Jump to content

Films for surveillance


varjag

Recommended Posts

I seek an advice from experienced membership of this forum on choosing

an appropriate film and processing technique for surveillance-type

photography in low light. The setting is likely to be a night street

poorly lit with mercury vapor lamps.

 

I typically shoot there with Tri-X pushed to 1600 at 1/50 f/2, however

it'd be nice to have some stops spare for DOF or faster shutter.

Obviously shadow detail is going to suffer at such ratings, but the

main concern is capturing identifiable (causasian skin) faces and

distinguishable bodies.

 

TMZ or Delta 3200 sounds right for the job, but not having used any of

them before I'd like your opinions on which of them is likely to

perform better at EI of 3200 to 6400, in terms of amount of detail

lost and severity of grain (with according impact on effective

resolution). My main developer is Microphen, but as I have a formulary

kit at hand more exoctic options can be considered.

 

The other idea is to use pushed SFX 200 (without filters): the

extended red sensitivity in artificial light may favorably compensate

for slower speed, and it also can enable use of IR flashgun or

spotlight. How hard can the film be pushed, if anyone ever done that?

I've read Ilford's datasheet on SP816T traffic surveillance film, and

there is a mention of EI 3200, but how different is that film from SFX

200? Would there be any practical advantage over pushing conventional

400 ISO films?

 

I've also read that peroxide vapor treatment can improve effective

speed a stop or two with certain emulsions. How well 3200 films and

SFX would respond to this method?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eugene, shooting in low light (or, in my case, fast shutter speeds for night auto races) requires an end-to-end analysis, from the lighting to the lens to the film.

 

Let's start in the middle with the glass: You mention that that you're shooting at f/2.0: Can you get glass with a larger aperture at the focal length you need (within a reasonable cost, that is)? Have you tried a VR (Nikon vibration reduction) or IS (Canon image stabilization) lens to get a slower shutter speed if you have to hand-hold; or some sort of camera mount/tripod to hold the lens steady for slower shutter speeds?

 

Using an IR filter over a light source is good, except for xenon strobes, since they have little output in the near IR portion of the spectrum to begin with. Instead, hidden night video surveillance cameras use either a bank of IR LED's, either in a ring around the lens or as a separate unit; while higher powered ones use a quartz bulb and IR filter. Since you need portability, a broadcast camcorder light provides a ready-made battery-powered solution.

 

Cheers! Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long time ago, in a universe far, far away, I did this sort of work for a living. ISO 3200 film is appropriate if you are using film. If you are serious about the work, then a digital SLR that has ISO 3200 capability is ideal. The 1.5 magnification factor of my Pentax *ist DS produces long lens focal lengths, with fast aperture settings. Forget the zooms, due to lens speed and image quality. You aren't concerned about good composition -- you simply want identifiable images. You can manage color correction either during or after exposure.

 

This is if you are serious. If you are doing this as a hobby, then the same guidelines apply. The low light limitations will produce an authentic look in your photographs<div>00FMYn-28363084.jpg.9afb25f1ae3728cf31e478e8b27b9466.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, about the equipment: I use a rangefinder kit and had in mind using a 85/2 (the fastest 85 in this system). I have 50/1.8 too, and 50/1.5 can be found if necessary, but they may be a tad too short. I can handhold the normal lens down to 1/10 of a second with ~70% chance of success, and the 85 at 1/25 with about the same luck. However it'd be of no help to shoot action and moving people.

 

I can't invest in a DSLR with fast primes just for this case, and would rather not risking a possible damage of a borrowed/rented kit. So, how far can I get with film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most all cities have at least one camera store that has rentals. Also, if you need faster glass, the Nikkor f/1.2 50mm is quite good, as is the 55mm (which I own); and is available used on eBay for about $300.

 

I don't use my 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor often: Contact me off-list if you want to rent it with a good Nikon body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of experience shooting handheld in available light of nighttime theatrical performances, concerts, street scenes and more family documentary stuff than I can keep up with (tens of thousands of frames of the latter). For the past year I've been doing more of this with a dSLR so I'll include some references to that, altho' I'd prefer to stay on topic as this is the b&w forum.

 

First of all, for b&w films, I'll hype my two favorite developers for most available light photography: Diafine and Microphen.

 

Diafine is a more limited developer but convenient and useful with a narrow selection of films. It also provides a unique look. It controls contrast better than any other developer I've tried, making it ideal for shooting Tri-X in extremely contrasty light, whether daylight, artificial light or even moonlight. Despite the "fine" in the name it is not a fine grain developer, altho' the grain characteristics are not objectionable to me.

 

Microphen has broader application and provides a more conventional look. It also controls contrast very well but without the risk of flat negatives, which can sometimes occur with Diafine. Grain is slightly enhanced but not enough to matter. In fact, Microphen is now my developer of choice for normally exposed T-Max 100 (at 100) because it preserves the ultra fine grain characteristic. It provides a true speed increase of up to 25% on most films I've experimented with. This coincides with an Ilford test which concluded that the true speed of HP5+ in Microphen is 500. What makes it so effective as a push processing developer is the midtone gradation - faces remain recognizable with preserved nuances in film pushed beyond reasonable limits, such as T-Max 400 at 6400. There are samples in my photo.net folders ( http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=318832 ). For best results I prefer Microphen undiluted as stock solution, which I reuse 10 times for a single liter. However it's still very good at 1+1 if you prefer the convenience and consistency of one shot use. Do not waste time with it at 1+3. Microphen quickly loses its strengths when so diluted. Grain is exaggerated, the speed enhancing characteristic is lost and the results are no better than D-76/ID-11, which are mediocre developers for pushing film.

 

Delta 3200 is the most light sensitive film currently available to consumers. Its true speed is closer to 1200-1600 but there's little loss of shadow detail at 3200. Lower midtones and midtones are still very good at 6400 so faces are easily recognizable. Delta 3200 resists becoming contrasty with pushing, so it's nearly ideal for low light photography. I haven't tried it yet beyond 6400 but expect it would work very well if the main goal is to capture recognizable faces.

 

Its main drawback is large, fluffy grain - popcorn grain. However, while it's not aesthetically pleasing for certain artistic applications, it's not bad enough to interfere with resolution of most detail.

 

Delta 3200 is excellent at 1600 with Diafine. Beyond 1600 I prefer Microphen. Again, Microphen is best used as undiluted stock solution, tho' it's also good at 1+1.

 

I have very little experience with T-Max 3200 (TMZ) because I've been satisfied with Delta 3200. However I've been able to compare results with a colleague who has taken photos of the same events in the same lighting. TMZ has less true speed but finer grain and really nice tonality. If I didn't need the higher effective speed of Delta 3200 I'd be happy with TMZ.

 

I often use Tri-X (400) and TMY pushed to 1600 for theatre photography because I prefer the tonality to Delta 3200. TMY in particular has a unique tonality that I like for theatre photography. Skin tone gradation is excellent for all skin, light and dark, and it has slightly tighter, sharper, finer grain than Tri-X pushed to 1600, which helps in resolution of fine detail. I've found it a bit easier with TMY to dig out detail through selective dodging and burning along with use of magenta and yellow filtration on a single print during conventional printing.

 

To sum up, here are my favorites:

 

1. For lighting which might range from sunlight to artificial light at night on a single roll, Tri-X at 1200-1250 in Diafine.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=304508

 

2. For dim available light in lighting that's not too contrasty where 1600 is enough, T-Max 400 (TMY) at 1600 in Microphen stock solution.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=304490

 

3. For a change of pace, especially in extremely contrasty light, Delta 3200 at 1600 in Diafine.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=324155

 

4. For most situations where I need to shoot at or beyond 3200, Delta 3200 in Microphen. (I don't have any of these in a photo.net folder at the moment.)

 

Okay, a few comments on digital...

 

My Nikon D2H works extremely well in very dim lighting. If I can see the subject, it can autofocus. And the viewfinder is bright enough to enable manual focusing when necessary, since it's fully compatible with my manual focus Nikkors. So it can be a useful tool when quicker turnaround is needed. Locally I can no longer get one-day turnaround on color work from pro labs so there are occasions when I have no other choice but to use digital. I'm not fast in the darkroom on b&w stuff either.

 

However the D2H has been faulted for noise at high ISO settings. To me, it's irrelevant. At 1600 and beyond the color photos are better than any color film I've tried. When converted to monochrome the results are virtually identical to Delta 3200. Tonality, grain, everything. For me, it's a comfortable look. There are dSLRs with better noise performance at higher ISOs, but not enough to make me switch. The trick to getting good results at high ISO settings is careful use of noise reduction software.

 

The same trick can be applied to film. Scanning very thin negatives, which is often the problem with pushing, can produce top notch results more easily than conventional printing. It's easier to wring out what little shadow detail has been captured in thin negs via scanning. And grain can be reduced somewhat with careful application of Noise Ninja or similar software.

 

Hope this helps. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the suggestions here, special thanks to Lex for his very thorough and detailed advice.

 

I decided to go with the equipment I have, and Delta 3200 at EI 6400 in stock Microphen. Unfortunately here in Minsk the selection of films is quite narrow, so stuff like 3200 films or SFX has to be ordered from Moscow.. at least now I made up my mind on what to order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Privet my friend,

 

You don't say what you are doing with ths 'kit', but one can only surmise, given the gist of past posts and a present folder.

 

Be very careful (and I hope you already have been).

 

Be well.

 

And be lucky.

 

Sometimes luck can be more important than anything else, so don't forget that, but sometimes also we make our own luck. Remember the advice on how to make your 'kit' seem unattractive to those who would 'smash' it -- the tape and other things to make even a new camera look like it's old and decayed, while at the same time even helping give it better gripping surfaces.

 

I'll be nearby again (third time in recent months) in a short time -- maybe one month or less and again a month after that. So if you're in a neighboring country beginning with a 'U', I'd love to make your personal acquaintance. (I won't be visiting your country -- a little too stuck in the Cold War past for me, and I'm afraid somebody'd try to smash my expensive cameras or arrest me just for 'being me', confusing me for somebody who 'means something' rather than the tourist I am.

 

I don't take sides in disputes -- we have enough of those in the U.S. at present with our own totalitarian-leaning president, and threats to our civil liberties that are pretty harrowing -- worst since McCarthy's time, so we must keep on our toes until the Democrats get a chance in the next election coming up to set things 'right' (left actually).

 

But there are computer-connected voting machines installed by a company controlled by a right-wing zealot and the possibility of mass vote-switching ex post facto, with no controls and no way of catching the 'hacker(s)' save their own confessions, and anything can happen, and there also is the threat this country will declare war on Iran, and that our less mentally gifted citizens will 'rally 'round the flag' when that happens (it seems a strong likelihood -- a Karl Rove kind of thing - declare war to get votes.

 

As you can see, there are some similarities between our two countries that are unwitting.

 

I'm so unhappy that is so.

 

Keep in touch.

 

John ©

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...