Available light and film choices

[melody1]

Does anyone strictly shoot available light or is this unpractical?

 

On another note, does anyone give the option to shoot true b&w film,

or is the preference to shoot color film and convert to b&w? In my

(somewhat limited) experience, color film or digital b&w does not

quite catch true tmax or ilford b&w.

 

AND: What are your preferences for film, color and otherwise?

[pjmeade]

Hello Melody, I prefer available light to flash and like Ilford HP5.

 

With my K1000 1/30, f2 and HP5 was a perfect combination. (Now I use a 20D and I'm waiting for a 50mm f1.8 to turn up)

 

I found that when I printed colour film as BW (in the 70s) I got grain like rice pudding, so I would always use BW film.

 

Hope this helps

[think27]

Melody - I shoot available light when it is a bright overcast day. Although even then I either look for a bright surface to bounce some light into faces or use just a slight fill flash. Fuji Reala and 400 CN film - Kodak.

 

I shoot available light in church.. 800 Kodak Portra or Tmax 3200 rated at 1600

[afs760bf]

Hi, Melody,

 

Well, available light is nice, but you don't always have it at a wedding, especially if you have to deal with high ceilings, flourescent lights, etc. I like it, but for me, flash is more predictable. Although, of course, there are places that won't let you use flash, either.

 

Black and White film is better than desaturation, although if you use PS or something, it will actually depend a lot on the printer.

 

I like Fuji NPH 400 for weddings. Have shot quite a lot of Portra 400 as well (NC mostly).

 

Best Regards.

[al_kaplan1]

No doubt real conventional B&W film wet printed on silver/bartya paper the traditional way produces a special look. You'll have to learn to do it yourself or find a good reliable lab. On the plus side thare are people out there who'll pay a hefty premium for traditional B&W shot on real film. I like Kodak Tri-X souped in D-76 1:1 a bit better than Ilford HP5 Plus. I don't like the look of Delta ot T-Max as well as either of the "old fashioned" films. Lately I've been playing around with Fuji. One nice thing about Fuji is that both the 1600 and 400 films develop for the same times, so you can develop them together in a tank.

[steve_newberry___northern_]

We use flash for fill but available light if it's not too contrasty.

Ilford XP 2 and the Kodak B400CN is good too on the Frontier if they print it right. Color we use Fuji Press 400 and Kodak Portra 800.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

If my work was this good it would already be online:

 

http://www.jeffascough.net/main.html

 

Most of his portfolio was shot on genuine B&W film with fast lenses and no flash.

 

The flash stuff is shot with Canon 1Ds's (also fast lenses) and he now shoots only digital (but still only uses flash as a last resort).

 

The method is to find where the good light is and then to shoot using it. We tend to try to follow the action and suffer the light. It's a different mindset and I have to admit I'm practicing as much as possible. In the past I used fill flash and was never happy with what that gave me. Since shooting mostly available light, my enthusiasm has gone through the ceiling.

 

If you want B&W images, the best wasy is to shoot B&W film, if you want a choice, the best way is digital, If you want colour and an easy life - the best way is colour neg. Only MHO.

[discpad]

Melody, I looked through your online portfolio here on Photo.Net: The "rape victim" photo sequence is nice; though the exposure & contrast is a bit dodgy. Also, I *really* like this photo!

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3798806-md.jpg

 

Anyway, since you had three years of chemistry, can I assume you develop your own B&W film?

 

Also, let me ask you this, as it will have a *big* part of my reply to your question: Do you also develop your own C-41 &/or E-6?

 

Cheers! Dan

[lex_jenkins]

I've been doing my own b&w processing and printing for years but I'm not efficient enough to do this for weddings and events where turnaround time is critical. On rare occasions I've shot Delta 3200 or pushed Tri-X but I'd rather not since it can take me a month to print all the negs to my satisfaction. So I use Ilford XP2 Super for monochrome in these cases. It's great stuff and works well enough right at 400 for typical indoor or other available light situations. The only tricky bit is finding a good lab that can deliver neutral prints. Some minilabs can't deliver monochrome prints that don't have a greenish, purplish or orangey cast.

 

For color I've pretty well settled on Fuji NPH (or Pro 400H, the newer and slightly improved emulsion - improved for the digital printing era, that is), NPZ or, sometimes, Superia X-tra 800/Press 800 (same emulsion, "CZ"). CZ is great for available light but I don't like it with flash - kinda harsh. NPH and NPZ are better choices if you find it necessary to balance available light and fill flash. These particular Fuji films use their fourth color layer emulsion, which helps ensure good results in difficult artificial light such as fluorescent and sodium vapor, without having to resort to on-lens filters.

 

I've seen some great stuff done by others using Portra but I haven't had the best luck with it. Probably due to differences in printing and paper choices.

[melody1]

Dan - I do develop my own b&w - Tmax 100 through 3200 unless asked for another.

No I don't develop my own C41 and E6 - I leave it to National Geographic to develop and scan, and I print in the school color darkroom for prints.

 

I totally agree with you comment about exposure and contrast - so much to learn!

 

The reason I asked is two fold. I have absolutely no experience with flash. I don't even own a flash at the moment (not practical for business I assume). I know I have oodles of time to spend mastering flash.

As far as film goes, I started with b&w, processing myslef, ect. I fell in love with color for a while, and am now in a b&w craft class and falling back in love with it.

 

Thanks for your responses so much!!

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Most of his portfolio was shot on genuine B&W film with fast

lenses and no flash.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Jeff Ascough, who has popped onto photo.net a few times, has switched to digital.

He has said on this very forum, <u><A href =

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CWym

>"I've moved totally over from Leica rangefinder film cameras to Canon 1DMKII's."

</a></u>

[fotografz]

It is true that Jeff Ascough has switched to digital, and for good reason if you read the link

provided by AZ. That doesn't alter the fact that a majority of his portfolio was shot on film

using a rangefinder as was mentioned. I'm sure that will change with time as new images

replace the old. Were I using the same work flow as Jeff, I would have switched to digital

faster than he did.

 

However, B&W film is still an option for those who wish to exercise it, and have the means

to fit into their range of offerings. I do because: 1) my lab still processes it well. 2) I still

have an operational darkroom ... although used only for processing the negs now days.

 

The concession I've made is to use the C41 B&Ws which provide a different look than

traditional B&W films ... but are easier to scan due to being able to use Digital Ice, and

they fit well into the digital work flow from the Canon DSLRs. THe C41 B&Ws still have a

nicer tonal range to my eye which is why I still shoot film for some work.

 

As far as color is concerned I use mostly medium contrast color neg from Fuji or Kodak in

120 and 220 MF sizes and proof them at the lab ... then scan anything I wish to add to the

album. All of the remaining color work is done with digital cameras or MF digital backs.

[discpad]

Lex, just find a lab that uses Oriental Hyper Seagull monochrome (B&W) RA-4 paper. Worst case, if you have a good relationship with your C-41 lab, buy a roll yourself and have them use it for your work.

 

 

3rd party description:

http://www.plumeltd.com/artzone/paperzone/se_hyper.htm

 

 

Manufacturer product page:

http://www.orientalphotousa.com/hyperseagull.htm

 

 

List of dealers:

http://www.orientalphotousa.com/dealers.htm

 

 

Interestingly, B&H only has sheets, not rolls listed; but, I've used the roll paper before.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

I do appreciate that it's quite easy to read through threads looking for 'errors'. In my original answer I actually stated that he'd now gone digital - so which part of my answer actually needed correction?

 

Is lots of the work on Jeffs site shot with film; YES. Did I acknowledge that he'd now gone digital; YES.

[._._z]

I was linking for those who did not know that he participated in this discussion, on

this forum, in the past.

[lex_jenkins]

Thanks for the tip, Dan. I know of a couple of labs that would probably be willing to use paper I provide as long as I give them extra time for the job.

[discpad]

Glad to help, Lex!

 

By the way, for the roll paper you may have to order it in, since it appears only the sheets are stocked at most places...

[jeffascough]

I have been shooting 100% digi for 10 months now. The whole of my first website gallery page is digi. Most of my second page is also digi apart from four images. I have digi images strewn threw the rest of the pages.

 

Does this matter? No. The camera and media is just a way of recording what your eye sees. I think people forget that sometimes.

[uk]

Jeff,

 

At the FOCUS 2006 Seminar, I asked about your view on film & Leica after your digital

experince. Rather, than quote your response verbatim and put you on the spot here, you

did indicate that there was a very specific reason for continuing with digital. Negating that

reason would put you on a different route.

 

I think it might surprise most people to hear it from you.

 

Thoroughly enjoyed both seminars and your CD.

 

Regards,

 

Gary