TMY-2, Tri-X or TMZ for 3200 iso and some related questions

Hey,

For a drawing project I want to shoot some macro images of parts of the face (eye, nose, ear, etc...) that will serve as references for the drawings/collages.

I'm shooting with a Nikon F80 and Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO macro super lens. I was wondering what film would be best to use at 3200 ISO. I have the option of TMY-2, Tri-X 400 or TMZ (all of them are expired but they have always been in the fridge).

I shoot the images in a darkened room with a desk lamp illuminating the different parts of the face. What I am looking for are images that have alot of depth/volume and tonal range for them to be interesting to draw. (The macro detail of a part of the face itself is not very interesting, so I'm hoping to create more interest with the lighting.) Do any of you have suggestions concerning lighting that might achieve this? I also plan on shooting some images outdoors at the golden hour.

Some examples of the direction I want to take the photographs:

Interesting lighting, but a bit too much contrast. I would like to have more difference in the tonal range.

Another thing I noticed when shooting on the macro setting with this lens is that spot metering doesn't seem to be very accurate. The measuring stays the same wether I aim at a lit part or wether I point it at something in shadow. I don't know if this is because of the lens (macro setting) or ... ? I have the camera on a tripod so I haven't thoroughly examined this. Maybe someone with experience can tell me how to make accurate measurements.

The films will be sent to a lab for development. I asked my store what developer they use but he didn't know.

So to recap:

1) What film would you recommend?

2) Suggestions concerning lighting.

3) Spot metering with Sigma 70-300mm (on macro setting).

Thanks in advance!

A.

Funny how little people nowadays know about the real world high ISO options of film, nor have realistic expectations of what is possible with with

While the IQ at ISO 3200 is quite acceptable and and good IQ at that level is attainable with a high end digital camera, with film it's a whole different story

To begin with, don't know what lab you're planning to send your film to, but for this type of work the standard lab on the corner of the street or at your drugstore won't do

You'l have to send it to a 'black and white film only' specialized one

And of course push processing any of the three films mentioned to 3200 ISO will demand special processing, and of consequently cost a substantially more

then 'just' standard development

In my film shooting days push processing would cost 100% per stop, so eg Tri-X - standard ISO 400 - at ISO 3200 would mean 3 stops extra, is 4 times the standard development costs (and no TMZ 3200 isnt standard ISO 3200 and needs special developemnt to be used at that level too)

But more importantly, it can without a doubt can already be said that with neither of the three films mentioned a similar IQ can be achieved at ISO 3200 as

in the images shown, not as far as grain is concerned, nor sharpness, not variety of b/w/graytone

Have been a long time Tri-X user (well over 30 years) in my film shooting days, and based on that real world experience (as opposed to reading what the flyer with the film claims that supposedly is possible) dare say that unless you use very, very specialized developers, ( which as a rule most labs don't, apart from the question whether any of those developers are still available), ISO 800 realistically is the best you can get with it before IQ and grain start to deteriorate

Going towards IS) 1600 the grain will become probably way too much for modern days viewers who already start complaining when they see ANY grain in their digital files

And ISO 3200 simply is a no go area no go with Tri X, unless you can live with extreme grain and consequently unsharpness, similar to what happens when shooting a digital camera way past its stated max ISO ceiling (eg a Nikon D3 at ISO 25600)

TMY is a similar story, great between ISO 100 and 400, still pretty good at ISO 800, but above that grain and IQ will take a hit too

TMZ is very grainy to begin with. While ISO 3200 theoretically is possible, grain will show even at ISO 400, and rapidly become excessive and image IQ will severely suffer going higher

Personally I used TMZ exactly for that reason (see enclosed image), developed in Rodinal would give 'pebble sized' grain. But back in the 80's there was room and appreciation for such 'creative' very coarse grain)

I would start to look for a different, much faster lens

A 4.5-5.6/70-300 is nice for shooting digital on a sunny day, but an unrealistic option to use with low level 'lighting'

(and that includes the 'golden hour', I shoot fashion on the beach at that time of day regularly)

Given that for the three images shown in each picture a different lighting was used, no sensible suggestion can be given for that either.

You will first have to decide yourself what look you want the pictures to have befor any advise can be given what lighting set up to use

In short, re adjust your expectations on what you think you can achieve with film as far as high ISO use is concerned, get a better - faster - lens to shoot the job, and

decide/determine more clearly what you want your picture to look like, right now you are giving three different examples

Hello Paul,

I might not have been very clear in formulating what it is that I want, but what I'm asking is a suggestion(s) of a lighting set-up taking in consideration the materials I have(film, lens, camera, lamps (you commonly find in the house(desklamps,...) or outdoor circumstances) that will produce something workable (the reason why I included some examples,was to give an idea of what I mean with "workable"). Hope that's not too unreasonable of a request..

Cheers,

A.

Hello Paul,

 

I might not have been very clear in formulating what it is that I want, but what I'm asking is a suggestion(s) of a lighting set-up taking in consideration the materials I have(film, lens, camera, lamps (you commonly find in the house(desklamps,...) or outdoor circumstances) that will produce something workable (the reason why I included some examples,was to give an idea of what I mean with "workable"). Hope that's not too unreasonable of a request..

 

Cheers,

A.

Well, you did post to the "Film and processing" forum, and mentioned EI 3200.

I believe that there is a forum related to lighting, but I don't commonly read it.

Good results at EI 3200 are not so easy, so there is much to discuss there.

Traditionally, Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1600 was popular, and might still be.

Also, you should either do the developing yourself, or have someone else do it.

No darkroom is needed, but a place with a sink nearby helps. I started darkroom photography

in the bathroom at home when I was about 10 years old.

You need a little more room and equipment for printing, but now it is more usual

to scan the film and print from the digital scanned image.

Just going to say that even with TMX, I think it's going to be difficult to get images like that in 35mm.

If I wanted images that "clean" on film, I'd be looking at MF as a minimum and TMX for the ultimate resolution. I'd defer to FP4+ or even Pan F if I wanted to cut contrast, though-FP4+ has the contrast advantage, while Pan F is a bit more cantankerous in that department but at least is competitive with TMX(or Delta 100) in terms of grain.

I'm not a big fan of TMX in general as I find it difficult to get the overall "look" I like. It's too sterile to make me overlook its high contrast for the overall "look" like I do with Tri-X. I like my results from FP4+ and Plus-X 100x better than TMX...

Why even print them? Just have the negs scanned and use your laptop, tablet or phone to go by? I assume you're not going to be copying the look exactly, just using the images as a starting place for your drawings. There really wouldn't be any sense in making copies, you would be better off displaying the photos themselves.You can make an image look like you want it to in an imaging program.

I'm not sure how big your drawings will be, but if you just need a way to scale things up large there are instructions on using a smart phone as a projector to make large images on the wall that you can trace. I do that all the time w/ my drawings. First, make a black marker line drawing on anything clear (even an old sandwich baggie) in a small size, then project that image's outlines onto my canvas to paint. Saves a lot of time.

Well, you did post to the "Film and processing" forum, and mentioned EI 3200.

 

I believe that there is a forum related to lighting, but I don't commonly read it.

 

Good results at EI 3200 are not so easy, so there is much to discuss there.

 

Traditionally, Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1600 was popular, and might still be.

 

Also, you should either do the developing yourself, or have someone else do it.

No darkroom is needed, but a place with a sink nearby helps. I started darkroom photography

in the bathroom at home when I was about 10 years old.

 

You need a little more room and equipment for printing, but now it is more usual

to scan the film and print from the digital scanned image.

You are right, I did start by mentioning IE 3200 in my enthusiasm but is in no way a must for me...I will have a look at the lighting section, thanks for that.

I have developed my own film and have a sink I could use but the only issue is that there are seperate taps for warm and cold water so that might be a problem maintaining a stable temperature for rinsing...I also don't have any chemicals right now and for the amount of photowork I do I don't know if it's justified investing in all that if I'm only going to use it for a couple rolls...I agree though that that would be better.

I'm planning on scanning the negatives.

Seems that there is one called "Lighting Equipment". That should also include how to use such equipment.

Personally, I often read this one as, even though I am a lot older now, and don't do it all that often,

I still find fun in darkroom work. I mostly read this one, and "Black and White".

I have done color darkroom work, but the fun doesn't increase proportional to the amount of work,

even without the cost difference.

In the summer here, the cold tap is pretty close to 68F. I usually add a tiny bit of hot, though.

I have done color darkroom work, but the fun doesn't increase proportional to the amount of work,

even without the cost difference.

If I had a local or even semi-local lab that would do sheet film, I'd not touch color.

Since shipping sheet film is a pain, I grit my teeth and do it. Still, it's a royal pain. BTW, I do E-6-I've never done C-41. Generally I wait until I have enough sheet film to make it worthwhile, and fill out the rest of my chemistry capacity with 120.

I leave all my 35mm and most of my 120 to commercial processing.

When I was young, my father had the book "Anscochrome and Ektachrome Processing at Home"

Anscochrome Ektachrome Home Processing - Robert Bagby Inscribed to Kodaker D129 | eBay

(The book is slightly older than I am. As far as I know, he never did any of it.)

I was in college when E6 films came out, and the Unicolor kits were available.

I used two kits, for 16 rolls, during my college years.

I now have a C41 kit, which I will use for film that commercial processors won't do.

I have some rolls of C116 and some C110. Nearby labs won't do those.

They might do C126 if they figure out that the film is 35mm, maybe after loading

it into a 35mm cartridge.

Why even print them? Just have the negs scanned and use your laptop, tablet or phone to go by? I assume you're not going to be copying the look exactly, just using the images as a starting place for your drawings. There really wouldn't be any sense in making copies, you would be better off displaying the photos themselves.You can make an image look like you want it to in an imaging program.

 

I'm not sure how big your drawings will be, but if you just need a way to scale things up large there are instructions on using a smart phone as a projector to make large images on the wall that you can trace. I do that all the time w/ my drawings. First, make a black marker line drawing on anything clear (even an old sandwich baggie) in a small size, then project that image's outlines onto my canvas to paint. Saves a lot of time.

Exactly..they are references for making monotypes & drawings.

That's an interesting tip for scaling up a drawing, that might come in handy, thanks!

The brightness of a lamp has no bearing on the 'quality' of light you get from it, so I suggest you fit at least 150 watt equivalent LED or CFL bulbs into your luminaire. LED for preference.

A 150 watt (tungsten equivalent) lamp close to the subject should give more than enough light for handheld exposures at a reasonable ISO speed. However, a hot (incandescent) light close to someone's face is going to be very uncomfortable. LED or CFL is the way to go.

The lighting in those examples is certainly hard and directional enough to be emulated by a single bulb in an open reflector. Although the shadows in the baby shot are quite light, and would need the addition of a soft fill light or reflector.

As others have said, you won't get anywhere near to a true 3200 ISO out of any of those films. Being able to 'push' films beyond their box speed is a persistent myth. All that extended development does is increase the contrast of the negatives. So 'good tonality' and high ISO speeds just can't be had together.

I'm really wondering why you want to insist on using film for this project. Almost any digital camera made in the last few years, or even a phone camera, will trounce 35mm film for ISO speed and image quality. And prints can just as easily be made from digital files as from film.

Incidentally, PNET rules state that you shouldn't post pictures here that aren't your own or that you don't have the copyright to. And in any case, I doubt that any of those examples were shot on 35mm film at 3200 ISO - if they were shot on film at all.

"What I am looking for are images that have a lot of depth/volume..."

- Sorry, but those are meaningless words when applied to a 2 dimensional image. Do you mean 'give the illusion of three-dimensionality'?

Hey Joe,

Thanks for those tips on lighting! That will help alot! I will try with a 150 watt equivalent LED. I was wondering if I can use a piece of styrofoam (or a whiteboard) as reflector?

The reason why "it has to be" film is because my macro lens only fits on my analogue F80 (or so I suspect).. I have an olympus E-300 digital camera (which is quite old too) but I doubt that Sigma lens will fit on it? That is the reason why...(I do have a Samsung Galaxy A5 smartphone, but haven't investigated how to shoot macro with it..)

yes, that's what I mean indeed.

Edit: I would remove the photo with the watermark, but I can't edit the original post...

hm, I took a look at my lamp and it seems to be an armature for halogen plug lamps...I guess I can't use LED's with that type of lamp...

Seems like I'll have to invest in a lamp after all. Could you recommend a budgetfriendly lamp (but not flimsy) for what I'm trying to do?

GU10 style LED lamps only seem to be available up to around 25 watts equivalent (5 W actual). Although visually quite bright, I don't think they'll give enough light for what you want to do. There are cheap clip-on style luminaires available with an ES or bayonet fitting that'll easily take a 30 Watt CFL or 20 W LED lamp. They're generally only rated for a 60 or 100 W lamp, but that's a tungsten filament type. The lower current and heat output of LEDs and CFLs would still be well within their rating.

Of course a proper photo-lamp with 7 or 9 inch polished or satin aluminium reflector would be better, but would definitely cost more.

Anything remotely white can be used as a reflector - white card, paper, a T-shirt, polystyrene pizza packing - anything.

WRT your 'macro' lens, which isn't a true macro, just close-focusing: The Nikon mount is still current on all their digital SLRs. If you pick up an old D80 or similar camera, your lens will fit. Unless you're really lucky, it won't be free, naturally, but OTOH it won't cost a fortune either. Nor will film be cost-free, since you'll either have to invest in a processing tank and chemicals, or pay to have the film hand processed if you really want it 'pushed'.

Then there's the scanning, for which you'll have to pay extra; only to end up with a digital file that you could have got directly from a digital camera. With much less fuss and long-term cost.

I really don't recommend pushed film for what you're trying to achieve. It won't capture subtle flesh tones at all well, and certainly won't give you the 'rounded' look you're after. The effect will be more like a charcoal drawing made on sandpaper!

I'll bite the bullet and agree that digital is probably the best choice here, especially if you really want it to look as "clean" as the examples you posted.

As Joe said, an older inexpensive Nikon DSLR will probably fill the bill nicely. Without knowing a huge amount amount about that particular lens, I'd suggest sticking to one that supports screwdriver focusing lenses(AF-Nikkor), which offhand in the consumer realm would be the D100, D70(s), D80, D90, D200, D300(s), and D7x00 series. I paid $50 for my really nice, barely used D100 and I suspect it or a D70 would work perfectly for you.

Some of those cameras also work with AI lenses, and some not.

The ever popular micro-Nikkor lenses, such as the AI 55/2.8, are not so cheap as many other lenses, but you can find them.

There are also the micro-Nikkor AF lenses, too.

Thanks all for the advice! I'll read through your posts more thoroughly tomorrow..(i'm pretty tired right now.)

I like the idea of buying an older nikon digital camera so I can use my other nikon lenses(2) with it.

My favorite nearby used camera store has a D300 for $179, a D300 with only 7450 shots for $349,

D700 with 3800 shots for $499, and D7100 for $449.

All of those should be fine for your project, and also work with your lenses.

Hey Joe,

Thanks for your advice on lighting, camera and film vs digital! I will be looking for a second hand digital nikon camera.

I have another questions regarding your comment if you don't mind..:

Of course a proper photo-lamp with 7 or 9 inch polished or satin aluminium reflector would be better, but would definitely cost more.

Could you maybe recommend a brand or model type? I am still debating on wether to buy one but it will most likely depend on the price...

...single bulb in an open reflector. Although the shadows in the baby shot are quite light, and would need the addition of a soft fill light or reflector...

What exactly do you mean by a "single bulb in an open reflector" (sorry, new to lighting). Could you maybe link to such a lamp?