Widest latitude for night photography

[cgarrett]

I have been starting to get into night photography, mostly shooting Ilford FP4+, and I

really like it except for the fact that my best shots seem to be off of the proper

exposure just enough to be unprintable... (I have been using a Nikkormat FTn, so

metering has been out of the question, but I am about to upgrade to a Nikon FE with

aperture priority) Anyway, I hope someone on here can help me out with my question:

Which b+w film has the widest exposure latitude, or is otherwise very well suited to

night photography? I am not the biggest fan of grainy prints unless the shot really

calls for it and the grain is very pronounced, so the finer the grain the better. Thanks!

[marc_leest1]

Ilford XP2

[kelly_flanigan1]

Some folks tend to "push" films; ie overdevelop them. This blocks up the highlights; helps the mid tones contrast; but very subbornly; if any pulls the shadow/toe region up. Try some rolls with regular developement; or even overexpose and underdevelop; to get a wider range.

[lex_jenkins]

I'm not sure whether you're asking about latitude (which is sometimes ill defined and may apply to push processing) or reciprocity. For example, many of us who have used TMX would say that it isn't particularly generous in latitude but according to tests has very good reciprocity characteristics.

 

Based on my experience, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get very good results from FP4+. Correct exposure and appropriate development are more essential than wide latitude for nighttime photography in which we're not talking about push processing.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Noctilux Tmax400; D76; not pushed; not overdeveloped.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-322.jpg><BR><BR>Here the grain shows up on enlargement<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-323.jpg><BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-324.jpg>

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

Tri-X Pan has really worked out well for me. Regular Tri-X would be great too, I imagine. I mainly just stick to Tri-X Pan because it's available in 220 size.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://elaisted.com/ljprev/silver-bass-drum-frame-69-P.jpg"><br>

<i>Developed in HC-110 Dilution H.</i>

[jonathan_traupman]

<p>For extremely low light photography, I've had the best results with Fuji Acros 100. I

usually

rate it at 50, but give normal development (9.5m Xtol 1:1). While it's a slow film, it has the

least reciprocity failure of any emulsion I know of. Up to 120s, it requires no correction for

reciprocity, from 120s-1000s it requires an extra half stop of exposure. I usually just open

the aperture 1/2 stop above what my meter reads.

 

<p>While it's a slow film (really an EI50 film even in normal light), the lack of reciprocity

failure

actually leads to shorter exposures than with more conventional films, at least for the type

of "available darkness" stuff I like to shoot. For example, I've also used a lot of Tri-X (rated

at EI200, developed for N-1, 7:15 in Xtol 1:1) for night photography. An exposure of 60s

at f/5.6 on Tri-X turns into 8m at f/5.6 once you correct for reciprocity failure.

However, the same exposure on Acros is only 5:40 at f/5.6, even though it's ISO rating is

two stops slower than the Tri-X.

 

<p>It's also amazingly fine grained.

 

<p>Another issue with film reciprocity failure that many people don't realize is that it

affects

not just exposure, but also contrast. The bright areas in the frame don't suffer reciprocity

failure as badly as the dark areas, so when you increase exposure to get decent shadow

separation you tend to overexpose your highlights. You can reduce development to N-1 or

N-2 to try to compensate for this contrast if you use a film that has poor reciprocity in low

light, but that usually leads to lower EIs and even longer exposures. Because Acros has

such little reciprocity failure, you'll see correspondingly little increase in contrast with low

light exposures.

 

<p>I have some examples of my night work <a href="http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jont/

nocturnes2004/">here</a>. The first, second, and fourth image were shot on Acros at EI

50 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 11m. The third is on APX 100 and is heavily cropped,

the fifth on Tri-X at EI 200 in Xtol 1:1 for 7:15.

 

<p>-Jon T.

[will_legge]

I can't think of a single black and white film that can't be used at

night. Perhaps you are having exposure problems. I might suggest

investing in a handheld meter to measure incident light.

 

Are these unprintable or unscanable? Or are you relying on your

neighborhood photofinisher to print these? Negatives have to be

almost bullet-proof to be unprintable if you are printing yourself.

This leads me to believe you are having exposure or developing

problems rather than the film.

 

If it is none of these problems, you could try pull processing to

reduce contrast. I don't recommend push processing as you loss detail

in the shadows and highligh contrast is too much. But it is hard

without knowing what you are photographing as some night scenes are

flat and could benefit from extra development and others are

contrasty and demand reduced development.

[cgarrett]

I am printing them myself and I am getting pretty good results, I was just wondering

if I am making it harder for myself by using a difficult film to expose properly. Since I

don't have a meter that can handle night shots, I mave been mostly just bracketing

exposures, starting at 5 seconds then going to ten, etc., but I have had a few pretty

hard to print negatives. I also wanted to know what films are espescially well suited to

this sort of photography. Since I am in the process of getting a camera with a more

versatile meter, I will definitely try out acros at night. I have used that film for studio

lighting and I really loved it. Thanks a lot!

[cgarrett]

Here are some of my better results, with push processed fp4+

 

<img src='http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2776706-md.jpg'>

 

<img src='http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2776727-md.jpg'>

[andrew_hull]

Hank:

 

Upon someone else's recommendation, I have tried FP4+ at 100 developed in PMK Pyro. It worked really well. I don't own a scanner, unfortunately, but I highly recommend it. It does a very good job of controling the spectral highlights of lightsources and their reflections.

[mark bridges]

Hank, fp4+ will work fine. At f8 and 1,2,5,10,15 second brackets will in most situations get you a good exposure. You'll need to do contraction development, about a minute, to keep the lamp lights from blowing out. Those same street lights will fool your in camera meter. Your contact sheet will tell you which neg to print.

[cgarrett]

What is contraction development? I am using D-76 1:1, by the way.

[roger krueger]

Contrast and latitude are more about development than film. I'd suggest Microphen or

stand development in dilute Xtol as solutions for high scene contrast plus exposure errors.

[dalahorse]

You're probably running into reciprocity failure. Most film is designed to be exposed

between 1 second and 1/1000 second. If youre exposures are longer, you'll have to give

extra exposure.

 

Start off by picking a single film and developer to work with. Get used to estimating

exposure when your meter fails to register extremely low light. Bracket your exposures

until you get good pallpark exposure estimates. If I estimate a 10 second exposure, I

usually bracket in both directions: 2s, 5s, 10s, 20s, 40s. Don't vary films and developers

until you start getting good results.

 

Finally, I regularly use FP4+ (EI 50) as my night photo film. I develop in Perceptol with

spectacular results - sharp images, fine grain, and excellent tonality.

[roger krueger]

Contraction is underdevelopment (most often combined with at least some overexposure,

pretty much the opposite of a push.) The idea is to get less contrast.

 

Compensation relys on local exhaustion of the developer in dense areas slowing further

development, while less dense areas continue to develop normally. Also decreases

contrast.

 

I presonally like compensating development more than contraction, but both are valid

approaches.

[steve g]

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/xx573v3xx/image/36901804.jpg" width=700><br>Not too bad grain<br><i>HP5+ @ 400 in Microphen</i></center>

[pete_gee]

I assume you will use a tripod, and you wont be hand-holding your camera. Which is good cause that means you dont have to use fast film or push process - both aint so good for grainless nightshots!

 

FWIW: I have had excellent results using 35mm APX100 at box speed using a handheld spot-meter to meter where i want detail in the shadows etc. Stand develop (ie no aggitation except const for first 30 secs) in Rodinal 1+200 for 60-70mins (all in a water bath to keep temp constant). This helps most of the highlights from blowing out yet still giving good shadow detail, extremely low/fine grain (for rodinal) and its BRUTALLY sharp too! Most exposures tend to be on ~F8 and around 16seconds seem to be average for where/when i shoot - your milage may vary...

 

Stand dev in rodinal is CHEAP, easy, and looks great.

[pete_gee]

Heres some examples (in 35mm)

http://www.my2cents.co.nz/taurineman/Landscapes/Cityscapes/html/image005.html

 

And heres a med-format example:

http://www.my2cents.co.nz/taurineman/Landscapes/Cityscapes/html/image002.html

[kaiyen]

<p>hank,

<p>of the two samples you gave, the first looks like it just didn't get enough exposure, and the second looks like it suffered from camera shake. I can't really see anything in focus in the second one.

 

<p>also, there really isn't a need to push process. If you're shooting FP4, then you need to be shooting with a tripod at night. If you're shooting with a tripod, then you don't need to push process. Besides, if you want low grain, you don't want to push it anyway.

 

<p>the issue, then, is reciprocity. with FP4, if you go longer than 1/2 of a second, you need to compensate. Ilford's reciprocity chart for FP4 is <a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf">here (PDF)</a>. Basically, you need to increase exposure quite a bit as you use longer and longer shutter speeds. You're looking at a bit more than a stop compensation when you get to 10 seconds (you'd shoot at about 25 seconds).

 

<p>As for metering, what I usually do is find <u>something</u> that my camera will meter that is roughly a shadow. Even if it's a bit lighter than what I really want my shadow to be, if I open the lens all the way up and crank the shutter speed to 30 seconds, I can usually get some kind of reading. I can then adjust to find out what my shutter speed should be at my desired aperture, and then factor in reciprocity failure.

 

<p>for the most part, I go out and increase by 1-2 stops (bracketing) when I'm out shooting night stuff. I do pull the processing quite a bit, though I haven't gotten a perfect time yet. I have been cutting by about 15-20% from N time so far, but perhaps need to go to about 40% less.

 

<P>Bottom line - there is nothing wrong with using FP4 for night time stuff. I really like it, myself. Some of my samples are:

 

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/28273761">SF from Treasure Island</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/25595048/large">Towards the Ferry Building</a>

 

<p>allan

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I think part of the latitude equation is the amount of variance I can get away with when I make the exposure. This is how my brain has worked it out so far.

 

If I take a 3 second exposure and accidently time it as 6 seconds that will have more of an impact on your exposure than if you wanted a 30 second exposure and you accidently exposed it at 40 seconds. It's just percentages. I use a tripod for most of my picture taking. At night, using time can have a neat effect on your image. Motion shown on your film! You can also play around using a flash then letting the shutter run open longer and see what that does for your vision of the image.

 

Just some thoughts to help you!

 

Happy Holidays!

[alan_olander1664878205]

I don't think the aperture priority of an FE or FE2 is going to help you, and the meter needle in these two models is difficult to see in dim light. Get an FM or FM2 with the LED exposure indicators. You'll have to meter manually, but you can see the LED's in the dark.

[gareth_harper]

The B&W film with the most lattitude is XP2 super or possibly Fuji NeopanCN both chromogenic C41 chemistry films.

I've never tried night photography though.

[dirk-san1]

Nice work, Jon T.

 

I have to try Rodinal on the Neopans myself, using just Xtol for now.

[lex_jenkins]

If you happen to have a Nikon F3 just set it to AE mode, point and shoot. Despite the fact that its AE mode is brain dead once the mirror goes up, unlike the more sophisticated metering of the OM-2's and OM-4's, it still works surprisingly well. Using my F3's AE mode and a little bracketing I've gotten some very good results under full moonlight.