Advice required on film to use for a large interior space

Good day, good people,

 

I hope someone can help. I am a irregular medium format user, and I use my P67 with Fuji Provia 100F for outside photos; landscape, historic monuments etc - the kind of things you encounter on holiday and may wish to enlarge greatly. Recently, I have undertaken to try to take some decent shots of the interior of a lecture theatre while a speaker is standing on the stage addressing the audience. Plan is to take some shots from the side of the front tier of seats and get an oblique view of the stage, showing the speaker and other, supporting speakers sitting behind him/her. I will be using my trusty old National PE-5650 flash gun (for the first time in years), which will probably light up the scene from the required distance (10-15 metres) but I reckon a 100 film will leave me with very little room to play with aperture. So, I wondered if anyone could advise on a make and type of colour negative film (200 - perhaps 400?) that will do a decent job on stage furniture and human faces.

 

Any advice will be most welcome - apart from "get a Hasselblad"...

 

Thanks!

 

Dave

I would definitely shoot color negative (Portra 400) in this situation and forget about the flash--if you are using this during a live presentation it will be annoying for the audience and the speakers, and probably not put out enough light to be all that helpful.

I agree-Portra 400 or even 800 and skip the flash.

It looks like it might have enough light to do it:

 

Very Powerful GN56m Auto Manual Hammerhead Flash Hot Shoe Remote Sensor Bracket Film some Digital

 

but I agree, without flash would be a good choice.

 

Personally, I always liked the look of available light indoor shots better, but didn't always have the choice.

Thanks very much for all your replies - looks like Portra is it, and I will try it without flash.

Your help is very much appreciated.

Best, david

No flash claiming a GN of 56 really has a GN of 56.

 

Flash makers always inflate their published guide numbers by at least one whole stop against what can be measured with a flashmeter or achieved with an actual exposure.

 

So, in reality you'll be looking at a GN of 45, tops, with 100 ISO film, and that's using ugly direct flash. Attempt to soften or bounce the flash and you're in f/2.8 territory at 10 meters flash distance.

 

OTOH, using a higher ISO film and no flash gives you the headache of matching colour balance with whatever the room lighting is. And no, colour negative film cannot be adjusted in printing to get rid of any old colour cast. That's a common misconception that's caught quite a few people out - including me. You only make that mistake once on a paid job!

Thanks very much for your additional comment; especially the warning about claimed flash performance - duly noted.

I have actually carried out a test shoot in the theatre with Provia 100F - all I had in the fridge at the time - and I used naked flash for the reason you stated; to get maximum distance. Results from processing expected in the post tomorrow or Monday. Yup, did wonder about how the stage furniture and the human faces would come up colour-wise, but fortunately this exercise is more documentary than artistic, so if it all comes up looking adequately lit then we will probably be happy.

Now, the Christmas costume ball will probably be more exacting...

Best, David

OTOH, using a higher ISO film and no flash gives you the headache of matching colour balance with whatever the room lighting is. And no, colour negative film cannot be adjusted in printing to get rid of any old colour cast.

 

Even 10 years ago(the last time I did any stage work), that was relatively easy to fix since tungsten-halogen still dominated stage lighting and you could at least get close enough to be corrected with an 80-series filter(at a cost of 2 stops). I have no idea if tungsten is still common for stage lighting of if they've moved on to other technologies.

 

I still have some tungsten balanced film stashed away, but for me it was never practical for anything other than a relatively stationary set up since at least all that I've seen is ASA 64.

 

The real headache was always places like gyms where you might have a mix of incandescent, fluorescent, and mercury vapor.

Edited September 29, 2017 by ben_hutcherson

Even 10 years ago(the last time I did any stage work), that was relatively easy to fix since tungsten-halogen still dominated stage lighting and you could at least get close enough to be corrected with an 80-series filter(at a cost of 2 stops). I have no idea if tungsten is still common for stage lighting of if they've moved on to other technologies.

 

I still have some tungsten balanced film stashed away, but for me it was never practical for anything other than a relatively stationary set up since at least all that I've seen is ASA 64.

 

The real headache was always places like gyms where you might have a mix of incandescent, fluorescent, and mercury vapor.

 

Sure, a full CT filter can be used, but that takes your 400 ISO film right back to around 100 ISO, and then only if the podium lighting is suitable.

 

What I was warning against was using daylight-balanced negative film without a filter, and then expecting to correct the colour in post. Not a happening thing!

"Why is this not a happening thing?"

 

- Because the lack of blue light in the tungsten spectrum severely underexposes the blue-sensitive layer of daylight balanced film. With the result that shadow areas remain stubbornly yellow, regardless of any colour correction applied in printing.

 

A scan may be capable of apparently better correction, but it's a fudge because the blue shadow detail just isn't there in the negative.

 

This is clearly explained in Michael Langford's "Advanced Photography" and other authoritative works.

 

I have no examples that require correction, because as I explained, you only make that mistake once. I did that in 1971. And today I would take the sensible option of using a DSLR for such a job, and not muck about with film.

 

"It's quite a trivial matter really"

 

- As explained above; no, it's not.

Edited September 30, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Regarding flash:

• In a LARGE interior space (or outdoors), the flash effectively loses about 1 stop of light, compared to shooting in a "normal" house room, which I think is what the GN is determined on. This is because there are no walls and ceiling to reflect the light of the flash back onto the subject. At least that has been my experience and what I did when shooting with manual flashes in the past. Today I just use my flash meter to determine the exposure.
   
  
• 10-15 meters is a LONG shot for many flashes, but your flash may do it.
   
  
  • The pix of the back of the flash shows a N and W setting on the dial. Is the W using a wide angle lens on the front of the flash? If so, don't use it, for max range.
    

  [*]With an angle shot, the closest subject will get more light than the farthest subject, and be over-exposed.

   

  • This will depend on how far the closest and farthest subjects are, and the difference. If the difference is small, then you are OK.
    
  • Alternative is to use the flash remote, so the subjects are at a similar distance from the flash.
    

  [*]I would try/test both auto and manual flash modes.

   

  • Auto may (likely will) get fooled by the background of the stage and overexpose the subjects. If so, shoot manual.
    

  [*]If you have not used the flash in a long while, you NEED to fully check it out (do you have all the parts and cables), test it, and get familiar with it again.

  • The capacitors need to be reformed by charging then discharging them a few times.
    

  [*]Depending on the range, I would use a faster ISO color film, even with the flash. This gives you a longer usable range with the flash.

Do you really have to shoot in color? B&W would eliminate the issues of color temp and spectral characteristics of the stage lights.

You're a patronising soul aren't you Les?

 

Read up on using daylight colour negative film under tungsten lighting with no correction filter. You might actually learn something.

 

For example the OP's experience in this thread.

Edited September 30, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Just wanted to come in on the discussion that has developed from my 'simple' question. All of the above, highly informed, debate has been fascinating and every respondent has given me food for thought and a list of things to try out. Yup, did test the flash gear beforehand - worked fine (quality capacitors, clearly) and the suggestion of B&W film does attract - I'll check with my 'customer' and see what they think. And I am always happier with manual procedures - I know what's going on (or at least I think I do...)

A big thank you to all - and I will be tuning in for any further comment.

In the thread you are referring to the last post states, "For some reason, tungsten does not look quite as bad with film than with digital."

 

No doubt two people can read the same thing and come away with different opinions.

 

I get it that you are warning others with your failed attempt back in 1971. But in the spirit of community sharing you should review it further so that others may then learn from your mistake and hopefully improve on it. I have some tools that may help with that should you want to do this.

 

So, basically Les, your advice to the OP, which so far has been conspicuously absent, would be to screw up the exposure and then try to fix it after scanning. Is that correct?

 

Whereas my advice was to get the colour and exposure right in the first place, by using the appropriate lighting and/or a correction filter.

 

Let's be clear. I'm not the one asking for help on this thread. Least of all from you. You've offered no help at all to the OP, and appear to have stuck your nose into this thread only to "have a go" at me for some reason. How petty!

For my initial test a few days ago (one person kindly standing in the speaker's position and another in the background) I did what I might call the simple approach for the film I had available: Provia 100F (which I knew was not ideal but it saved me having to wait another week for the theatre to be available), and I set the back of the 5650 to the N setting on 100 (no diffuser used). For 10 metres it indicated aperture 5.6, so on the test I tried that, and also a wider aperture (4) to see if that improved things. I am hoping to get the processed film back today, and have already ordered some Portra 400. Last Wednesday's test may only confirm what I already suspect; that I am too close to the edge of the envelope, and it will be the Portra that should now give me the scope I need. The aim is to give my writer's society some better shots than they have right now to show around: we have a lot of shots taken on small digital cameras but as you might expect they are nothing to write home about. And exposure was one thirtieth, as suggested by the manual.

My guess is that the +1 stop will be better.

The Provia slide film will make exposure evaluation easier for you.

With print film, the lab compensates for film exposure when printing, so it becomes harder to evaluate exposure by looking at the print, you have to look at the negative.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your additional tip. The Provia arrived back today and, guess what, the shot I took at +1 did the expected job - but only just!

Thanks for the warning about the corrections made to prints - I'll scan the negs as you suggest, and hopefully improve from there.

Best wishes!

David

David

I got burned by that mistake in early high school. I wondered why my bracketing made little difference in the exposure.

Duh, I was looking at the corrected prints, not the negative. The exposure difference was clear on the negative.

 

If +1 just barely got there, you may be getting more light loss than my old +1 stop guideline, or the flash is not putting out the spec light.

So sounds like maybe + 1-1/2 stops.

 

gud luk

Cinestill 800 might be an option. They make that in 120 now. It's tungsten balanced and very flexible. I've seen 7219 (16mm 500T) pushed one stop and it looked really good, especially considering that a 16mm frame is suprisingly tiny. Edited October 4, 2017 by Karim Ghantous

Thanks very much for your tip - I'll check it out. (Sorry to have only just spotted it - I've been away.)