Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers
|
Concert Photography, Part III: Filmby Steve Mirarchi |
Home : Learn : Concerts : One Article
The High-Speed Film Dilemma
Concerts and all other kinds of stage shows almost always present high-contrast situations: a few key performers, one of whom is in a daylight-balanced spotlight; other performers in dimmer, tungsten-balanced, colored lights; and the rest of the stage in virtual darkness. If you were to take the time to meter the diffuse shadows and the highlights separately, you'd get a ratio much greater than the 3:1 recommended for color films.
Something has to suffer, and it shouldn't be the performer's facial tones, so out goes your shadow detail. If you use negative film and don't do your own printing, be prepared for some ugly grey shadows unless you tell them it's okay to print on the darker side. If you use slide film, your exposure has to be dead-on, else those all-important facial tones will burn right through.
Further complication: artists don't want to tolerate bright lights in their faces. In only one shooting situation I can remember have I been able to get away with ISO 200; on the flip side, I've only once had to push film to ISO 3200. Most times the light on a given performer will necessitate ISO 400, 800, or some emulsion pushed to 1600.
[Above: Yanni. Yes, Yanni. In, er, development. Fuji NHG-II 800, half-inverted in Photoshop.]
Negs or Slides?
If I had to do it all over again, I'd start by shooting slide film. You'll learn a lot about exposure as long as you watch your meter and pore over your resulting slides, and you'll see how concert images are supposed to look (helpful when printing from negs later on). Because slide film saturates so easily, you can usually spot-meter a facial tone, compensate by increasing exposure a half-stop, and get a nicely-exposed frame. You'll be able to see the results of even small changes in metering technique, as just a half-stop variance will produce a discernibly different slide, and that means you'll find your own preferences when it comes to exposure. Unfortunately, slide film above ISO 200 gets really grainy and contrasty, neither condition of which makes for the best shooting situation (there are a few exceptions; see below). Up until the introduction of films made to be push-processed, pros that shot slides used mostly ISO 200 film pushed a stop. Slide film does not scan very easily, either, which puts it at a disadvantage unless you have a $1,500 film scanner or PhotoCD provider nearby. And remember that slides will show you exactly the color balance of the scene when you shot it: what looked like a soft pink tone to your eye might be rendered a harsh, deeply saturated tungsten red on daylight-balanced slide film.
Negs scan quite well, and if your final output is digital, there's no need to make a print, and that saves you time and money. Because negs have quite a bit of latitude, exposure doesn't have to be so precise; you won't have to worry when the stage lights brighten up suddenly, or when a few tungstens mix in with the spotlight. You also have a much broader arsenal at your disposal: there are some excellent ISO 400 and 800 negative films out there right now, a couple of which perform very well when pushed to 1600. The downside is that negs generally don't saturate as easily. If you base your frame's exposure on a spot-metered facial tone overexposed only a half-stop, you'll find most negative films bland in color and richness. You probably won't be able to tell the difference between two frames exposed a full stop apart, either, because of the film's latitude, which makes negs a bad way to learn about precise exposure. Remember you're going to need a good lab or a good color printer to produce prints, as well, if that's your final output.
So we're back at the question atop this section: negs or slides? It depends on your output. If you're a beginner when it comes to low-light, high contrast shooting situations, I'd go with slides for a while since you'll be able to learn from the results very quickly. If you're shooting a one-time event that has personal meaning to you and in which you can't use flash (son's karate testing, sister's gymnastics demonstration, etc.), go with negs: you won't have to worry about flourescent lighting correction, exact exposure, or choppy grain. If you're producing for a publication, make sure to ask which they prefer or require. If you're thinking Portfolio Time, definitely go with negs, since quality prints from slides cost an arm and a leg. After a while of shooting both kinds of film, you'll come to have your own preferences, which you should trust.
Rating versus Pushing
In my film recommendations below, I tell you what I rate each film at and, if applicable, how I tell the lab to push each film. Rating a film at a certain speed is a technical adjustment: you override the DX setting to set the film speed to something other than its ISO number. Kodak's Vericolor III (VPS) and Fuji Velvia are infamous in this regard. VPS, a standard portrait negative film, is supposed to be ISO 160, but most pros rate it at 100, since at 160 saturation is almost nil. By setting their camera body or handheld meter at a film speed of 100, they overexpose the film 2/3rds of a stop, and since it's processed normally after that, they get the saturation they want. With Velvia slide film it's the opposite: though it's labeled at ISO 50, many pros rate it at 40 or even 32. With slides, overexposure decreases saturation, and since many pros find Velvia too saturated and dark at ISO 50, they rate it slower, and since the lab processes it normally their slides come back less saturated. The process of rating a film is very individual; when trying out a new emulsion, you should experiment with exposure to find which rating works best for you.
Now let's say I'm at a concert and I realize the light is too low for ISO 800 film; I'm wishing I had ISO 1600 film. I'll rate the film at 1600 on my camera and then shoot normally, since my camera is now telling my meter that the film is actually 1600 speed. When I go to a lab to have it processed, I'll tell them to push the film: "push one stop." What they'll do (if they offer the service) is leave the film in the developer a specific, longer period of time, which will mostly compensate for the extra stop of light the film didn't receive. Contrast and grain increase with each stop pushed, but these tradeoffs are barely noticeable with a one-stop push and tolerable with a two-stop push.
Some labs (as well as some pros) will tell you that you don't have to push-process negative films even if you rate them a stop faster, the idea being that a negative film has enough latitude to handle the underexposure, which nonetheless can be mostly corrected during the printing process. The problem is that underexposure is the most difficult error to correct, and since overexposure latitude in negative film is at least twice as forgiving, why risk the grain and desaturation that come with underexposure? Again, this comes down to experimenting with exposure and carefully inspecting your results.
The distinction I find the most helpful when I'm trying to decide between NPH and Portra: do I want more vivid sharpness (Portra) or more smooth tonality (NPH)? Both films offer moderate contrast and very fine grain, which make them very good for concert situations. As might be expected, NPH tends to exaggerate bright colors, while Portra tends to play them down; at the same time, NPH tends to desaturate skin tones, while Portra enriches them.
Economical Alternatives: Kodak Royal Gold 400 / Fuji Superia 400. There's almost always some kind of rebate offer with the Royal Gold films; you can end up with a net price of a couple dollars per roll. That's quite a deal, too: RG400 has a great deal of latitude, saturating nicely even when only spot-metering a skin tone for an overall exposure. Some pros feel the colors are too bland; I haven't run into that problem, but that's most likely because I tend to overexpose (and thus to oversaturate and get rich color).
Left: Peter Murphy of Bauhaus, Royal Gold 400, 1/125 at f/2.0. Facial tone spot-metered and overcompensated by a full stop (because of dark clothing).
Avoid: Kodak Gold, Fuji HG, and the like. These are higher contrast, grainier films that might be fine in bright, outdoor conditions but which will only dramatically overemphasize the high contrast situation a concert presents. If you really must save the fifty cents per roll, prepare for lackluster results.
Fuji did everything right with this film; no other ISO 800 or faster emulsion even comes close. Some pros will even say that NHG-II beats out ISO 400 films in terms of grain structure, saturation, and sharpness. I wouldn't go that far (just print some 16x20's and compare for yourself), but I will say that if your final output is digital or prints up to 5x7, NHG-II is hard to beat.
Reasonable Alternatives: Kodak Portra 800 / Fuji Superia 800 / Kodak PJ 800. Supra 800 competes directly with NHG-II: it, too, offers moderate contrast, tight grain, and full saturation. And like Portra versus NPH, the decision usually comes down to color: do I want to highlight extravagant renditions (Fuji) or to accurately reproduce (Kodak)? Put the two up against each other yourself and see which you'd prefer in certain situations.
Upper left: Days of the New on Kodak PMZ, Portra 800's predecessor. Smooth skin tones, even with heavy tungsten lighting.
Superia 800 is a different story: it's a higher contrast film with a somewhat diminished range of color, at least compared to NHG-II and Portra 800. It and its predecessor, Super G+ 800, still easily beat out consumer ISO 400 films; SG+ 800 was for some time the concert photography film of choice. Excellent grain and sharpness, good results with push-processing, and a rock-bottom price will make Superia 800 the choice of photojournalists until full digital finally takes over.
Upper right: Jeff Pilson of Dokken on Fuji Super G+ 800. 1/90 at f/2.8 with a 50mm prime.
Kodak just released a finer-grained version of PJ 800; look for the "Now Finer Grain" notice on the Pro Pack (and the 800-2 imprint on the emulsion). The grain is now much tighter. Better yet, overall sharpness and dark, defined shadows stick through a stop of push-processing.
Avoid: Kodak Gold Max 800. Kodak tried to make a big deal about the versatility of this film, but I don't think it handles mixed lighting in any special capacity, nor does it seem to have any noticeable underexposure latitude. Talk about grain; I get sharper, smoother results with TMax 3200. If you want Kodak colors and skin tones, go with the much-superior PJ 800.
E200 is the best emulsion Kodak has produced in years--slide film or otherwise. A moderate contrast film to begin with, it performs extremely well when push-processed up to two stops: very tight, fine grain; bright, rich colors; punchy contrast. 
It responds to mixed lighting particularly well, reproducing intermingled tungsten sources without excessive saturation of reds and yellows.
Reasonable Alternatives: Fuji Provia 400 / Fuji MS 100/1000.
If you don't want the hassle and/or expense of push-processing, you're stuck with ISO 400 slide films, none of which I would rely upon during a critical assignment. Kodak's Professional Ektachrome 400X (EPL) offers moderate contrast and good grain, but it's an older emulsion that can't keep pace with the technology found in Fuji Provia 400. The latter, like many Fuji films, has reduced reds and magentas, which to some peoples' eyes makes it look "cold" in daylight conditions; I've found that helpful when shooting in mixed lighting, since the film's color balance helps keep tungsten sources from oversaturating. Provia 400 has very good grain (similar to that of a modern ISO 400 consumer-grade negative film), isn't overly contrasty, and pushes well to ISO 800.
For better results at ISO 400, though, go with Fuji's "multispeed" RMS. It looks very good at ISO 200 (one-stop push), though not as good as E200 at ISO 200. At ISO 400 (a two-stop push) RMS contends strongly with E200 pushed one stop. In terms of grain, saturation, and contrast, RMS pushed two stops would be an ideal choice given daylight-balanced lighting conditions. But in every single case that I've shot RMS in a tungsten condition (mixed with daylight or otherwise) the results have been incredibly disappointing. Unlike E200, which handles mixed lighting sources brilliantly, RMS overly saturates tungsten sources. This shortcoming (one noticed not only by myself) keeps me from relying on RMS in many concert situations.
Avoid: Elite II, Sensia, and the like. Just as negative films have consumer counterparts, these films are higher contrast, grainier emulsions targeted at amateur usage. I've shot them side-by-side with the films listed above, and they always come up very short in comparison.
Demystification note: Rumors abound that EliteChrome II 200 is the same emulsion as E200. Various Kodak officials have assured me this is not the case: similar, yes; same, no. I've shot many rolls of Elite II casually, and in close inspection of it side-by-side with E200 I noticed slightly reduced color saturation and somewhat inconsistent grain, especially when push-processed.
I can't get over this film. If more assignments called for black and white, I'd be shooting this film constantly. Ultra-smooth contrast, wide tonal range, excellent latitude, superfine grain--and all this even when push-processed two stops (I rate it at 1250 in that situation). In 1998 I photographed a prep school's summer session, the indoor shots of which they wanted delivered in black and white. I shot CN, Tri-X 320, and Ilford's XP-2 alternately, always push-processing two stops. The CN blew away the Tri-X and distinctly overshadowed the XP-2 in those conditions; most of my exposures were 1/125 at f/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8 (and, thankfully, with lots of table space on which to stabilize an elbow). I haven't yet shot a whole lot of Ilford's XP-2 Super, but my initial impressions are that while it's a very comparable film, it still doesn't quite measure up to the CN under push-processing.Avoid: TMax 400 and the like. Even if you love TMax films, you have to admit part of the reason is because of the contrast. Unfortunately, that wicked high contrast does not work well in an also-wicked-high contrast concert situation. If you simply have to use traditional black and white instead of chromogenic, try out Ilford's HP5+ 400 or Kodak's Tri-X 320.
Tungsten Slide: Kodak Professional Ektachrome Tungsten 320 (EPJ). Smaller clubs tend to use a bunch of tungsten-balanced lights with the same set of colored gels over them: red, yellow, pink, and purple. Various combinations of these lights make performers look like they're in a traditional spotlight. But shoot that show on daylight slide, and you're in for a surprise: very red and very orange renditions, saturated to the point of blurring details.
Color Negative, 1600: Kodak Ektapress 1600 (PJC). This film has been discontinued, now that Kodak and Fuji are producing more ISO 800 films with wide exposure latitudes. Fuji still makes an ISO 1600 negative film, which if rated at 800 and properly exposed can produce very acceptable images. As a fellow photo.net photographer mentioned to me, this kind of overexposure also allows for greater latitude when color correcting in the printing process; the resulting prints can look better than scans directly from negs, he tells me. I've never tried it myself, but it's worth a shot.
Upper left: Gavin Rossdale of Bush on Kodak PJC. Note the burned highlights in the fretboard and pickguard, despite the fact that I only overcompensated a spot-metered facial tone a full stop. At least we got the detail in his dark shirt; he would have blended into the background otherwise.
What about Agfa this, Konica that, etc.? Avoid. Plain and simple. A. Void. Avoid. Prodigious grain. Monotonous color. Blasting contrast. If you can get satisfactory results out of any Agfa or Konica emulsion, I salute you.
On to Appendix I: Slow-Sync Flash.
Or back to the Concert Photography index.
