Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Bad light, TriX400@3200
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:53 pm    Post subject: Bad light, TriX400@3200 Reply with quote
I was seriously drunken while developing this film which makes results not as good as last time Wink
http://forum.mflenses.com/collapsible-leitz-summicron-50-2-and-kodak-trix-400-iso3200-t53778,highlight,%2Btrix.html
Another factor is that most pics were made under pure backlight which is not easy to use

#1


#2


#3

Blacklight makes skin very dark!

#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


#11

Here starts a second roll - development was better here

#12


#13


#14


#15


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think its really hard to push film this much. thats just my opinion, but i rarely push beyond 1 stop. having said that, some of these came out pretty good, all things considered.
tony


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really think you're wasting your time pushing film so far.

Try a flash, there is no magic that can make good pictures without light.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really think you're wasting your time pushing film so far.

Try a flash, there is no magic that can make good pictures without light.

+1


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Try Fuji's 1600 if you can find it or Kodak's TMZ 3200. Fuji is better though.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29146-USA/Kodak_1516798_TMZ_135_36_T_Max_P3200.html

Or go medium format.

Last edited by Kram on Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:38 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Neopan 1600 is getting very expensive now, stocks of it are very small and as a result, people will pay a lot for it. I just saw a 30m roll of it go for nearly 100ukp and it was expired by 7 years so had probably lost a bit of speed.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, wow. We live in the last days of many films. Sad


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really think you're wasting your time pushing film so far.

Try a flash, there is no magic that can make good pictures without light.

+1


i dissagree. flash changes atmosphere of scene. if i can shoot without it, i will do it. trix and hp5/surveillance are both pushable to 3200 with some limits (not much, or almost none mid tones plus heavy grain) and i do it from time to time. there is no waste of time, only about 15min more in developing, nothing else is changed. do not evaluate those pictures on your lcd, they will be different on baryte paper.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, flash does change things, but with a diffuser or bouncing it, you can minimalise this.

A slight change in atmosphere is preferable to horrible grain, bad tonality and darkness.

Just because you can push a film several stops doesn't mean it's a good idea.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just because you can use flash, doesn't mean it's a good idea Smile

but ok, we two have different oppinions. thats just human nature...


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've yet to see an example of pushing several stops in bad light that looked good.

However, you can make very nice pictures with flash in bad light.

Of course, each to their own, but for me, the detrimental effect on quality makes pushing several stops a poor method.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
forenseil: those shots are clearly underexposed - I don´t know how you measured exposure, but you should have adjusted the exposure for darkest areas instead of the brightest ones. you can see it in shots with light sources in them - you lost shadows.

anyway I don´t think it´s not possible to push Tri-X to ISO3200, but you must measure light very precisely and count with higher contrast


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bad flash technique causes bad pictures, not the flash itself.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMO, the so called "bad light" simply added to the atmosphere of photos. They look great to my eyes!

Look at Roger Hicks's "Low light and Night Photography" book for inspirations. No need for flash!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stingOM wrote:
IMO, the so called "bad light" simply added to the atmosphere of photos. They look great to my eyes!

Look at Roger Hicks's "Low light and Night Photography" book for inspirations. No need for flash!

I think it would depend on the situation. There's nothing special about the ambient light in the above images, so flash bounced for even lighting or used creatively off camera would have been better.......

....IMO.
Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:

There's nothing special about the ambient light in the above images, so flash bounced for even lighting or used creatively off camera would have been better.......
....IMO.
Laughing Laughing Laughing


In many of the pictures there isn't, but in #15 the lighting is perfect and flash would have completely ruined the atmosphere.
So it's really a case-by-case decision - not a universally valid rule
also IMO Wink


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
15 is the only one approaching 'decent' but I disagree you couldn't improve it with flash, a nice diffuse fill flash would have helped without ruining the ambient light.

I think any light is better than no light.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
15 is the only one approaching 'decent' but I disagree you couldn't improve it with flash, a nice diffuse fill flash would have helped without ruining the ambient light.


I disagree, I love the fact that she's in backlight, that's what makes the picture special for me.
If she was frontally lit, it would be just yet another party snapshot.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm a clear flash-foe. It ruins atmosphere (not only the atmosphere in the pic), it's disturbing people and I hate flash shadows!

Also I think that TriX is no problem @ ISO3200 - only problem is that the film was under exposed for ISO3200 and blacklight makes it extra-difficult to achieve a nice tonal range.

Most lightmeters don't work correctly under blacklight and ISO of the film is not the same as in white or tungsten light. Plus I was very drunken when I was developing this film Wink- I think I developed it much too warm, to short, with wrong rotation and it's also the reason for the.

Same film, same developer, same dev. time (15:30) and same exposure is able to give much better results under non-blacklight!:
Repost:

(tungsten)


(sodium bulp/dull yellow street lighting)


(dark sunlight at dusk)
(All the same TriX400 in Xtol 1+1, developed for ISO3200)


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Use both sometimes flash make pictures to wow, these are wonderful results what you show I remember for original post.

I like this better with flash than without.



Whole thread is here, you can see on last one why you don't like flash Smile that was ruined by flash.

http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-a4-agfa-apx-100-fomadon-r09-rodinal-t38945,highlight,%2Bkonica+%2Ba4.html


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:

There's nothing special about the ambient light in the above images, so flash bounced for even lighting or used creatively off camera would have been better.......
....IMO.
Laughing Laughing Laughing


In many of the pictures there isn't, but in #15 the lighting is perfect and flash would have completely ruined the atmosphere.
So it's really a case-by-case decision - not a universally valid rule
also IMO Wink


You can Creatively use available light without flash to achieve the desired result! However, I admit for snapshots, you have no control over the situation.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I'm a clear flash-foe. It ruins atmosphere (not only the atmosphere in the pic), it's disturbing people and I hate flash shadows!


Proper flash technique, then you don't disturb people or get bad shadows, diffusers or bounce methods can work wonders.

Honestly, none of these pushed pictures are good, you might as well use the cheapest Korean or Japanese lenses if you're satisfied with this quality, I thought Leicists were obsessed with quality?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stingOM wrote:

You can Creatively use available light without flash to achieve the desired result! However, I admit for snapshots, you have no control over the situation.


The point is: to use flash appropriately and well, you need a little set-up time. Not much time, if you're experienced, but it's NOT
something that you can use on the fly for snapshot photographs IF you want to make them look good - i.e. look natural and not artificial.
Of course, if one is content with an in-your-face, police-record straight front flash, or with a bounced-on-ceiling flash that kills all shadows
and makes everything in the picture look flat, I suppose he can also take snapshots with flash...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1