Low-light portraits on TMZ 3200 and pushed Tri-X?

Hi folks

 

I'll soon have the privilege of visiting a coal mine an take photos

of the ongoing activities and portraits of miners. The look I want

to get is grainy, with deep blacks and bright whites. I like the Tri-

X look, though so far I've been working on Ilford FP4+ and HP5+.

However, the lack of light in many areas will be an issue, so fast

film is a must. And that fortunately matches with the wanted grainy

effect.

 

My first choice goes to Tri-X 400, which I will use at nominal speed

in not-so-dark areas and will push by one or two stops (800-1600)

when opportune. But I'm not confortable with pushing it to 3200, as

I'm afraid the further increase in constrast and loss in shadow

detail might prove incompatible with my "location" (everything not

directly lit might come out totally "un-readable", right?). So in

addition to Tri-X I'm getting a faster film, but I need one which

may give similar look to Tri-X if properly processed. We couldn't

find any Neopan 1600, that could be a good try. Instead, we have T-

Max 3200, that I should expose at its nominal speed, not at 800 or

thereabouts as someone suggests (there wouldn't be any point in

using it at this speed, as I have and love Tri-X already). What I

DON'T want is to end up with the greyish portraits that I miserably

got when I tried T-Max 100.

 

Do you have any portrait taken on TMZ 3200 in low light situations,

so that I can see "the look" and decide whether I should actually

use it or invest all in Tri-X?? Any example on pushed Tri-X and

other tips would be equally welcome, of course. Thanks a lot :-)

Lex is the resident expert on pushed films.

 

Look for his portfolio, there are a few examples, and he has posted a link for a compare between pushed TMY and (Delta? TMZ?).

Andrea,

 

Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1600. Here's why...

 

Here are some off-the-cuff general comments based on my experience - I don't know where the coal mine is that you are going down, so some may not apply. You may already know all of this anyway...

 

The light in many of the working places in a coal mine is by caplamp - few areas are lit continuously. This means that you have small areas of good light surrounded by total blackness. 'Room and pillar' workings are often better lit by the machine lights than 'longwall'.

 

Two types of caplamp may be available - spot and flood. The spot lamps are more common these days, the flood lights were more used by 'hand miners' who worked close and liked a broad, even light. The way to tell is by the degree of polish on the reflector. I always tried to get an unpolished reflector - they give a more even light and you don't have to be so careful not to shine into a miner's eyes.

 

There are also approved lights for locomotives. These are regularly used by film crews, typically they have a five or six inch reflector, two batteries side by side and a handle. Their powerful long-distance beam is not much good on its own, but it can be bounced.

 

Many mines will not permit any non-approved electric equipment. This goes for cameras. It isn't that anyone believes that a camera will cause an explosion, it is that it must be proven that the equipment cannot cause an explosion. Not all mines will apply the same degree of safety rules. I used to have to take the exposure meter battery out of my Nikkormat before I could take it down a mine. Please ask them before taking any battery-powered equipment down a coal mine. In some mines you would be very unpopular if you sneaked equipment in without declaring it. It's not a clever thing to do. If you can, talk things over with the safety officer before the day.

 

I'd highly recommend Tri-X in Diafine because of the great contrast range (and because you may have to guess exposure if they do not permit non-approved battery equipment).

 

Ask, if you want clarification or further information.

 

Best, Helen

Why not Delta 3200? Beautiful tonal range.

I just shot at a cemetry with tmz 3200. I shot it at 3200 and the grain, which is what I was going for, looked great.

Anything but Delta 3200! Ilford's 3200 is flat and gray and no where near 3200 ASA.

Tmax 3200 is really good stuff. Plenty of punch and good highlight seperation. I think it's

the best of all the TMAX films, which I generally don't like. It is the only TMAX with a

unique look and grain structure. I will post a TMZ low light portrait when I get back to

base.

I guess it's a matter of taste but I can't say that I've found Delta 3200 to be flat & gray. It's worked well for me. Here are 2 examples. One @3200 the other by campfire @6400. Both devved in DD-X.<div></div>

<div></div>

Oh, I dunno if I'm the expert 'round here, Jorge, but thanks. Yup, there are several examples in my photo.net folders of different approaches to using traditional b&w film in low light.

 

To repeat (hopefully more briefly) my philosophy of pushing film for low light shooting, all I'm really interested in is capturing skin tones. I want good gradation and the ability to capture skin tones from dark to light. When we push we tacitly admitted that we're less concerned than usual about shadow detail, so it's not even an issue here. (If we wanted shadow detail we wouldn't handhold, we'd give plenty of exposure and we wouldn't overdevelop to compensate for underexposure. And we'd have to accept blurred subjects from slow shutter speeds. That's moot here.) We may hope to prevent blown highlights and, fortunately, there are developers to help with that.

 

Most of what I've uploaded so far consists of Tri-X, TMY (which pushes very well to 1600) and Delta 3200 in either Diafine or Microphen.

 

Diafine and Microphen are very different developers and I'd recommend that any diehard push processor like myself consider adding another developer besides Diafine to his or her arsenal. DDX, Acufine and several others are good alternatives. I've heard the UK-based Fotospeed offers a good speed enhancing developer - don't know anything about it, tho'.

 

Diafine is possibly the world's most convenient developer and a natural mate for Tri-X, but it has its limitations: it works best with only a few films and provides only a fixed effective speed gain with those films. For example, the maker of Diafine suggests EI 1600 for Tri-X (I used EI 1200-1250, tho'). In my tests Delta 3200 in Diafine works best at 1600. Not much advantage between the two by that account. However the negatives will look and print entirely differently.

 

Same with TMY pushed to 1600 or Delta 3200 at 3200 or faster in Microphen. Different from each other, very different from Diafine. All are useful in their own ways.

 

One bit of advice I'd give is to develop a bit longer than the data suggests for pushing. For example, if the data suggests, say, 15 minutes for Tri-X in Developer Q, I'd develop anywhere from 10%-50% longer, based on my experience with that developer. For example I routinely develop film longer in Microphen than the data suggests and get good results. With another developer I'd have to conduct yet another set of tests.

 

Part of your challenge is going to be metering. If you want to capture the faces and clothing of these miners against a black background you'll need to either spotmeter the subject or take frequent incident readings from close to the subjects. Averaging and most other TTL metering will be fooled by these conditions.

 

Frankly, tho', I hardly ever bother metering in really dark situations anymore. For one thing, I can't see the displays unless I use a penlight. I just rely on previous experience, usually shoot wide open at the slowest shutter speed I can safely handhold, hope for luck and let hard work in the darkroom rescue the more worthwhile negatives.

 

If you can get by with taking at least a monopod you can count on about a one-stop faster shutter speed. I'm not sure a coal mine is the place for a tripod - might endanger yourself and others in confined spaces.

Andrea,

 

This is all a taste issue. I have never liked Delta 3200 or TMZ. I find that the Grain of TX

looks 'better' to me.

 

Neopan 1600 looks good, but since I got on the TriX in Diafine train, I don't need anything

else (assuming there is enough light to shoot at 1250).

 

I used to push TX to 1600 in Xtol or D76....Diafine gives you MUCH better Tonal Range

and Shadow detail.

 

TMZ, Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600 are NOT (in my experience anyway) faster than TX in

Diafine. They just have higher numbers on the box.

 

jmp

Here are the scans I mentioned. I like the contrast and grain of TMZ. Delta 3200 probably

does have smoother grain....

but so far this works for me. Please post your results so we can see what you come up

with.<div></div>

Hei everyone again

 

sorry for coming back that late, but several timezones keep us apart.. Thanks to you all for providing so many useful inputs.

 

Helen, you sound like a mine engineer with your extremely good information! I am indeed discussing safety issues with the mine direction and safety officers. The original plan is to use my F100 without any flash. As a back up, I'll have my D70 which might prove useful for "preview-shots" and for getting some digital backup in case anything should spoil my film afterwards (processing errors, refuse of airport guys to hand-check the high sensitivity film, accidental loss or damage...): this is in fact a once in a lifetime chance. But since my visit is part of a much longer "photographic cruise" in the arctic, I'll have along my Hasselblad and Sekonik L-508. I'm not planning to take them into the mine unless the Nikons are banned (then the new issue will be the Sekonik.. I'd have a hard time guessing exposures under those circumstances..).

 

Reina, I don't know Delta 3200 and I was not planning to use it as so many find it grey and flat. Your shots are actually very pleasant, especially the one at bonfire with its wonderful tones and grain: miners faces with that look would be great I think. I'll have to give that film a try, sooner or later. I guess the flat & gray or contrasty look are very much depending on the development too.

 

Lex and John (and Helen again): great tips, thanks! You all seem to suggest that the combination of Tri-X @ 1600 and Diafine yields great results (well, for tri-x fans at least) and I think that is how I will actually use my Tri-X for this project. By the way, Lex: I love your "square folder" and the portrait of you! But after a strong coffee you smile, don't you? :-)

 

Keep writing if you've got more. Thanks by now

Andrea,

 

I just processed a roll of TX in Diafine that was shot under poor conditions...These aren't

masterpieces or anything, but there is nice subtle shadow detail and the highlights aren't

totally blown out.

 

jmp<div></div>

One more<div></div>

Wow, that's convincing enough! Very nice tones and more than enough shadow detail!

The arctic? Are you visiting the coal mines on Sptizbergen by any chance?

 

Best,

Helen

Indeed! tell me that you work there, now.. :-)

Delta 3200 is a reduced contrast film but in low available light, it can do well. Shoot it at 3200, but develop it (Ilford DD-X) as if you shot at 6400.

 

Best of luck. Please post some of your results.

 

David Beal **

Memories Preserved Photography LLC

Excellent info on safety and general working conditions in mines, Helen. I'm a former federal OSHA safety inspector but with very limited experience in mines. Besides the fact that we had few in our territory (North Central Texas), mining operations came under MSHA jurisdiction.

 

Andrea, if you do a little research on the web or ask the mine safety director, you might be able to find some sort of pouch to put your battery operated devices in that would meet with safety standards. Something like those water-resistant pouches used for photography around water and watertight housing used for underwater photography. If it's labeled "MSHA Approved" or the equivalent for where you live, it's considered safe for use in mines.

 

(BTW, for those who are curious there's no such thing as "OSHA Approved". Some of us used to joke when asked about such approved devices that OSHA was not an approving agency; we were strictly a disapproving agency. Since OSHA is solely a regulatory enforcement agency it doesn't get into product approvals. So if you're an employer, company safety director or buying agent, be very suspicious of anyone trying to sell you "OSHA Approved" equipment or safety programs.)

 

Anyway, Andrea, without such a pouch or housing to seal off the battery operated cameras and meter, I'd be strongly tempted to take only the Hasselblad and guess at the exposures, bracketing heavily. Even if someone told me it was okay to bring in the Nikons and Sekonic unshielded I'd be awfully paranoid unless they could show me a track record of using unsealed devices in that particular cave. I'd also advance and rewind the film fairly gradually to minimize any risk of friction. But I'm really paranoid about safety in certain environments, mines being toward the top of the list.

 

Good luck and good photos! Usually we say "Good light!" but that doesn't quite apply in this case, does it? ;>

As much as I like TX/Diafine, this is a case where I would strongly recommend TMZ/Acufine. TX/Diafine will give you all the blacks you can handle, but I fear for your "bright white's." Anyways, speed rules in these situations, and for that you have two choices: Delta 3200 and TMZ. My choice would be TMZ.

Based on the back of the Diafine box, there's one choice that might be better than Tri-X in diafine: Delta 3200 lists at EI 2000 (T-Max 3200 shows EI 2400, but that's the discontinued version, replaced by P-3200 that shows EI 1250 -- go figure!). That Delta 3200 is only 1/3 stop faster than Tri-X, though, and will almost certainly have more grain; my experience with Diafine, limited though it is, is that the grain is actually less obtrusive than with some acutance formulae that don't increase speed much at all -- Caffenol, for instance, does produce better perceived sharpness on Tri-X than Diafine, but at EI 500, at best, compared to Diafine's EI 1600 (which I find is perfectly acceptable, looking about like a one stop conventional push in terms of shadow detail). And I suspect if one wanted more acutance, one could make a Diafine Bath B with much less sulfite, but the same carbonate content, and trade off grain for acutance -- I intend to try it!

One of the reasons people find Delta 3200 so gray and flat is that they insist on shooting

it at the ISO speed of around 1000. It's designed with reduced contrast so that when you

push it to 3200, where it's designed to be used, the increase in contrast from pushing is

balanced out. Not getting enough contrast is going to be your very least problem in this

project.

 

I will admit to having not yet tested Diafine, but I've used step charts to test the shadow

speed of various films in various developers, and both Delta 3200 and TMZ have a

consistent 1-to-1.5 stop advantage in shadow speed over Tri-X. Tri-X, in fact, was

consistently about 1/4 stop slower than the T-grain 400s, TMY and Delta 400. HP5 was a

hair faster than the T-grains.

 

The real knock I found against Delta 3200 was that it was more finicky in extreme

development than TMZ--TMZ you can leave in a compensating developer like dilute XTOL

or Microphen for a long time before you start losing shadow speed to fog; Delta 3200

requires a bit more precision.

 

As a general rule in non-repeatable shooting situations: try more than one solution.

Maybe you'll like the Tri-X negs better, maybe they won't have enough shadow detail and

you'll prefer the TMZ. It's better two have two chances to get it right than one.

 

With the huge range of scene contrast you'll be seeing I'd highly recommend a

compensating developer like Microphen, dilute XTOL or Diafine, whichever film you shoot.

Dear Andrea,

 

In my opinion, you should think to be able to shoot in every condition when you will be down there...I mean, do you exactly know the amount of light that you'll find? No, I guess, so 800 asa can be a limitation...

 

You know what kind of contrast I search in my shoots (an elevated one..) but I would work anyway with TMZ3200 shot at 3200, developed in T-MAX at the correct time indicated in the Can..

 

It's a Clean, simple and really valid method, even if the Tri-X solution is very fascinating...but, please, do it just if you have the chance to verify your results and their taste on some other subject before that trip...when you're there, you should work on the subject and dedicating less possible of your feeling on cameras, film and technical details...when you'll be there, please be sure of what you'll trying to obtain.

 

The TMZ got a raw feeling with his visible grain ,but there's just no chance of getting a flat image if printed at the right mode..

 

And if you'll have to send the negatives for developing them, send them to me, it will be an extreme pleasure for me.

 

Hear you soon.