Is it better to "push" or shoot faster film?

My wife and I have been invited to attend a special benefit performance by a very well-known classical pianist. He will be performing at a community for "retarded" adults near our home in Copake.

I do not know the actual venue - but imagine it will be farily intimate, rather than a large concert hall set up.

My wife, although sheworks in business, was a classically-trained pianist and is very concerned that any pics I take be VERY discreet. Certainly I'm planning to only do available light shots and I'm favoring using the Bessa R2S given it relatively quiet shutter. (She will "kill" me if I disturb the artist! )

Since I do not know the set up and lighting situation (it is an afternoon concert) I'm in a quandary as to what film to shoot.

Would it be better to put in a roll of HP5 etc. at 400 and "push" it two, or even three times depending on the set up or would you just load in 1600 or even 3200 film and shoot "flat"?

I know there is no one "right" answer on this so all suggestions are appreciated.

[kaiyen]

First off, it is generally better to take a slower film and develop it in a speed-enhancing developer than it is to just shoot the faster film. For instance, HP5 in, say, FX-2 should give you a good 640, and Microphen should do at least 560. Going to 800 from there is nominal. Or, you could shoot Neopan 1600 @ 800. The look might actually be the same, to be honest, but the grain structure of Neopan 1600 is inherently bigger and denser than HP5 (though NP1600 is very nice and tight in terms of grain).

Having said that...it depends on the look.

I usually use slower films and push them when I want a grainier, grittier, more "pushed" look. Contrast goes up, as we all know, so it looks more like a classic push. This is a look that many people want. The grain will be relatively tight, too.

If I want something that looks more like normal contrast but gives me speed, I'd shoot Delta 3200 at 1600 (or Neopan 1600 at 800). The contrast will be much more normal looking, and the shots won't look as pushed. But then the grain is inherently bigger. You can't make the popcorn grain of Delta 3200 go away, but you can get some terrific midtones out of it if you shoot it at 1600.

An afternoon concert is tough - you're implying that it's not under traditional, high contrast stage lighting. If you can bring only one film, I'd actually bring Tri-X. HP5 loses shadow detail like a mad man as you underexpose - if you _really_ want a gritty look, then HP5 can get you there in a hurry. TXT can be more forgiving - just slightly more contrast at 800, and still reasonable at 1600. And correct developers and technique can mitigate a lot of that. It's easily the most flexible film I shoot.

Pushing HP5 to 3200 is truly black and white, IMO.

allan

[markinlondon]

I'm with Allan, shoot 400 film at 800, maybe a little faster. I'm no fan of "push" films like D3200, they always seem to need a stop more development than the data would suggest especially with deep shadows. An afternoon show in natural light would be different though. I'd just take a pocket full of HP5 and set the speed to what I could get away with, then develop in Microphen or DDX. That'll get you an extra half to two-thirds of a stop to start with.

Mark

[titrisol]

HP5 should do fine as 800 with extended development, specially with DDX

Have you seen the place? I'd get some Neopan 1600 just in case.

[RayPA]

I agree. I would take some NP1600, just in case, but I also agree that Tri-X is probably the most flexible film you could use. I've been amazed at what I can get in low(er) light situations with Tri-X at 1/60, wide open, rated at the box, and souped normal in D76. Doing as Allan suggests and using a developer that'll get you the true box speed, or more will probably be sufficient. NP1600 at 800 sounds interesting too.

TFX2, btw, is very nice developer. Here's a Tri-X/TFX2 combination from my gallery. It's not low light but I think the two work well together.

Originally Posted by titrisol

....Have you seen the place? ....

This was an interesting suggestion. While I've never been there, and the last time I drove by was over 15 years ago I just did a little Googling.

http://www.camphillvillage.org/stati...pirit_set.html

Assuming it's the same set up it looks like the performance space will be well-lit. The real challenge will be compromising with my wife on where to sit! She will want to sit on the keyboard side so as to see the pianist's hand movements. I'd prefer the other side so as to get the facial expressions!

BTW: for those unfamiliar with the Camphill Village concept - they do amazing good works. Concept was based on theories of Rudolf Steiner an Austrian educator working in Switzerland and implemented by a Scotsman. Full story is somewhere on the website.

[goo0h]

I'm curious why nobody ever mentions the T-Max films? Anybody ever try T-Max P3200 @ 1600?

[Nick R.]

I've recently been using the 800 speed color films by Fuji and Kodak for indoors work. They work very well in places where I'd normally push 400 speed B&W film. I'd recommend it. I've shot tmax3200 at 3200 in a mine with mixed results but at 1250 it's pretty good. Kodak C-41 B&W film is also acceptable at 800speed.

Originally Posted by Nick R.

I've recently been using the 800 speed color films by Fuji and Kodak for indoors work. They work very well in places where I'd normally push 400 speed B&W film. I'd recommend it. I've shot tmax3200 at 3200 in a mine with mixed results but at 1250 it's pretty good. Kodak C-41 B&W film is also acceptable at 800speed.

Nick,

Thanks. At lunch break, so as to have it, I picked up a roll of Tri-X 400. But I may use the Kodak C41 (I have some in the freezer). Kind of a last minute decision.

[ruben]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

....Since I do not know the set up and lighting situation (it is an afternoon concert) I'm in a quandary as to what film to shoot.

Would it be better to put in a roll of HP5 etc. at 400 and "push" it two, or even three times depending on the set up or would you just load in 1600 or even 3200 film and shoot "flat"?

I know there is no one "right" answer on this so all suggestions are appreciated.

Hi copake,
I actually tested Tri-X and Tmax 400 pushed to 1600, against Neopan 1600.
The enlargements show me the following, for whatever it may help. Both Tri-X and Tmax 400 give nice results by themselves, but Neopan1600 looks better.
Cheers,
Ruben


PS: (I cannot avoid it) "GO YANKEES!!!" ???

Isn't it "Yankees Go Home" ?

Originally Posted by ruben

.....

PS: (I cannot avoid it) "GO YANKEES!!!" ???

Isn't it "Yankees Go Home" ?

Rueben,

If anything is obvious it is:

1) You are not a New Yorker!

2) You are not a baseball fan!

[kaiyen]

So many quotes. So little time. And y'all should say thanks that I merged these rather than trying to pad my post total...

First off, based on the photos on that site, I'd say you'd have more than enough speed with a 400 speed film. You could probably get away with 100. Maybe 400 in a fine grain developer (D76 stock?) and you'd have nice creamy tones with low grain. Having said that...

Originally Posted by RayPA

Doing as Allan suggests and using a developer that'll get you the true box speed, or more will probably be sufficient. NP1600 at 800 sounds interesting too.

In general, I recommend folks to shoot high speed films at 1 stop more exposure than their box speeds. Most people shoot Delta 3200 at 3200 and say "where's all my shadow detail?!?!?" Well, if you wanted a normal look, then you should be rethinking your priorities. But D3200 at 1600 is very nice, and NP1600 at 800, from what I've seen (have not used it myself) isn't so bad either. I think shadow detail with the D3200 @ 1600 is far better than NP1600 @ 800, though.

TFX2, btw, is very nice developer.

Holy cow - that's _TXT_ in TFX2? I've seen some really nasty stuff with that combination. I have like 5 gallons of Microphen to finish first, but it's next on my list. Along with pyro. along with this and that :-)

I'm curious why nobody ever mentions the T-Max films? Anybody ever try T-Max P3200 @ 1600?

TMZ seems to have tighter grain than D3200, but a bit less speed (about 1000 in Microphen-equivalent, while D3200 is about 1250). I don't like how it handles extreme pushes, either, so I haven't played with it as much.

I picked up a roll of Tri-X 400.

I shoot TXT from 250 to 6400. Man, I love the stuff. But it's super-gritty at 2000+, though. I can get it looking "merely" underexposed and slightly overdeveloped at 1600. Past that it's getting tough. Merciful's results notwithstanding, of course.

I actually tested Tri-X and Tmax 400 pushed to 1600, against Neopan 1600.
The enlargements show me the following, for whatever it may help. Both Tri-X and Tmax 400 give nice results by themselves, but Neopan1600 looks better.

Just as your comments are subjective, as are mine. The results you're going to see are highly based on developer and desired result.

NP1600 at 1600, in the sample's I've seen, are already incredibly contrasty. I can get the same look with TXT at 1600 but the grain is tighter. TMY in Microphen has gone out to 1600 with very Diafine-like results as per Lex Jenkin's stuff on PN. I have been quite impressed.

Again, it boils down to what you want. I presume you don't want gritty, contrasty stuff from this event. With the lighting you'll probably get, shooting 400 at 400 should be great, and give you nice even tones. Pushing film will start getting you into dangerous, grittier-than-you-want areas, I think.

I tend to take TXT and push it when I'm in a low contrast situation. So this past wedding, I was in a room that was very, very dark. No contrast really. So I pushed TXT to 1600 and 3200. It'll give it the extra snap that I won't have to do in PS (which can cause funky stuff with midtones if I put on big s-curves). If I'm in a really contrasty situation I use D3200. It's an inherently low contrast film, which is why it is so push-friendly.

allan

Allan,

I very much appreciate your thoughts - which is why I grabbed the roll of Tri-X 400 as opposed to some HP5.

Unfortunately, at present I do not do my own developing so I will be at the mercy of a "pro" lab* if I use the Tri-X. That means I have to "rely" on them following instrutions from the local "drop off lab" to push it.

In the end, I may just load up the C-41 because the "local" 1-hour lab assured me they can push it on-site. So, since I am dealing with them direct, I have a little more confidence they will follow instructions to do so. (Not much - but a little more.)

Given what you seem to be saying, I probably won't push beyond 800 (seems okay if that website pic is accurate about the venue lighting) but that's a decision to be made when I get there.

* BTW, unfortunately, I find that being a "little fish" customer the so-call "pro lab" does a real lousy QC regarding scratches etc. when they handle the developed film!

[BrianShaw]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

* BTW, unfortunately, I find that being a "little fish" customer the so-call "pro lab" does a real lousy QC regarding scratches etc. when they handle the developed film!

Interesting... I, too, am little fish at big (?) pro lab that I use for 120 C-41. They have such high quality control that I always go back even though process and proof takes anywhere from 7 to 15 working days. They say that very few of their customers still use film so they "save it up" until they have enough to process. Monday my wife took two rolls to them and asked when she should come bck for it. The guy shrugged his shoulders. What's funny is that if it takes longer than 2 weeks he will handcarry the finished package to my house.

At another local lab, they'll turn it around in 3 hours. No scratches, but lousy quality proofs. Once when I mentioned it they replied that they were proofs... and what did I really expect. Hmmmmm.

[kaiyen]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

Unfortunately, at present I do not do my own developing so I will be at the mercy of a "pro" lab* if I use the Tri-X. That means I have to "rely" on them following instrutions from the local "drop off lab" to push it.

Ah. That does complicate things quite a bit. Pushing is an art form, in my opinion (not that I'm a specialist). You really need that control. I think shooting TXT might be your best option indeed - it doesn't require any development change for 800, even though I make a slight one anyway.

In the end, I may just load up the C-41 because the "local" 1-hour lab assured me they can push it on-site.

Are you sure they're really pushing it? They are leaving the film in the developer longer?

allan

[ruben]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

...
Unfortunately, at present I do not do my own developing so I will be at the mercy of a "pro" lab* if I use the Tri-X. That means I have to "rely" on them following instrutions from the local "drop off lab" to push it.

My friend, this changes the whole picture of the situation and you should have started the thread with this info. Since you do not know beforehand what you can expect from the lab, and I assume without pushing they should be doing a lousy job to be worsened by 125% in case you push one stop, and worsened 125% x 125% in case you push two stops - then I would stick to any C-41 process and feel lucky if your film is spared from lines.

Perhaps you can smuggle a monopod and use chromogenic black and white rated iso 400, exposed iso 400, and developed c41

Or use any film at any ISO and mail it to me for free of charge processing.

Cheers,
Ruben

[varjag]

If the light is going to be any contrasty, fast films like Neopan, Delta 3200 or TMZ are a better bet. These emusions are formulated for lower-than-normal contrast at their true ISO speed, and since push processing inevitably skyrockets contrast (which is especially noticeable in harsh light) they're better to start with. Again, it is better to have a few extra stops available, especially when you go to unfamiliar place with unknown lighting conditions.

I personally didn't find TMax P3200 grain that atrocious even at higher EIs, see the attached shot (EI 10000, Microphen). YMMV of course.

[kaiyen]

EI 10000, or 1000?

allan

[titrisol]

Since you are ot processing yourself, and not a soul form here has offered to help (I woul dif you were in the NC triangel), I think your SAFEST bet would be to shoot Delta 3200, TMZ or Neopan 1600, and send them to be developed

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by Nick R.

I've recently been using the 800 speed color films by Fuji and Kodak for indoors work. They work very well in places where I'd normally push 400 speed B&W film. I'd recommend it. I've shot tmax3200 at 3200 in a mine with mixed results but at 1250 it's pretty good. Kodak C-41 B&W film is also acceptable at 800speed.

Hi Nick,
Do you have any examples of the 800 speed Fuji or Kodak Color film? I've been curious about those, and would like to see what you're getting. TIA.

[Nick R.]

Originally Posted by RayPA

Hi Nick,
Do you have any examples of the 800 speed Fuji or Kodak Color film? I've been curious about those, and would like to see what you're getting. TIA.

This shot is all I have handy. When I get home I can upload more.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4280015

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by Nick R.

This shot is all I have handy. When I get home I can upload more.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4280015

Thanks, Nick. No rush, at all. Whenever you can get to it.

[ruben]

Originally Posted by titrisol

Since you are ot processing yourself, and not a soul form here has offered to help (I woul dif you were in the NC triangel), I think your SAFEST bet would be to shoot Delta 3200, TMZ or Neopan 1600, and send them to be developed

Excuss me ?!!!



(PS: is my English so bad?)

[titrisol]

With processing I meant.... no one said "come process in my house or so"

no offense intended

Originally Posted by ruben

Excuss me ?!!!



(PS: is my English so bad?)

[Nick R.]

Originally Posted by RayPA

Hi Nick,
Do you have any examples of the 800 speed Fuji or Kodak Color film? I've been curious about those, and would like to see what you're getting. TIA.

Here are three more. All shot with Fuji 800 press. My Kodak 800 shots are not handy at the moment, but I do like them too.
Shot with 50 'lux, 90 CV, and 50 Elmar respectively. The center shot was made with a flash.