Exposing and pushing NPZ under difficult show lighting conditions

I'm the official photographer of a small band which toured in Quebec

last year, and will again in a few days. I made a number of blunders

last year that I don't want to repeat this time and I have some

questions for the pros of show photography.<br><br>

 

Let me first tell me that I'm no beginner; I use a wide array of old

35mm, MF and LF cameras and I process and print my own B&W. My 35 mm

outfit, which will be used for the tour, is made up of several Pentax

Spotmatic cameras with a choice of glass (50/1.4, 55/1.8 and 105/2.8

being the most useful for the task) and I use a Gossen Lunasix

meter.<br><br>

 

Last year, I shot the several shows of the tour using NPZ and a 55/1.8

lens most of the time (the lens is long enough because I'm authorized

to go wherever I want around the stage). I don't used flash, however,

and I don't want to use it either. The light was usually metered on

the stage during the lighting tests using both reflected and incident

light methods.<br><br>

 

The pictures from the first show cam up rather low contrast and grainy

with a thin negative. The lab suggested a 1.5 stop push on NPZ, but

the result of this was that several pictures were completely blocked

(they look "posterized" as in PS) for one show and came up quite nice

for the other. Here are examples of this.<br><br>

 

First show, grainy (fairly typical):<br>

http://www.naheulbeukauquebec.com/album_showpage.php?pic_id=136<br><br>

 

Second show, blocked and "posterized" (extreme case):<br>

http://www.naheulbeukauquebec.com/album_showpage.php?pic_id=142<br><br>

 

Third show, OK:<br>

http://www.naheulbeukauquebec.com/album_showpage.php?pic_id=74<br><br>

 

Some thoughts, now. The first two venues had fairy basic and old

lights. I suspect that they were tungsten or something else that was

very warm to begin with. Add to that the colored filters and you have

a recipe fo disaster - perhaps. Also, the Gossen meter showed values

in the 12-13 range, where you change from the "night" to the

"daylight" scale, which makes the reading more difficult. It was

especially confusing under strongly colored lighting. During the show,

a guy next to me with a digital SLR and a spotmeter found values that

were 3-4 stops above mine (he could afford to close at f/5.6 while I

was pretty much in the f/2.8 to f/2 range + push processing) but I

don't know if in the end his pictures were much metter than mine - I

never saw them even though he was working for a magazine that I

usually get).<br><br>

 

And now, the questions:<br><br>

 

1. Will strongly colored light (deep red or deep blue, for instance)

confuse the light meter and give bad readings? Is there a way to

estimate the amount of the mistake and to compensate for this?<br><br>

 

2. If the film curve shows, for instance, that it is less sensitive to

red light and the available light is mostly red, is the "effective"

ISO rating of the film lowered in any significant way? Is there a way

to estimate a corrected EI?<br><br>

 

3. What do you think was the main reason for the blocked colors in one

of the shows. Warm lighting? Something unavoidable with strong gels on

any kind of spotlight? Overexposure and/or pushed processing? (the

last show did well with the 1.5 stop push though). <br><br>

 

4. If the lighting is warm tungsten spots or whatever rather than

cooler modern lighting, can I get better results sacrificing two stops

worth of light (I can probably afford it with the 50/1.4) and using a

80A filter?<br><br>

 

5. Apart from using slide film, what's the best way to get pictures

showing the musicians against clean, grainless black areas?<br><br>

If all the front lights have red and blue filters then you are going to get a red and blue image. Since you are the official photographer you should be able to talk to the stage lighting people ahead of time and have them work your needs into their plan. Maybe for one song they can use a follow spot opened to get both performers. That should give you enough light at a reasonable color to get your poster shots for the evening. Even the house lights turned on for a set might give you enough light to fill in some of the dark spots.

 

If you are stuck with that kind of lighting then lean on your old expertise and shoot B+W at 3200. You'll get the grainy club look instead of the psychedelic look.

 

I wouldn't use color adjustment filters - you can't afford to give up the f/stops - and if the stage lighting is a mix of colors anyways your just fighting a losing battle. Better to adjust the colors with Photoshop. And the Fuji fourth layer seems to forgive a lot of sins.<div></div>

The posterized image #2 appears to be a bad scan.

 

Grain in NPZ 800ei is normal: push it and expect more.

 

You analyze too much. Shoot more film, brag about the results. You're photos are fine, including the posterized example.

 

The most famous photos of rock bands were shot with 160ASA E4 Ektachrome H, pushed two stops to 640...NOBODY shot negative film, bu they would have if they'd had NPZ...I know because my lab processed lots of those chromes and I've seen thousands from the Bill Graham archive...yours are typical. Congratulations.

 

The lighting of #1 and #3 is obviously tungsten, which has nothing to do with being modern or antique. Your eyes adapt to tungsten light which explains why the band doesn't look orange on stage, but does on film. Don't use an 80A filter, you won't be able to focus in low light: fix it in Photoshop...this is 2005.

 

If you have to worry about tungsten Vs something else, you're in trouble because with weird lighting the color temperature meter you'd need isn't going to work anyway.

 

Tell the band to get rid of the bearded lady and the rabbit. French rock and roll? Right.

 

Pat Johnson's the expert ...http://www.patjohnson.com/pgs_music/rock_pgs/jagger_mick2.html

Consider picking up a digital SLR. Seriously. The new Nikon D50 is fairly inexpensive, and its performance at ISO 1600 is amazing -- noticably better than the current crop of color neg films in that speed range. Attach an inexpensive 50/1.8 and you'll be laughing at how easy it is.

The Pentax DSLRs also do well at high ISO. It's worth noting

that new Portra 800-2 is faster and pushes better than NPZ. I'll try

to answer your questions but info could be wrong.

 

1. Yes to a certain extent, so compensate by overexposing or pushing.

I liked NPZ @ 2000 developed push2 but Portra 800 can be exposed at

EI 2500-3200 for push2.

 

2. Yes, but most negative films are grainier for blue than for red.

 

3. NPZ is high contrast and gets worse when pushed. Was #3 pushed?

Looks like JPEG problems to me (Q75 2:2) but it's hard to say.

I'm not sure why stage lighting people even thing this looks good:

I hate blue versus red even when I'm without camera.

 

4. No, it's easier to correct colors with Photoshop.

 

5. Increase the black point, smooth shadows, crank up contrast.

But Ektachrome P1600 still exists if you want to try slides.

I sure do NOT recommend EPH (Ektachrome 1600) around tungsten lighting: Not only will the color be terrible, but EPH already requires E6+ processing, i.e. it is actually an ISO 400 film that requires 2 stop push "cooking" in the first developer.

 

You may also want some even bigger glass: I use a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 depending on the mood I'm in.

 

___________________________

 

Consider going the dSLR route **and shoot in RAW mode** as you can use the new grain reducing filter in Photoshop 9 (CS2). When selecting a dSLR camera, keep in mind that the larger the size of each photosite, the more "noise-free gain" you get (think of a large vs small dish antenna!) for a given amount of "noisy" CCD amplifier gain.

 

In other words, with a typical 4/3rds size sensor, i.e. one that gives a 1.5x gain over that of a 35mm film frame, a 4 million pixel chip will have photosites twice the area as those on an 8 million pixel chip. This is why the Nikon D2h is so clean at high ISO's (and why many sports shooters like them for night events!)

Let me clarify two points above:

 

1) I just moved up to a complete Mamiya 645AFd system w/4 lenses, so I'm not bigoted towards film or digital -- I simply use the best tool for the job at hand, i.e. NASCAR day or night racing, architectural, or B'nai Mitzvah

 

2) If you go the digital route, be SURE you do NOT shoot in JPEG mode: The JPEG compression HORRIBLY screws up the images in low light conditions;

 

3) Along these same lines, beware "prosumer" digital cameras which have similar specs to the manufacturers' dSLR offerings: Instead of using a 16mm x 24mm sensor, they (mostly) use 6.5mm x 10mm sensors, in order to use smaller, lighter and less expensive optics. Although they work OK in daylight, they fall apart in low light shooting.