How does one shoot with a slow film say iso 50 to 100 ?

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i dunno if this is practical or workable or not, but i read somewhere that indoor/night shots and outdoor images can have different development time even for the same ISO. ie. indoor/night images can benefit having longer development time and vice-versa.

raytoei

[NLewis]

Consider a tiny tabletop tripod, maybe a cable release. You can fit both in your bag no problem.

Another thing is: past about EV3 or so, it makes sense to the eye for things to be dark. Thus, instead of trying to expose for 18% grey, if it's real dark, just set for EV3 (f/1.4 and 1/4th at ISO100) and let anything darker just sink into the blackness. You could do the same thing at EV5 (1.4 and f/15 at ISO100), it will just look darker on film than it did to the eye.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

NLewis: agree, if it's dark, it's dark. 18% gray may be impossible.

[Calzone]

Add some weight to your camera. A Nikon F3 with motordrive is more stable than a F3 without. On my Leicas both M-bodies have TA Rapidwinders and TA Rapidgrips. The added weight helps balance and steady the camera, and for me a heavy camera is a steady camera.

Shooting while sitting is more stable than shooting standing. Also make a tripod out of your body whenever possible. Some times I crouch and anchor my elbow to my knee. Think triangles like feet spread and your shoulder braced against a tree, wall, building...

I even shortened my strap so that I can use it like two guy wires anchored under my elbow by locking my wrist straight. If I have to I can shoot with one hand if I had to. Again think triangle. Setting up a camera so it can be shot with one hand helps, especially when I can use two hands.

Practice, practice, practice.... I dry fire my cameras for exercise a lot. This helps to develope good technic shooting and also helps me nail focus under dim lighting.

Develope some upper body strength by doing pushups and pull-ups. Having some bulk that comes from strength helps me have the camera as an extension of my body. Generally I carry a camera via a wrist strap, at my side, ready to shoot. Also always have a camera with me so literally it has become an extenion of my body.

Also I would second going wide angle because this forces you to get closer to your subject. Remenber that light fall off follows inverse square law. If you double the distance you get one quarter the amount of light. If I half the distance I get four times the amount of light.

Cal

[goo0h]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Chan

Sorry if it's a bit obvious, but one can effectively use a wider than normal (50mm) focal length at much lower shutter speeds handheld, and therefore in lower light indoors. With a 24mm, 1/4 and 1/2 second exposures are always manageable handheld.

Why is that? OK, I'm dense. Because they tend to be smaller lenses? Wider DOF?

Somewhat related, is the VC 35mm F1.2 easier to focus with greater accuracy wide open than the VC 50mm F1.1? Or is it about the same?

[Calzone]

Amos,

Its more about subject distance. By going wide you have to get closer to your subject, and since light falls off in a non-linear manner getting closer means more light.

If you half the distance to your subject you quadruple the amount of light that your film sees.

If you double the distance from your subject your film sees one quarter the amount of light.

The amount of light that is hitting your subject remains constant, but the reflected light coming off your subject is greatly effected by distance.

Cal

Light falloff follows inverse square law. In areodynamics drag also follows inverse square law. The difference in drag between a car traveling at 50 mph and 100 mph is that drag will increase to four times at 100 mph even though the speed is just double. Its a rather dramatic nonlinear relationship.

[film nut]

In a photo class I took about 40 years ago, the instructor told me to turn the camera upside down, look through the viewfinder and hold the camera against my forehead , hold my breath and I could shoot down to 1/4 second and maybe slower. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work. I haven't had to resort to that routine in a long time, but it's there if I need it.

Mike

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by goo0h

Why is that? OK, I'm dense. Because they tend to be smaller lenses? Wider DOF?

Smaller angular magnification on the film, so (say) 1/2 degree shake on the camera axis is 1/2 degree on the film at 43mm but 1/4 degree at 21.5mm. Conversely it's 1 degree at 86mm.

Cheers,

R

[Richard G]

I read an interesting variation on the string-pod: loop the string through the locking loop of a quick release plate. Not sure how well that would go with the non-central tripod bush of an M.

[ampguy]

ISO 50, ~ 1/4 second:

[Taynt3d]

I use 400 all the time in combo with a 3-stop ND I take on/off as needed, works perfectly and offers a lot of flexibility, including that nice Tri-X look wide open in the middle of the day, heh (helps to have an R3A with 1/2000 too of course).

[raytoei@gmail.com]

ampguy, wow.... did you turn your camera upside down against your forehead to shoot that ?

FilmNut: thanks. i put the XA upsidedown and the forehead does give it some support.... a bit silly but i think it works..let me try out a couple of shorts.

[goo0h]

Originally Posted by Taynt3d

I use 400 all the time in combo with a 3-stop ND I take on/off as needed, works perfectly and offers a lot of flexibility

What ND filter is that? I was just wondering about maybe getting one of those variable ND filters, but they can sure get expensive. However, if I do get one, would want a good one that's not going to flare too ridiculously, if that's possible....

[goo0h]

Originally Posted by ampguy

ISO 50, ~ 1/4 second....

Wow, that's incredible. Never would have thought that possible.

[Roger Hicks]

Go about half way down http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...n/ps%20rf.html and you will find a picture with the following caption:

Girl on an elephant, Kelvinhall Circus

Roger shot this in the early 1970s with a 1930s uncoated 90mm Leitz Elmar wide open at f/4, using ISO 50 home-process Barfen (honestly!) film.

Unsurprisingly he does not recall the shutter speed but it cannot have been shorter than 1/30 second and may well have been as long as 1/15 or even 1/8. He leaned back in his seat; braced his elbows on the arms of the seat (as far as he recalls); and breathed out slowly while shooting, a time-honoured technique for reducing camera shake, much more effective than holding your breath.

Today, he'd hesitate to attempt the same shot with a lens that is four times faster (his 90/2 Summicron) and film that is twice as fast (Kodak Elite Chrome 100 EBX): he'd probably go for at least ISO 400. But this does show you what we mean about hand-holding rangefinder cameras: this was probably his old IIIa, the very first Leica he ever bought.

If you don't play, you can't win.

Cheers,

R.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

I'm just going to walk the streets of NYC like this... If I use a black one, it'll be "stealth" enough I think...

[Taynt3d]

Originally Posted by goo0h

What ND filter is that? I was just wondering about maybe getting one of those variable ND filters, but they can sure get expensive. However, if I do get one, would want a good one that's not going to flare too ridiculously, if that's possible....

Just a standard 3-stop B+W ND filter I screw into my Nokton SC.

Sometimes I use it almost like a lens cap actually...

When I'm outside, I just take off the lens cap to shoot. When I walk indoors, I unscrew the ND with the lens cap on it still and shoot away three stops brighter. Back and forth like that as I move from street to indoors and back again (on certain adventures at least).

[raytoei@gmail.com]

So to bump the thread abit...

let me ask a somewhat related question:

Are there cameras that works better with slow film ?

Which small format camera would you choose for hand-held slow film shoots ?

a. rollei 35 with tessar f3.5 b. olympus xa zuiko f2.8 c.leica m4-p d. leica cl e. yashica t4 with tessar f3.5

while the xa has a faster lens, i found it less stable to hold than compared to then rollei 35

thanks

[Thomas78]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

So to bump the thread abit...

let me ask a somewhat related question:

Are there cameras that works better with slow film ?

Yes, cameras which have or can use a fast lens and that give low camera shake while used at low speeds.

You will benefit from (at least in principal):
- leaf shutter over focal plane shutter (less effective forces on camera body)
- no moving mirror (RF or TLR vs SLR)
- good ergonomics (that you can hold the camera steady in your hands; that you can release the trigger without inducing to much camera shake)
- a TLR can be stabilised pulling it a bit down while it is hanging at the neck strap at your belly

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

Which small format camera would you choose for hand-held slow film shoots ?

a. rollei 35 with tessar f3.5 b. olympus xa zuiko f2.8 c.leica m4-p d. leica cl e. yashica t4 with tessar f3.5

while the xa has a faster lens, i found it less stable to hold than compared to then rollei 35

thanks

I would take c) or d) together with a fast lens. (About f/1.4)
A fast lens will allow you to use shorter shutter times with the same film.

The Rollei 35 has a plus because the leaf shutter produces less body shaking than a focal plane shutter.
But the small and light body is not so easy to hold it stable and with scale focusing it is not so easy to get good focus at small distances at f/3.5.

My standard ISO for a Rollei 35 is 400 to be able to use it at apertures of f/8 or f/11 most of the time.



I have some problems using my (converted) Polaroid 110B with slow shutter speeds (1/8 or 1/15) because I am not able to hold the camera still enought while operating the very non-ergonomic shutter release.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

thomas78,

thanks for the reply. this week i managed to test a - d with slow iso 100 film.

i found the rollei 35 a joy to use for slow speed. the only thing which bugged me was that to be useful, i had to bump up the dof and stop down to f5.6, for an iso 100 film, anything at 1/4 and slower caused problem.

the XA felt a bit too light for handheld, but i shot quite a bit of 1/2 and 1/4 without issues.

the m4-p felt more stable than the CL for slow speeds. The CL's compactness was a comprise to stability.

cheers!

raytoei

[sepiareverb]

Smaller cameras are fantastic- I just shot the T3 tonight at some pretty long shutter speeds (the VF doesn't tell you exactly, just the abbreviation LT for Lonnng Time), but seemed like 1/4 and 1/2. Experience tells me to expect them to be pretty fine at 1/4, as long as I'm not going real big with the prints.

I have to ask is it impossible to change films? I have a tail puller in my bag at all times, the few skipped frames when reloading a partially shot roll (as insurance against double exposures) makes shooting indoors or outdoors all the more simple. Just a thought.