What film would you have shot at Woodstock?

[kyle_mcmahon]

What film would you have shot at Woodstock?

 

I ask because I am going to a music festival this summer and I would like to record the event in a

journalistic manner. I'm one of those photographers who got into the game with digital, and only recently

decided I would like to try shooting film. So I have a new (to me) FM2n and some lenses, and think this

would make a good first major project with this camera (obviously, I will use it before then, but this will be

my first big project with it that I would not consider practice for the sake of practice). Another reason to

do this project with this new outfit is that they don't allow what they consider "professional" cameras, so I

think I would be more unobtrusive with my FM2n and a couple AI-S primes than my D70s and 70-200.

 

Anyway, I will be shooting crowds of people, performances, etc. I'm thinking (but again, I'm new to this

film thing so I may be somewhat off here) that I'll want a film for daytime things and a film for evening/

nightime things. I've done a bit of reading up and came up with these possibilities:

 

For daytime shots: Provia 100F

For night shots: Pro 800Z

 

Is shooting a mix of slide and print for the same event not a good idea? I would prefer slide films, but

picked Pro 800Z for night shots because I read its a good, photojournalistic film that can handle mixed

lighting (read: concert lighting) well.

 

Does anyone have any other film suggestions, or any general advice? Thanks.

 

Kyle McMahon

[tom_harvey3]

Kodachrome X (64 ASA), Kodachrome (25 ASA) for slides,

Kodacolor-X for color prints,

Tri-X for B&W prints

[neal_shields]

I am not aware of any other film mentioned in a 60's song except Kodachrome.

 

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Kodachrome-lyrics-Paul-Simon/929E50784B2FAFBB4825698A000B5995

[neal_shields]

Note: use it while you can and research it so you understand the difference. It is a completely different process than other slide film which is why it gives colors that inspire songs.

[kyle_mcmahon]

Neal, I didn't mean literally what was available in the 60s for Woodstock. I just asked that

question to convey that, of what is available today, I would like to know what would be good

for a music festival setting.

[Ed_Ingold]

At Woodstock, I would have used Tri-X, rated at ASA 320 in that time frame. I wouldn't have given color a second thought. Color was for vacations and fun, not photojournalism, and largely limited to K-25, K-64 or EK-64. I wasn't there (at Woodstock), but that was what I used professionally at the time.

 

Today, if not digital, I would use Fuji NPH400 almost exclusively. It is fast enough for hand held shots in any kind of daylight or shade, with or without fill flash. At the same time, its color is good for flesh tones, and the grain fine enough for a two-page spread. NPZ800 is also a very good film for people - good color, adequate speed for normal room lighting, and still not too grainy. I would not consider reversal film for a moment - the exposure is too fussy and there's not enough dynamic range (about 5 stops, compared to 10 for NPH400).

 

For me at least, the question is moot. I have DSLRs, and that would be my medium of choice. I can dial in the ISO, shoot hundreds of frames without changing film, and process the day's work in my hotel room that evening.

[neal_shields]

Yes but I would have shot Kodachrome and would today.

 

Kodachrome has a look that closely aproaches dye transfer. There is nothing else like it.

 

I can never get it stright but some films add the dye in the development process and some films have the dye in the film and bleach out the unwanted dye in development.

 

Kodachrome is one way and everything else is the other.

 

Because of that it is more expensive and harder to develop.

 

It is going away fast so shoot some while you can and you will be able to tell your grandchildren about color photography that would knock their socks off.

[brucecahn]

Didn't make it to Woodstock, had to work. But I did cover the 1968? Be In in Central Park. Used 35 mm Tri-X and 120 Color negative film, don't remember which speed, but it was Kodak. Didn't do too badly for a beginner.

[larrydressler]

Tri-X and Agfa Vista. Vista for the acid part in me Tri-x for the time it still holds up too.

[bill_tuthill]

Kodak Yellow Sunshine with a Purple Haze filter, fer shure.

[craig_shearman1]

If the issue is not allowing "professional" cameras in, then forget about your FM2n as well. The rent-a-cop at the gate isn't going to know the difference. Anything beyond a pocket size point and shoot is likely to be seen as a professional camera. As for film, stick with color negative since there's more latitude in exposure. 400 speed or above for daytime -- there are going to be shadows and backlight and clouds and whatever else, so 100 wont' cut it. 800 or 1600 for nights. If you want to carry just one film make it 800. Back at the real Woodstock, I can guarantee that virtually every newspaper or wire service photogapher was shooting Tri-X. Magazine shooters would have most likely had Ektachrome because they could process it in-house unlike Kodachrome. I think the fastest available might have been 160 and that was really "high speed." They might have pushed that to 320 if needed.

[marshall]

If you want to shoot slide --- well, I'll put it this way: if *I* were shooting slides at such an event, I'd shoot Astia. I don't really like Provia that much, and I'm way too impatient to wait weeks to see Kodachrome come back from the one place left that processes it (plus, I prefer the Astia for people by a large margin).

 

Then again, I'd rather shoot digitally for this kind of event, so my film recommendations are sliding out of date...

[James G. Dainis]

"Anything beyond a pocket size point and shoot is likely to be seen as a professional camera."

 

Especially if it has a longish telephoto lens on it. To be on the safe side, I would pick up a Canon A540 to carry in pocket or purse.

[anthony_lewis1]

I have been shooting 4x5 for only a fairly short time. I was using Porta 160VC mainly at

night, but found the blacks went very black. Now i am shooting 160NC. Generally speaking I

would avoid satuated color films at night as i find them to contrasty - especially

transparencies. As well I think it would be a good idea to stick to neg. for the exposure

latitude. I not a big expert, but that is the film I would shoot - go for it.

[kyle_mcmahon]

Fortunately, I know will be able to get this in. People are often able to get digital rebels and

D50s, etc in. Cameras like D2Xs and Mark IIs are what would be problematic. My FM2n with

a 50mm lens will be fine. Let's please focus on the question at hand, which is about what

film to use. Thanks to all who have given their advice so far.

[g._armour_van_horn]

Hey, if you know the FM2n will get in, then great. But in its day, the "pro" body was the F2 or F3, the amateur bodies were the FM/FE and numerical derivatives, per Nikon's marketing. The average person would have tended to think it was probably a pro body if it had removable lenses and definitely if it also had a black finish! The D70s is in exactly the same place in the lineup today that the FM2 was back then, but it's black. Of course, the security guard at the gate might be an advanced photographer on the side and actually know what's what.

 

If I were going to shoot this event for myself and I really wanted to use film, I'd shoot Astia during the day and Provia 400 as the light dimmed because I process my own E6 and could afford to shoot more that way. But given the narrow latitude, I wouldn't recommend that to anyone else. On the other hand, if you've mostly shot digital you're used to the narrow latitude.

 

If I was going to shoot this as a pay gig, I'd switch to negative film for certain. I'd shoot 200 or 400 during the day, and the NPZ800 as the light dropped off. The extra latitude would mean more useable images.

 

I would absolutley carry a good meter with me. The match-needle TTL metering of the FM isn't confidence inspiring and can be too easily fooled. I use a Minolta AutoMeter IV-F, and I have the 5-degree spot meter attachment. But anything that is both reflective and incident would work. So I'd be checking with the meter routinely so I would spot anything too odd that the internal meter came up with.

 

Neal, Kodachrome is the odd one. The reversal is performed by light exposure during processing, and the dyes are added from processing solutions. With E-6 (Ektachromes, Fujichromes, et al) the reversal is chemical and the dyes are already in the film, with their actual appearance being triggered by the third solution, the Color Developer. Early Ektachromes (E-2 for sure, don't remember E-4 well enough to say) also used light for the reversal, but the dye was always in the film.

 

Van

[jtk]

Look at National Geographic of the era. They identified the film for each photo. It was almost always KII for daylight and EH for low light (that's Ektachrome High Speed, 160ASA, easily pushed to a saturated 640 by the very few good labs (Media Generalists was one of about three in the US). Good EX was nearly equal to KII in that it was more accurate but didn't have the blacks...again, it depended on the lab.

[jtk]

...if I was going to Woodstock today a) I wouldn't and b) I'd use some of my NPZ inventory.

[al_kaplan1]

I didn't make it to Woodstock but I did cover the Palm Beach International Rock Festival and one in Orlando, FL back then, shooting Tri-X and various Ektachromes. Today I'd still pick Tri-X but probably choose Kodacolor Gold 400 for the color. It's cheap and it can handle a wide range of color temperatures from daylight to tungsten to carbon arc spotlights better than any "pro" film I've tried. Unfortunately all those cute chicks would be calling me Gramps these days.