B&W Film for Low / Available Light

<p>Hi,<br /> <br /> I have an M3 with Summilux 50/1.4 & Summicron 35/3.5. I would like to learn how to use this camera in low/available light situations. I want to be able to use it at family gatherings and/or evening/nighttime situations.</p>

<p>I'm wondering what the best choice of film speed is for those situations. I know there's Ilford Delta 3200 as well as their other speeds plus the Kodak options.<br /> <br /> So, what I'm wondering is, given the available film speeds, should I go with Delta 3200 and shoot at 3200, 800 or 1600? Or maybe Ilford HP5 at 800? Or maybe push one of the Kodak films"</p>

<p>My goal is to find a film & speed the will give me useable photos. From there I can tweak.</p>

<p>What do others do to be able to use an M3 or similar camera in the situations I describe above.?</p>

<p>I don't have a flash for the M3.</p>

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi John - you should really try several film and development options to see which best suits you - that is the only way you will really master the medium. Shooting hi ISO (or films pushed to high ISOs) films is a lot of fun, but don't expect miracles. Some of the films give pretty high contrast but muck up the shadows with normal developers. For years I shot Tri-X pushed from 800-1600, really didn't like the granularity (I used D76) , but got a lot of good shots. I also used a bunch of high ISO films (never tried Delta 3200, even though I've got some in the freezer) with varying results in low light situations. I've seen some interesting results of high ISO shots on a variety of films semi-stand developed in Rodinal 1+100, and intend to try it out later in the year....the negatives seem to have good shadow detail for scanning with some post processing to adjust contrast, but not so good for wet darkroom printing. I mention this, because you didn't say what you intend to do with the negatives...scan them for online or personal use, or wet print them. If you're looking for "normal" results, I'd encourage you to try some Illford XP2 and get an old flash unit (something like a Vivitar 2800), bounce it and have a blast. (I've got a working spare one I'd sell you for $8 + postage send me an e-mail if interested) </p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Thanks Steve,</p>

<p>I'll be scanning at this time. I don't have a darkroom so wet-printing is not an option.</p>

<p>My goal is to use the M3 as much as possible. I really want to learn this camera. I'm mainly interested in finding a film that will at least give me the exposure, after that I'd like to select for a film that will give me the best detail or contrast.</p>

<p>I want to experiment shooting at ISO's lower than 3200 or 1600, but I think that leaves me either pushing ISO 400 film or pulling ISO 3200 film.</p>

<p>Not sure what the best approach is. Maybe I'm way off base.</p>

<p>Thanks, John</p>

 

Hi John,

 

You really cannot go wrong with either Kodak Tri-x or Ilford HP5+ for what you are looking for. They both can be used with excellent

results beween 200 and 1600 iso with no problems at all. I have settled on tri-x myself because it is a little less expensive in my part of

the world, but would be just as happy to standardize on HP5+.

 

I use HC-110 as my one and only developer and it can be used for the whole iso range with great results,

 

Douwe

<p>You should not expect too much from "pushing" with normal developers by extending the developing time. This yields higher film speed but also increases contrast and grain, and sometimes the results will be hardly usable even when making prints with low-contrast paper. <br>

Many years back I had good results with HP5 developped with a german two-part developer from Tetenal called Emofin. This stuff does some kind of contrast compensation (since developing the bright parts will be stopped in the second bath as soon as the first part "stored" in the film is consumed and developing the shadows will continue since less of the first part is consumed in these areas) and yields acceptable grain. Developing FP4 at 800ASA with this stuff yielded finer grain than some of the "nominal speed" developers. </p>

If you can get hold of Diafine then you could happily rate Tri-X at ISO 1250 -> 1600.

<p>I developed HP4 or Tri-X in Promicrol or Microphen, rating at ASA 640, and got reasonable results provided that I did not over-develop. Whatever your film speed, with an M3 you'll need an accurate incident light meter.</p>

<p>Back at you John - I've been using Leica M bodies and lenses since 1969, and they can certainly deliver, given the proper technique for what you want to achieve. If you have a reliable meter, just check out several representative scenes using apertures of f/2 & f/4 to see what sort of shutter speeds you get at various ISOs. If you find that your shutter speeds for a given ISO are below 1/30....I can almost guarantee you will get some sort of blurring in your exposure, either from motion of the subject or just due to blood surging thru your body. So, look to the next higher ISO film to help you achieve your goal. Since you don't have darkroom facilities, I'd suggest a chromogenic film you can get developed and scanned at a drugstore or your local Costco or Walmart (I like XP2 but there are lots of others). If you don't have a meter, use something like this as a guide to get you started: http://kusner.com/download/MVLibrary/JiffyCalculator.pdf .</p>

Tri-X and Diafine has the added bonus that Diafine is an easy developer to use (if you develop the film

yourself), and the chemicals stay good a long time.

 

I use a Sekonic L-308S incident meter... Better and more consistently dead on exposures than gauging by

eye with Sunny 16 in my opinion.

<p>"I want to be able to use it at family gatherings and/or evening/nighttime situations."</p>

<p>I think you'll find Tri-X or HP-5 pushed modestly to 800 will serve most of your needs without the hassle of carrying another film type around. You're really just using the latitude of the film (in these cases quite considerable) and using the developing time to modify contrast. The results this combination gives usually outperform higher speed films anyway, unless you really want to go over ISO 1,250. So suggest you try this combination out until you run up against its limitations. Then you might try stepping out.</p>

 

<p>If you must have a higher speed film, Delta 3200 isn't bad. It's way better than the old 2475 Recording from back in the day..</p><div></div>

<p>'</p><div></div>

<p>John:</p>

<p>I have had great luck with Delta 3200 shot at both 3200 and 1600. </p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>Of the commonly available films Delta 3200 has the fastest true speed (in terms of least measurable density over base and fog), of around 1600. TMZ was slightly slower - closer to 1200 - but very different in characteristic looks. A friend and excellent photographer shot the same local theater as I have. She used TMZ, I used Delta 3200. My photos may have shown slightly more true shadow detail but with much more pronounced fluffy popcorn grain, and the overall effect had less impact than hers. TMZ had punchy contrast but was still resistant to blocked up highlights in high contrast scenes.</p>

<p>But ultra fast films like Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200 are tricky. They don't do well in ordinary storage, are vulnerable to heat and cosmic rays, etc. And the latent image seems less stable than with slower films if there's a significant delay between exposure and development. (For what it's worth, Ilford Pan F+, nominally an ISO 50 film, also seems to fare poorly when development is delayed after exposure.)</p>

<p>However, I found T-Max 400 (TMY) pushed to 1200-1600 in Microphen produced results nearly equal to TMZ and I didn't have to worry about storage, heat, etc. TMY at 1600 in Microphen is among my all time favorites and I'll sadly miss that film if it vanishes.</p>

<p>Tri-X at EI 1200 or so in Diafine is good but limited. It's best in normal to high contrast scenarios. In lower contrast lighting (overcast sky), or with similar toned subject matter (think: portrait with subject sitting on grass while leaning against weathered wooden fence), the look is murky. Sometimes that murky look works well aesthetically. Other times it's just blah and unappealing, with little differentiation in contrast.</p>

<p>I don't "push" b&w film much anymore for one main reason: I only develop film once or twice a year. I no longer have dedicated darkroom space or time to set up and take down the gear very often. And I prefer optical enlargements over scanning. If I can't print with the enlarger I don't bother at all.</p>

<p>"Pushed" film is really just underexposure with compensatory extended development. Underexposed film has a less stable latent image and must be developed promptly, preferably within a week of exposure, or any hope of low midrange detail is lost. I've tested this a few times and the result was usually disappointing - just the cliched soot and chalk. Occasionally it worked for some images.</p>

<p>Nowadays I usually expose at the box speed or give it more exposure. I want to be sure the latent image will be there when I finally get around to developing and printing. If you're familiar with Vivian Maier's work, it appears that she avoided underexposure. Otherwise those long-neglected rolls found after her death would not have scanned/printed so well with apparently normal full tonal range.</p>

<p>And I now shoot digital where I formerly used ultra fast or pushed film. The results are as good or better. But I still love b&w film for more conventionally exposed situations.</p>

Here are some examples shot with Tri-X, developed in Diafine.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Same combo again but in sunlight with 21mm Zeiss Biogon lens (contrasty lens)<div></div>

<p>JOHN: summaron 3.5 or summicron 2?<br>

I find that Kodak C400N generates better results with low light than XP2; judging its orange-brown negatives on the other hand is a real pain.<br>

Not clear which version summicron 50 you are using. From my limited knowledge the lens type plays an essential role in low light (late light; dark overcast weather) photography. I wonder what Frederick's pics would look like with an aspherical 50 or an older Rigid/DR summicron...<br>

</p>

My two cents, based on what I have

seen: T-Max 400 gives better results at

EI 3200 than either of the ISO 3200

films. And you don't need to push

process (it's negative film, after all).

<p>John:</p>

<p>For years I had great luck with Delta 3200 at ISO 3200 . I have always preferred Ilford HP 5 pushed to 800 over Tri X.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>To Jean-Marie Dederen:</p>

<p>I have the Summilux 50/1.4 & <em>Summaron</em> 35/3.5. Sorry for the typo.</p>

<p>The answer is really to meter typical situations. ISO 400 will need about 1/60 @ f2.8 in normal room lighting, which of course gives you 2 stops to play with with your Summilux. If this is not adequate, go for Delta 3200 rated at 1250 or so. Push processing can be problematic with low-level but high-contrast lighting situations.</p>

Just wanted to add that the Tri-X of today is very different from the Tri-X I pushed to 1200 in 1975. Obviously no-one is

pushing the technology of film much anymore but the modern Tri-X is a reformulated film and a great film and I suspect it

pushes better now than it used to.

<p>Hi John!<br>

If you like lots of (beautiful) grain: TMZ at 1600 in Xtol 1+3<br>

If you like 'a bit' of grain: Tri-X at 1600 in 1+3 Xtol.<br>

If you don't like grain, or want to add it electronically: TMY at 1600 in 1+1 Xtol.<br>

The negative strips from Xtol show comparatively 'low' contrast (only Emofin at 800 will be give you flatter negatives). Definately scanable with a maxD3.6 or up scanner.<br>

TMY scans brilliantly, Tri-X very well, too. TMZ: cannot recall scanning it, sorry!<br>

Do yourself a favor and work with an incident meter, do believe its low readings..., and expect to use the 1.4/50 as your handheld mainstay, the Summaron for f8 static/overview shots from a mono/tripod.<br>

Ok, second thought, why not experimenting with using S'ron (and 'lux) handheld down to 1/2s?! Especially with the inexpensive TMY and Tri-X.<br>

Good luck and have fun!<br>

Pete</p>