Making Light of Darkness, High Speed Film and You.

January 13, 2009

I do not care for flash photography.

Chicago based neofolk group Luftwaffe performs at Lucky Cheng's in NYC

This presents a problem as I’m also an avid performance photographer who often works in improvised performance spaces.  When the illumination consists of a couple of $10 hardware clamp lights duct taped to the wall with a 60 watt household bulb further dimmed by a dark blue gel you are now facing a number of problems.   All considerations of depth of field go out the window as you’re going to crank the lens wide open in order to get the shutter speed above 1/4 of a second.   In many situations a tripod or monopod is not an option (bouncers do not look kindly upon patrons who bring clubs into their venues) so forget about using that.  Even your autofocus fails you as it hunts around for an edge with enough contrast to work and quickly falls in love with the background lights.   Which leaves you with one option for having any chance of getting an image, use a high ISO.

Since this blog is concerned with silver based photography we’re talking about high speed film and pushing your film.   There are only three options for high speed film commonly available.  Ilford’s Delta 3200, Kodak’s TMax 3200, and Fuji Film’s Neopan 1600.   If you shoot medium format instead of 35mm you have one choice, Ilford Delta 3200.   Of these three choices Neopan is by far the cheapest and will cost you $4 a roll as opposed to $6 a roll for the 3200 speed films.

There are a number of concerns with working with these films.  The actual speed of each of these films is around 1000 depending on the developer which means to shoot at the suggested speed is actually pushing the film.

Pushing film does two things, it increases grain and it increases contrast.  The action of pushing film starves the film of light and replaces light with extra development time.  This means that your highlights which have the most active silver get to spend extra time with the developer while the shadows which have the least active silver sites will get a little more time to fill out.  Once you scan or print the negative you end up with flat, featureless highlights and gritty whispers of detail shadows. You will never get adequate shadow detail, the point of pushing film is to try to pull some detail out of the scene while accepting certain trade-offs.

Its said that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.  I don’t believe that for a moment as I’m usually good for a touch when it comes to the vittles.  However in this case, yes, getting something means you have to give up another thing.  If you wanted both speed and detail you should have bought a faster film.  If you’ve already paid for the fastest film, there’s a hard road ahead.

Film is only so sensitive and it needs photons to stimulate it.  The slower the emulsion, the more light is needed to even spark a reaction.  You can’t take a roll of Fuji Acros which is rated by the manufacturer at 100 ISO and expect to push it to 1600 just by multiplying the development time.  The emulsion needs a great deal of light to even start a reaction so giving it very faint light will result in you pulling a blank frame out of the tank no matter how long you leave it in there.

Tri-X does have a massive amount of latitude and scanning flickr does show people who have sucessfully pushed to 3200 and even 6400 (3 and 4 stops).  It is worth noting that the examples I found were printed traditionally where the photographer can pull a number of tricks out of their sleeve such as water baths to ensure detail in the highlights.  I’ve worked extensively with Tri-X developed in Diafine which gives a speed of about 1250 while still providing a nice, smooth tonality.

Pamela Herron performs at the New Museum in NYC

However this was a situation where there was actually a considerable amount of stage lighting and I was shooting at f/5.6 at around 1/60 or 1/125.  The light was also even.  While the dancer’s body has a nice, even tone the shadows on her head quickly drop down to black.   In a constrasty lighting situation such as this:

Times Square Subway Platform

the loss of shadow detail and compression of shadows is readily apparent.  The same film and same developer produce two entirely different results. When you need to push your film, you’re going to be dealing with subway platforms more often than well lit performance spaces.

This brings us back to our three film, TMax 3200, Delta 3200, and Neopan 1600. Which to rely on?  The 3200 seems like the best bet.  All three films have about the same actual speed but the TMax and Delta films promise better tone and smaller grain when developed in the rather expensive Kodak T-Max or Ilford DDX chemicals.  A promise I’ve noted in my personal experience is a complete load of crap.

Bitshifter performs at The Lucky Cat, Brooklyn.

Manhattan Tribal at Je'Bon, NYC

The two photos above are both shot at the same speed.  The one of the left is Kodak T-Max 3200 shot at 3200 and developed in T-Max developer.  The one on the right is Fuji Neopan 1600 shot at 3200 and developed in Rodinal 1:50.   Both were shot under similar conditions, dim clubs with improvised lighting.  I had an easier time shooting Bitshifter, he just kind of stands there. Even the small image size should show a considerable difference in the quality of the grain. In this instance I mean quality in a non-judgmental context, one is simply different from the other.

As a third example I’ll include a shot of Ilford Delta 3200 pushed two stops to 12500 and developed in the recommended Ilford DDX.

R. at Dances of Vice event, Brooklyn

Here we can see a significant amount of grain and more importantly, a very narrow range of midtones.  While the Delta 3200 did pull out an image in very low lighting and provided me with more than adequate shutter speed (this was probably around 1/60 at f/4) the grain and compressed tones made editing this photo a real beast.   We generally don’t like to see portraits with compressed midtones, its rather harsh on the subject.

So we’re left with two films that do have incredible push capabilities but at the expense of popcorn grain and compressed tones and one film that offers a moderate push with strong grain but much smoother tonality.  We’ve also learned never to trust a manufacturer’s promises.

As I primarily shoot people I’d be willing to give up a stop or two of light and open up my lens from f/4 to f/1.8 or f/1.4 and even take the speed down to 1/30 or 1/15 in order to get the smoother tones and tigher grain that Neopan offers.   This does come with certain limitations.  I need to shoot with a short prime lens in order to get a clear shot.   I’m also going to end up with a whisp of detail against a black background.  This is completely acceptable for portraits as it helpfully knocks the background out for you.

For landscapes and larger scenes where people are more elements in a composition than subjects, I’d strongly recommend the Delta 3200 or TMax 3200.   The problems with a limited tonal range are not as important, you’re going for shape and composition.   The subway panoramic shot above would have benefitted from being able to shoot Delta 3200 at 1600 for increased shadow detail rather than pushing Tri-X and a half stops and loosing the shadows.  Even in the post-Rudy, kinder, gentler (because we kicked all the bums and weirdos out) NYC harsh grain just adds to a photo.

As always, your Millage May Vary but these are my suggestions.  Neopan 1600 and a fast lens for portraits, Delta 3200 for landscapes.

Happy shooting.

Posted in Product Review, Technique