susan_hall1 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm registered to participate in the Mardi Gras 360 project in New Orleans January 28-February 7. I typically shoot with a Leica M6 Portra VC in daylight without a flash. In order to expedite processing, editing I will be shooting b.w. film...I'm thinking Kodak tri x 400, as well as color. I'm toying with purchasing a flash attachment for my Leica. I will be shooting Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday) for at least part of the project. Would flash or 800-1600 speed film or a combination of both be preferable? Kind of need a "crash course" in night photography. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Before the date, try pushing the tri-x a stop or two, and then underexpose your resulting iso 800 or 1600 2 stops. See if that gets the effect you want. In other words, put Tri-x 400 in the camera, set the ISO to 800, then underexpose that by 2 stops, then follow the instructions to develop the film at 800. (or 1200 or 1600). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 >>> In order to expedite processing, editing I will be shooting b.w. film...I'm thinking Kodak tri x 400, as well as color.<<< Isn't it more appropriate to shoot C41 films then convert the scan than shooting a silver based film if you are in a hurry? Does the workshop have an on demand developer/printer working there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 What I tried in NY was at night was shooting tri-x at 1600, but pulling the developement to 1200. John, is the purpose of your way to basically allow a faster shutter speed/higher Apeture combination? When you do it that way, what do lights and highlites look like? What i was thinking when I did mine, was you basically want to bring up the exposure on the darks, and since the darks develope first and then the lights, by pulling you can get the shadows and midtones up but retard the bright lights etc. In a couple of shots it worked really good. But I'm always looking for better ways. I don't shoot at night a whole lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 should be "really well" not "really good", sorry for bruising the language once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clive1 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 A bit off question, but I shoot nearly all my <a href=http://www.flickr.com/photos/japanscape/sets/72157603307062576/show/> colour stuff</a> at night relying only on existing light. I've found that Fujifilm's Venus 800 (as it is known here) is a good compromise between speed and grain. Of course, I'm lucky if I get one keeper per roll, but a lot of that is down to personal taste. Also, you'll probably have more existing light to work with. I use an M6 with 35mm Ultron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Susan, I'm not sure you need to push or shoot high speed film when using flash. I think the choice to use flash will depend on the level of ambiant light you will have available. If you use a small flash it of course limits the area of coverage. It also depends on the effect you want. Some like the stark flash effect where the subject is well illuminated and the background is black. Some like some ambiant light in the background. SF20and SF24 is Leica's flash for the M's. Its small, light and useful. You will have to use it on Auto or Manual with a M6 non-ttl. As far as larger flashes, You'll have to get more info than I have regarding capatability w/M6. I think some Nikon flashes will work with it, and I'm not sure about the old Vivitar 283 (is that right no.?) its a more powerful flash, but I believe you have to be careful to get a newer version due to voltage issues. There are also Metz flashes. If there is a lot of light on the parade route, you may get away with pushing film as above or using a nice small flash, likewise for more intimate shots. Also, you might explore whether you can attach your flash with a cord, and thus be able to hold the flash of to the side and above or below the subject, this provides some interesting opportunities as well. Good luck, sounds like a cool trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 "Barry Fisherphoto.net patron prolific poster, Jan 23, 2008; 06:45 p.m. John, is the purpose of your way to basically allow a faster shutter speed/higher Apeture combination? " It is to allow a faster shutter speed, and to get an image that looks like it was shot at night, both. Push to get the speed, and underexpose to make it (unlit bg mostly) look dark, as it does at night. In my experience that usually requires a 2 stop underexposure on top of that. With digital, I usually up the exposure to at least 800, and underexpose (as read by the meter) by 2. Your metering generally aims at a neutral gray, and that is not what you see at night - it is DARK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <p>Here's neopan 400 pushed to 800, and although I don't have the exposure info, I think it was from the meter underexposed by 2. One nice side effect of pushing a stop, for night shots, is the nice contrast you get from pushing.</p> <a href= "http://www.johnsidlo.com/image.php?src=CoolidgeFrontsm.jpg&url=images2002"> http://www.johnsidlo.com/image.php?src=CoolidgeFrontsm.jpg&url=images2002</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 You also have to take special pains in printing these, since they are not your average daylight photos. The typical printing system is automated and tries to produce a daylight shot. I had a photo of a night sky from a tripod once, that I could absolutely not get printed. Finally I got a film scanner and did it myself, and found a perfectly exposed shot of the stars in Arizona. If it was noise, it corresponded to the small number of constellations I was familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 John, This method probably won't work with people shots which is what Susan is after I believe. Susan, It would be helpful to know what you have ( one or two body, lenses ) and what look you are after for this project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 <p>"leslie cheung prolific poster, Jan 23, 2008; 08:25 p.m. John, This method probably won't work with people shots which is what Susan is after I believe. "</p> <p> Yes, it will. Light is light. </p><br/> <p>See <a href= "http://www.johnsidlo.com/image.php?src=Dereksm.jpg&url=images2002"> http://www.johnsidlo.com/image.php?src=Dereksm.jpg&url=images2002</a> , for example.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 John here's a couple I did w/the way I was talking about. <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2015898932_f92c6994c5.jpg?v=1195202825"> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/2036260619_cb0fc988f1.jpg?v=1195192328"> Now the Cat was digitally "bleached" for its fur hilights. But you get the idea. Is this different than what you are doing? I get the sense, we are thinking the steps through differently but ending up doing the same thing or close to it. Or am I missing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 There's no problem shooting at night if the subject is itself a light...such as an office tower dome or a building with a neon front. The exposure could be about 1/125 at f2 and ISO 100... But a digital camera would let you work out the exposure... Of course I'm not thinking of sports field or race track lighting... And an ordinary street light hitting asphalt is about 1/15 at f1.4 and ISO 100...so a subject must have its face right next to a light. With a flash I don't know...but I'm thinking use underexposure compensation and go for a god's face looking out of the clouds effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I don't think she is taking portraits of people sitting still John nor is she shooting some well lit building. She is shooting people parading and dancing on the streets. Many of these people will have darker complexion and they will probably be in a mixed lighting. Stop motion will be at 1/125 if not 1/250. Underexposing in situations like this is trouble especially when you have a deadline and don't have time to mess around in the darkroom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilambrose Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 <p>A flash may well be important if you don't have a fast lens. But otherwise you can get by quite easily - there's a lot of light in a carnival, way more than you might think, and enough to stop motion and dissolve backgrounds into darkness.</p> <p>These images were all taken in a carnival in London last summer. Night time, ambient illumination from torches, flames, street lights only. All hand-held, no flash, ISO 800 and Noctilux, at variable apertures between f1 and f2, and speeds between 1/15 and 1/90. Finding the light is easy. The only hard thing with an M6 is focusing accurately on moving targets in those conditions.</p> <p> <img src="http://36photos.org/street/series/20071001/images/008.jpg" alt="" title="" /> <img src="http://36photos.org/street/series/20071001/images/026.jpg" alt="" title="" /> <img src="http://36photos.org/street/series/20071001/images/035.jpg" alt="" title="" /> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke_neher Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Im with Leslie here, i would be very careful about UNDER exposing night shots. If the blacks DO turn out too bright that can be fixed, but i expect you'd come out with really thin almost unuseable negs. My method for night shots, usually parties with light from a fireside or a lamp or a cigarette lighter or whatever is neopand 1600 exposed at 2000 (using meter readings) and developed for 16.5-17 minutes in xtol 1:1 at 20 degrees with 3 inversions every 30 seconds. That produces some shadow detail and faces of about zone 6/7/8 depending on conditions. That said, i would reccomend learning to use a flash! because if its really dark you'll be shooting at 8ths 15ths and 30ths and that doesnt go if people are dancing. Here are some examples: <a href=" title="simon by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1825398338_dd412388ce.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="simon" /></a> <a href=" title="girllap by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/1824557461_4c767d526d_o.jpg" width="650" height="439" alt="girllap" /></a> <a href=" title="Lily's1 by neherstreetphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/1727581043_decc44b4a9_o.jpg" width="650" height="436" alt="Lily's1" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Is there any reason not to shoot Delta 3200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now