have been several comments about photographing musicians. They're always in the light....photographers are/have used fast lenses.Everything outside the highlights falls into the shadows. Pushed film or not....it's different than trying to photograph a dimly lit room or cavern

Not at jazz clubs where there's one spotlight, if the manager actually deigns to turn it on. There's one other light that points straight down, at about 7 feet off the ground. It's often referred to as The transporter" because it looks very Star Trek and does a nice job of over lighting the musician's hair and making them sweat.

I've photographed caves with the old Fuji Superia 1600 colour film and with HP5+ pushed to 1600. What is most difficult, as with the jazz club really, is trying to get the shadows looking decent. If OP is using the Pentax 17, I believe it has the ability to over-expose one stop. I'd try that while having TMAX or Delta 3200 loaded...and some form of aid to steadying the camera.

Another thing OP can try is learning to hand hold longer exposures. I didn't realise until someone pointed this out to me just last year. When doing a long exposure by hand, I hold the camera differently with my left thumb under the body to steady it. I hold my breath and thereby also reduce my heart rate to reduce any body movement. I don't know if this would help but it allows me to hand hold to several seconds with luck, and 1/4 second reliably.

 

[dcy]

If OP is using the Pentax 17, I believe it has the ability to over-expose one stop. I'd try that while having TMAX or Delta 3200 loaded...and some form of aid to steadying the camera.

It sure does! I have +/- 2 EV of exposure compensation, aside from setting the film ISO (up to 3200).

Just to be sure I understand, provided that I use something like a gorilla pod to steady the camera, are you suggesting that I shoot my new T-Max P3200 at EI 1600? (and presumably switch back to EI 3200 if I have to shoot handheld)

Another thing OP can try is learning to hand hold longer exposures. I didn't realise until someone pointed this out to me just last year. When doing a long exposure by hand, I hold the camera differently with my left thumb under the body to steady it. I hold my breath and thereby also reduce my heart rate to reduce any body movement. I don't know if this would help but it allows me to hand hold to several seconds with luck, and 1/4 second reliably.

I can try that!

 

[koraks]

There's one other light that points straight down, at about 7 feet off the ground.

Caves are often illuminated in a similar fashion. Some spots on a couple of notable stalactites, there's some light from those spots bouncing around near the object of interest, with most of the environment falling into deep shadows. It's a very high-contrast situation with practically no light to work with in the shadows. This presents the photographer with a couple of choices:

1: Shoot details that are relatively well-lit. 400-speed film shot at box speed or one stop under and a reasonably large aperture may be sufficient.

2: Shoot in such a way that ever photo is picked up. In practice, this means long exposures even at high ISO's. Then manage the high contrast in post processing; either digitally (highlight compression, layering multiple exposures, HDR) or in the darkroom (pre-flashing the paper, burning, masking).

Option #2 gives the most flexibility in terms of composition, but I don't see any way in which it can be done hand-held with film. None, bar nothing. It's a dead-end street. Yeah, you can try to do 1/4 sec exposures by leaning against a wall or a fence etc., but it'll be a hit & miss affair and even the 'sharp' shots will generally lack critical sharpness. This tends to hurt a lot more IMO in a shot of a cave than of a jazz musician. In the latter case you can get away with some mild motion blur as a 'spur of the moment' kind of thing. The former tends to just look like....not much good if it's blurred, period.

For the dedicated film photographer, this leaves option #1, which can be fine in its own right. Compositions will need to revolve around the well-lit bits and either isolate them, or position them in relation to each other within a wider shot so that they arrange favorably. The latter has the advantage that a wide-angle lens can be used such as suggested by @ic-racer above, in which case the large aperture isn't too detrimental since depth of field tends to appear larger on wide-angle shots anyway, especially if you manage to keep the focal objects fairly far from the camera.

So all considered, if I were pressed to shoot film in a situation like this, I'd just load up with HP5+ or TMY2, set meter to 800 to get that extra stop of "let's hope for the best", mount a wide-angle lens (24 or wider) and compose in such a way that several highlight spots end up making a favorable arrangement. Not much magic required, no excessive film speed etc.

I'm curious to see how the TMax3200 experiment will pan out, but especially on half frame I imagine it'll be like watching a 1970s Soviet TV transmission of the cellar beneath a nuclear reactor that has gone in meltdown mode. Might be kind of artistic.

Whatever your expectations are, ensure they are the polar opposite of what you see in promotion materials and travelogues of caves. All those images are examples of option #2 taken to excess. Out of interest I Googled the Carlsbad Caverns and mostly found (unsurprising) a lot of pretty examples of the #2 approach. Here's a photostream on Flickr that honestly shows what it looks like if you just shoot straight with a regular camera and auto-flash. Note that the shots that show some environment/atmosphere are all flash exposures that capture some scenery in the foreground that's within reach of the flash. The other shots neatly illustrate what I said before about some details being lit pretty well with the rest being a solid black mass.

Planning to shoot something like this while facing serious technical limitations (e.g. "it needs to be on film") starts with adopting a realistic take on what's feasible and how that might work. There's plenty of interesting lessons and angles within that and most of them don't rely on specialty films or developers. Those are the 10% icing on the cake. Much of this thread is about icing, while the cake underneath is ignored.

 

[jim appleyard]

Tripods used to be allowed in Carlsbad as of last year. I guess it's a new rule; too bad.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was at the Caverns in the 90s not only were tripod prohibited but monopods as well., but I recall that flash was allowed. The other great cave tour is Kartchner Caverns State Park in Bensen AZ . Although not as large as Casrblad is is living cave system, no phones or cameras are allowed except on a monthy photo tour and you can bring a tripod.

 

[dcy]

2: Shoot in such a way that ever photo is picked up. In practice, this means long exposures even at high ISO's. Then manage the high contrast in post processing; either digitally (highlight compression, layering multiple exposures, HDR) or in the darkroom (pre-flashing the paper, burning, masking).

Option #2 gives the most flexibility in terms of composition, but I don't see any way in which it can be done hand-held with film. None, bar nothing. It's a dead-end street.

Well, it's my film to waste and my time to waste.

I think the idea of using a gorilla pod is very promising. There are handrails everywhere across the cavern. I will also definitely try 100% handheld shots.

So all considered, if I were pressed to shoot film in a situation like this, I'd just load up with HP5+ or TMY2, set meter to 800 to get that extra stop of "let's hope for the best",

Why those instead of TMZ? Too grainy?

I'm curious to see how the TMax3200 experiment will pan out, but especially on half frame I imagine it'll be like watching a 1970s Soviet TV transmission of the cellar beneath a nuclear reactor that has gone in meltdown mode. Might be kind of artistic.

Yeah. I think a good strategy is to lean on the limitations of the medium and aim for a mood.

Planning to shoot something like this while facing serious technical limitations (e.g. "it needs to be on film") starts with adopting a realistic take on what's feasible and how that might work.

How about "I will enjoy the trip regardless and I have a good digital camera anyway, which has already proven capable of taking shots that I am happy with, so I am free take risks and do whatever I want with film."

Those are the 10% icing on the cake. Much of this thread is about icing, while the cake underneath is ignored.

Somehow, those are the posts that I have found useful. Perhaps those posters understand my goals and expectations better. I don't see anyone ignoring "the cake underneath". I think every poster here knows that if I want to get a reliably good photo I need to grab the digital camera that I have in my other hand. Not much else to say about that; especially in the analog forum.

 

[koraks]

Why those instead of TMZ? Too grainy?

They cost a fraction of the former, either is probably already in your fridge and both will indeed yield better image quality if used wisely.

I hear you on the "enjoy the trip" part. As for the rest - maybe after you've shot a couple of thousand more rolls of film, revisit what I said and see if any of it makes sense. I fully realize that you're presently making your way through the 10,000 hours. I guess there's no way to accelerate that process by trying to project existing experience into someone. It's probably not even desirable to begin with. So do as you must, learn, and enjoy the experience.

 

[MattKing]

What @koraks just said.
My earlier comments were based on the assumption that the caves were illuminated in the way I've seen other caves illuminated. They tend to be lit to enhance drama, rather than to reveal every nook and cranny, as one might need to do for scientific exploration. As such, they are fairly similar to concert/stage lighting.
If you feel the need to image that which is mostly shadowed, you need the enhanced film sensitivity.
If your emphasis is on the aesthetic experience, you may prefer the slower film, because the brighter areas tend to be harshly lit, and therefore film grain may be a concern.
But then, you may want the grain.
It really is a question of the aesthetic you seek, followed by the technique and materials and equipment needed to accomplish that aesthetic.
And that is where the 10,000 hours comes in - realizing of course that at least some of those 10,000 hours can be productively employed looking at photographic results - both of your work, and of others.

 

[GregY]

Well, it's my film to waste and my time to waste.

I think the idea of using a gorilla pod is very promising. There are handrails everywhere across the cavern. I will also definitely try 100% handheld shots.




Why those instead of TMZ? Too grainy?



Yeah. I think a good strategy is to lean on the limitations of the medium and aim for a mood.



How about "I will enjoy the trip regardless and I have a good digital camera anyway, which has already proven capable of taking shots that I am happy with, so I am free take risks and do whatever I want with film."



Somehow, those are the posts that I have found useful. Perhaps those posters understand my goals and expectations better. I don't see anyone ignoring "the cake underneath". I think every poster here knows that if I want to get a reliably good photo I need to grab the digital camera that I have in my other hand. Not much else to say about that; especially in the analog forum.

DCY, you'll get workable negatives either way. I have photographs of my daughter's dance class in a dimly lit studio.... w a Mamiya 6 and the 50mm f4 wide open with TMZ 120....
whether you use TMZ or pushed 400 iso film... it's not impossible

 

[dcy]

As for the rest - maybe after you've shot a couple of thousand more rolls of film, revisit what I said and see if any of it makes sense. I fully realize that you're presently making your way through the 10,000 hours. I guess there's no way to accelerate that process by trying to project existing experience into someone. It's probably not even desirable to begin with. So do as you must, learn, and enjoy the experience.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how to respond to this. Nothing that you said was confusing, and what you wrote just now sounds condescending to me. Trying to shoot film inside a cavern without a tripod and a small format is not going to give good results. If you were me, you would not do it. I get it. You started giving me an odd warning about not expecting the photos to look like the brochure and I've no idea where you got the impression that that's where my expectations were. I don't know how many more ways I can say that I have fully tempered my expectations and I understand the limitations. I don't need 10,000 hours to understand this. If you are really so concerned about the photos I will take on my trip, can you at least take comfort in knowing that I will also have my trusty digital camera with me and that it has all the capabilities it needs? Are you trying to tell me that I should not do something that I feel would be fun and interesting because you personally wouldn't do it?

My earlier comments were based on the assumption that the caves were illuminated in the way I've seen other caves illuminated.

I can only guess how illuminated the caverns you've been to were. The Carlsbad caverns are better illuminated than other caverns I have been to, but it's still very much a cavern.

If you feel the need to image that which is mostly shadowed, you need the enhanced film sensitivity.
If your emphasis is on the aesthetic experience, you may prefer the slower film, because the brighter areas tend to be harshly lit, and therefore film grain may be a concern.

I am not sure how shadowed you imagine "mostly shadowed" to be. The darkest parts of the cavern are well beyond the reach of even a good digital camera unless using a tripod. But there is a lot to image that has an intermediate illumination, where neither pitch black, nor brightly lit by a spotlight. Right in the region where the human eye can see perfectly clearly but a camera struggles. The best benchmark I can give you is to say that my digital camera chose ISO 6400 and many shots had a 1/10 - 1/20" shutter at F/4. I am not sure to what extent we can compare digital ISO with film ISO, but it's the best data point I can give you right now.

Is there anything you have read in the discussion that would shift your recommendation from TMZ to a 400 ISO film? I have *one* roll of Tri-X and two rolls of TMZ. My baseline is to shoot TMZ. Honestly, now that I have it, what else am I gonna do with it? But if you changed your mind, I'd rather know.

 

[dcy]

DCY, you'll get workable negatives either way. I have photographs of my daughter's dance class in a dimly lit studio.... w a Mamiya 6 and the 50mm f4 wide open with TMZ 120....
whether you use TMZ or pushed 400 iso film... it's not impossible

Thank you!