High Speed Film Question for Shooting Winter Rain Forest

[laurence_smith]

I generally take several Winter forays into the VERY dark, rainy, rain forest

valleys here in the PacNW. In the past, I've concentrated on landscape scenes,

and generally have used Velvia 50 and 100F to produce good images with long

exposures.

 

My new thrust though, is to use my recently acquired Hartblei f:5.6 500mm

mirror lens on the Pentax 645 to shoot the wildlife that I so often see,

sometimes right from the car.

 

As a background, let me say that I am VERY pleased with the performance of the

mirror lens, and it has already proved capable of giving me crisp slides with

resultant prints to 12x16 using Provia 400F. Actually, I've only printed two

12x16s, but I'm confident in the quality from these. I also printed a 12x16

from a 400F slide produced from the mirror lens with the 2x teleconverter; it

was not quite as crisp, but HIGHLY acceptable for what I anticipate.

 

Okay, all that "background" over with, here's a couple of questions I hope to

have answered from the forum:

 

Can I push the 400F acceptably? Is two stops of push too much to ask? I wish I

could get at least one more increment in speed with the mirror lens than I seem

to get from the 400F in low light.

 

Will I be "better off" using a high speed print film in these conditions? This

a stable system, but "shake" could always be an issue here. Would there be a

recommended 800 speed print film that I might push a stop? I haven't used print

film much, but since the final print quality is what I'm looking for, I would

certainly be glad to use print film.

 

I AM "practicing" with films now, but advice from you folks would also go a

long way toward helping me without breaking my bankroll in a ton of different

films to test.

 

Thanks as always.

[philg]

ISO 800 print film is remarkably good. For one f-stop, a lot of labs would tell you simply to develop normally and rely on the latitude of the film. For at least 10 years, Fuji has made ISO 800 print film designed to be pushed. I think right now it is called "Fujicolor Press". Kodak's Portra 800 (very recently redesigned) is designed for push processing to ISO 1600 and is available in 120 and 220.

 

I would not use color slide film faster than ISO 200.

[sattler123]

I agree with Philip. Use print film and just overexpose by one stop - that should do the trick and the film's latitude can easily handle a one stop over exposure. The new Portra 800 has very fine grain and should work just fine for your application. You won't have the popping colors of slide film, but the overall result will be better than high ISO slide film would give you.

[laurence_smith]

Philip: Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking valuable time for giving some advice on this; it will enable me to narrow down my choices for "prior experimentation". I certainly want to be ready for the elk, and they invariably pick the darker Vine Maple thickets when they show themselves to me...must be a sort of "murphy's law" for them. I'll give the Fuji Press a valiant try...lots of "darkness" here, especially with these Pacific storms howling in and flooding things out. Should be able to approximate the rain forest conditions quite easily right outside the house!

 

Juergen: I appreciate the sage advice. I had assumed that there was latitude in the print film. I haven't been "in the loop" for print film because of my propensity to shoot the saturated chromes so much. I am going to include the Portra 800 along with the Fuji Press and see how it goes in my "at home" testing.

 

Since I have to utilize "stop down" mode with the Pentacon mount mirror lens, I'll use the "Metered Manual" setting on the Pentax 645, enabling me to manually overexpose a stop; since the lens is pre-set at 5.6 only, I'll just open the lens a stop after reading the meter at 5.6 equivalent....usually the elk have quite a few pauses in their motion, so this will probably work.

 

It also looks like I might get away with just "pre-setting" the exposure to account for the "average" light (or lack thereof), and just fire away, seeing as there is a decent amount of latitude. That will go a LONG way towards getting "the shot"...

 

...Or maybe I'll just shoot at ISO 1600 and have it pushed...anyways, those are choices I can make in the field.

 

The advice is HIGHLY appreciated. I'm looking forward to getting back up the beloved Quinault Valley...and sure...I'll take a couple rolls of 400F...but it looks like the 800 speed films are the way to go for my desired output...so if you see a guy bristling with Fuji Press and Portra 800 films on his vest, poking a big old lens out the car window over a sandbag, just give me a yell.<div></div>

[Jochen_S]

I'm wondering if Juergen had a translation error included. Philip seems to have suggested to underexpose the print film. From my personal experience not the worst choice. I shoot concerts according to uncompensated spotmeter readings of skin tones all the time. Results aren't perfect but I also use Fujicolor 1600 in 35mm.

 

Before I'd overexpose ISO 800 on purpose I'd just grab some cheap ISO 400.

 

Sad that you love oversaturated chromes with contrast added by printing. My best available darknes advice still is Delta 3200 which provides acceptable results in MF. IMHO the gain of one f-stop by picking ISO 800 is close to nothing. OTOH switching to BW is hard and makes you by far more light dependant than color which handles dull days better.

[laurence_smith]

Jochen wrote:

I'm wondering if Juergen had a translation error included. Philip seems to have suggested to underexpose the print film. From my personal experience not the worst choice. I shoot concerts according to uncompensated spotmeter readings of skin tones all the time. Results aren't perfect but I also use Fujicolor 1600 in 35mm.

Before I'd overexpose ISO 800 on purpose I'd just grab some cheap ISO 400.

Sad that you love oversaturated chromes with contrast added by printing. My best available darknes advice still is Delta 3200 which provides acceptable results in MF. IMHO the gain of one f-stop by picking ISO 800 is close to nothing. OTOH switching to BW is hard and makes you by far more light dependant than color which handles dull days better.

 

Jochen:

 

Good points you raise here. I do think that I should be okay shooting 800 as rated? Sounds like there certainly is latitude in print film?

 

I am not sure that I interpreted any of Stephen's dialog to mean that there was a suggestion of underexposing.

 

As far as grabbing some ISO400, I'm not sure this is "enough" for me to be able to come to my (hoped for) compromise between shutter speed versus grain. I would hope I could lean towards the 800 for its speed and still gain acceptable prints. I need all the speed I can get -- within reason, so even just one stop may be a bonus in this case.

 

Yes, I sure do love those saturated chromes! Haha, it IS sort of sad there, for sure! That said, I am certainly not expecting high contrast, saturated prints out of the high speed print films. And, in this case that's okay...the rain forest millieu is definitely "unsaturated" to the eye, so I will be fine in not having my beloved garish saturation... :-) With the muted colors of the elk and other mammals in the Olympic Park, I would not expect the "Velvia look" in prints in this case.

 

In response to the B&W film...I have definitely found good results with B&W on my old 35mm Canon FD system. I just never thought to use B&W in medium format. And there, you have given me another fine suggestion! I will also pick up some high speed 120 B&W film and give it a tryout as well. I think that I should be able to make some careful developing decisions and maybe I can equal some of the results I used to get with 35mm B&W film.

 

I fully appreciate the ideas. These help me tremendously and raise the possibility of coming away with some good shots. All ideas, and all opinions are valuable.

[Jochen_S]

Laurence, to be honest: I don't know for what else, if not BW, MF might be good at all. Means I haven't got enough arms and legs to pay printing and processing of MF color film and at least my MF shooting pace doesn't provide serious reasons to rig up a projection screen soon enough. OTOH BW shouts for homeprocessing and there one can really benefit from the increased neg size. I shot whole vacations on TMY 120 pushed to ISO 1600 in T-Max soup, greatful for handholdable shutter speeds even with filters, combined with some DOF. I didn't print larger than 8x10" but was happy. Delta 3200 is too grainy for 8x10" from 35mm but does a decent job in the Pentacon Six. I looked at the green channel of your attached pic above and tend to say give BW a go again. AFAIK pushing adds contrast so it might just be the right thing in that forest.

[laurence_smith]

Jochen writes: Laurence, to be honest: I don't know for what else, if not BW, MF might be good at all. Means I haven't got enough arms and legs to pay printing and processing of MF color film and at least my MF shooting pace doesn't provide serious reasons to rig up a projection screen soon enough. OTOH BW shouts for homeprocessing and there one can really benefit from the increased neg size. I shot whole vacations on TMY 120 pushed to ISO 1600 in T-Max soup, greatful for handholdable shutter speeds even with filters, combined with some DOF. I didn't print larger than 8x10" but was happy. Delta 3200 is too grainy for 8x10" from 35mm but does a decent job in the Pentacon Six. I looked at the green channel of your attached pic above and tend to say give BW a go again. AFAIK pushing adds contrast so it might just be the right thing in that forest.

 

Jochen, my shooting pace for medium format has also decreased somewhat; however, for about the past 5-6 years, I was shooting 10 rolls per week and printing 30-50 images per year (!!). As indicated before, that was almost all Velvia, since people seemed to be more attracted to the saturated prints for purchase. In any case, Velvia scans never needed to have added saturation in the rain forest images...the green was already almost unreal!

 

To be honest, I was sort of "hoping" that the replies on this thread would recommend using negative film over chrome film. That is bearing out, and I am rather happy to strive for this "new" strategy for low light situations.

 

I DO have a projection screen, and it has given me an added dimension in looking at my 6x6 and 4.5x6 chromes. The images (to me) are breathtaking when shown on a screen at up to 3 meters on a side. I have never given shows; the projection is just another tool beyond the lightbox for my personal evaluation of the slides.

 

So, for me anyway, the MF has been rewarding and worthwhile. Somewhat costly for sure, but it has been the only thing that I have poured money into as far as a hobby.

 

I am happy to try to utilize both black & white, as well as color print film at the higher ISO ratings, and see what shall pass. After all, that is the thrill and challenge of photography.

 

I will definitely be developing the B&W in the darkroom; or I should say that my good friend and photographic partner will be setting things up for me. He has always said that I should try B&W films in the medium format gear I have. Well...this is a good time to give it a try.

 

The light values in the rain forests here are subtle in the winter because of the overcast days, so the developing will be "hit and miss" until I can come up with the correct mix.

 

And, even while the B&W is "in the soup", I can still have fun with the color negative film!

 

It's ALL fun!

[laurence_smith]

Here is another image of typical light values in the local rain forests; this is a BRIGHT day (!!). Imagine an elk in here on a DARK day, and you can see the need for speed! (Film speed, that is).

[peter_langfelder]

Forgive me for not answering the question posed directly in the thread, but it seems to me that attempting to photograph wildlife on MF film in such conditions is counterproductive. A reduced frame DSLR such a Digital Rebel with a 200mm lens (e.g., the 200/2.8 L) will give you a similar field of view, will be much easier to use, and the image quality at ISO 800 to 1600 should be comparable to the MF film, if not better. Further, you will be able to use aperture 2.8, presumaly much faster than the Hartblei. Finally, you can continue loading your P645 with Velvia for those beautiful landscape shots. Just a suggestion to think about.

[laurence_smith]

Peter, excellent points. I guess I should have mentioned that I always have the old Canon FD system in the car, so I have my backup in case the whole MF "try for the low light shot" goes south on me. I certainly can see that possibility, what with the cumbersome outfit! I'll give it my best try, and if the MF is just too much to ask for getting this kind of shot, I'll simply punt! :-)