pushing Kodak Gold 400 to 800, then enlarging

[eugene_boots]

Hey guys,

I am currently doing some photography for a church and they

are holding meetings in a tent. Because the photogrpahy budget was

low, I'm shooting Kodak Max (Gold 400) rated at 800, which I'll then

get push processed after I'm finished.

 

Thing is, I found out tonight that the pastor wants to enlarge some

of the photos (crowd, tent exterior at night etc.) after they are

printed.

 

Firstly, will this film deliver at least adequate photos pushed?

 

And secondly, with the increased grain, etc, what is the best size I

can hope to enlarge these shots too (for example,a night shot of the

tent, lit from the inside, AEB one stop either side)?

 

Thanks guys (if this question is too broad or vague, I can give more

info)

 

Eugene

[phule]

If your time has little to no value you could have the negs scanned and work on cleaning up the images with NeatImage. NeatImage is a great tool but it's not as simple as "point and go."

 

 

You'd be better off with Fuji Superia X-Tra 800, which, last time I checked, is less expensive than Kodak Max.

[phule]

<< If your time has little to no value >>

 

I feel like I should clarify this statement.

 

What I mean is that, given the obvious limit in the budget, it's going to be up to you to determine if the time spent "fixing" the images digitally is worth it. Or would it be more cost effective to use a film better suited for this job?

[r.t. dowling]

A decent fast film like Fuji NPZ or Superia 800 would have been less expensive than Max 400, especially when you factor in the cost of push processing.

[steve_levine]

I would abandon all hope with Kodak Max films.This is grainy crap, designed for snap shooters.The film you need is Fuji NPZ 800.Hand held,wide open,with available light,NPZ will work wonders.Have you considered using flash,or is this not allowed?With flash,Id go with Portra 400NC or Fuji NPH 400.Most quality 35mm 400-800 films can be enlarged to 11x14 or even 16x20,providing the viewer is far enough from the prints!

[rowland_mowrey]

Granted that Gold might not be the best film to choose for this job for some reasons. OTOH, I think you guys get a comission from Fuji.

 

I know, I'm a Kodaker, but, I have used Fuji film - quite a bit as a matter of fact, but I have yet to see side by side evidence that Fuji negative film is better than EK negative film if the proper film is chosen for a job. The two families of film, EK and Fuji are different, but one is not superia to the other. (pun intended)

 

In fact, the evidence I have seen is that Fuji reversal film may have the edge, while EK negative film may have the edge. I'm not really sure yet. The evidence isn't all in but the race is close.

 

I know this isn't answering the question, it is answering the answerers. Here is my answer to the question.

 

I have printed 400, 800 and 1000 speed 35mm negatives at 8x10 and 11x14 with good results. I usually expose 400 at 320, 800 at 800, and 1000 at 800. I never push if I can avoid it. I am not unhappy with grain at those sizes. I would have shot the 400 at 320 for this job and processed normally, or I would have used an 800 speed film and processed normally. Chances are that unpushed film will look better in all respects. You are not doing anything abnormal to it.

 

So, chances are you will not want to make anything larger than 8x10 with these negatives, and grain will be noticeable.

 

Good luck to you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[lex_jenkins]

Nobody sponsors me or pays for my film and I don't shoot much color. When I do I want it to be reliable. Over the years NPZ or, if you're either in a hurry (say, at midnight and the only source for film is a grocery store) or on a budget, Superia Xtra 800 have worked well for me. I haven't found another 800 or faster color negative film worth using.

 

I wouldn't worry about "pushing" the film. If the film isn't badly underexposed a good lab can compensate and still produce acceptable prints.

[bernhard]

Another vote for Superia/Press 800, best quality - price ratio in that speed class. NPZ will be better but printing can be erratic with labs who rarely see that film.

[tom_s.]

Please tell us more about the shoot.

 

What type of shots are you attempting to get? One person at a podium speaking? Groups on stage? Where can you stand?

 

If you're attempting to get pictures of the audience, how large is it? Are they mostly sitting watching something, or are they moving around?

 

Is flash permitted? If so, what kind of flash do you have?

 

Can you use a tripod in your shooting situation?

 

Which lenses/focal lengths do you think you'll need? (this kind of goes along with where are you permitted to stand, if there's a restriction on that.)

 

How large is the tent? Is the underside of the tent white?

 

Have you tried shooting there before? If so, what kind of meter readings would you typically end up with?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Finally, on the subject of pushing Kodak Max 400 to 800 -- don't bother. If you tell most consumer-oriented labs to push your color negative film one stop, they'll just process it normally and correct in printing. You'll probably need to go to a pro lab to get a true push -- which will more than negate your cost savings of using Max 400. Spend the extra dollar or two a roll and get Fuji NPZ if you need 800 speed. Kodak Max 800 is a poor choice for most subjects, but if you really want to use it, try it out on something you don't care about and check the results. You'll probably change your mind. If you only need 400 speed and don't want a pro film, try Kodak 400 HD. It's a good film available almost anywhere.