PDA

View Full Version : B&W 4x5 film for indoor sports?



Peakbagger
24-May-2016, 19:31
I'd like to shoot some gymnastics at EV7. On my digital, this translates to 1/200 f/4.5 ISO 3200.
Can anyone recommend a film that I can push to 3200 or even 1600 and does well?
Somewhat related - anyone know what film David Burnett used for his Olympics project?

Kevin Crisp
24-May-2016, 19:44
Tri-X in Accufine? If the lighting is strongly overhead and casts deep shadows, you aren't going to like the shadows.

StoneNYC
24-May-2016, 20:49
HP5+ easily pushes to 3200 in DD-X. A magic combo, shoot it all the time in 120.

I know this is 120, but this is about a film type available in 4x5 and a film sped pushing, so please mods, don't get snippidy that it's not 4x5 please.

All HP5+ @ 3200 in DD-X....

This is one of my girlfriends, isn't she cute? :)

151182

The only part of my other GF I'm allowed to show, shot in a very dark bedroom

151183

To round it all off, a girl I went on a date with for a potential third gf, but she wasn't a good fit for me, still a very nice person

151184

And finally, single bulb in a very dimly lit basement...

151185

So you should be fine for what you seem to want to shoot, in 4x5 I doubt there will even be any perceptible grain.

Corran
24-May-2016, 21:48
Try pre-flashing. I fooled around with this a long time ago using Tri-X 320 pre-flashed and then shot at ISO 5000, developed in Acufine ACU-1. But then I stopped being able to get ACU-1 - not sure how regular Acufine would do as I didn't do this much.

Also, remember that Burnett is often using an Aero-Ektar, a much faster lens.

jp
25-May-2016, 06:40
If you've got a good rapport with the building manager and have some studio strobes and wireless triggers you could light the place to any brightness you want for stopping action or for a given aperture.

Randy Moe
25-May-2016, 06:52
Didn't pros once put their own wireless strobes in the rafters and lower for sporting events.

Before DSLR high ISO became the obvious choice for any sports event.

As I found out, athletes want very high IQ, they are all about their body and their physical skill, not art. Sorry couldn't resist. :)

Corran
25-May-2016, 06:58
Yeah, a friend of mine told me about the old days of flashes in the rafters for basketball.

Here in our performance venue no flash photography is allowed without the consent of the presenter - not us as the facility managers as it isn't our show. Obviously for the symphony orchestra this is strictly verboten but for most speaking engagement type things it's allowed (and usually attended by a PR photographer). I would think big flashes could be distracting for athletes in some cases.

Randy Moe
25-May-2016, 07:04
Yeah, a friend of mine told me about the old days of flashes in the rafters for basketball.

Here in our performance venue no flash photography is allowed without the consent of the presenter - not us as the facility managers as it isn't our show. Obviously for the symphony orchestra this is strictly verboten but for most speaking engagement type things it's allowed (and usually attended by a PR photographer). I would think big flashes could be distracting for athletes in some cases.

Then shoot Delta 3200 in 120. or the subjects will be disappointed. It's a special one time event, failure is not an option. imho

LabRat
25-May-2016, 07:10
Royal-X would have been just the ticket, or the old Polaroid 3000 instant films... But alas, all gone...

LF might not be the right tool for the job... Look at your other options...

Steve K

Bruce Watson
25-May-2016, 13:36
Can anyone recommend a film that I can push to 3200 or even 1600 and does well?

You should understand that "pushing" doesn't really exist. What does exist is the number of photons required to create a latent image. If you drop below that amount of light, you don't form a latent image, and therefore have nothing for the developer to develop.

When you "push" you are intentionally starving your shadows of sufficient light to make a latent image. What would have been texture or detail is just empty as a result. Which is OK to do, as long as you know you are doing it, and do it for a reason.

If you take a scene that measures, say, 10 stops from shadow detail to highlight detail, and you "push it" two stops, you basically cut two stops off the shadow end of the scale and end up with 8 stops from the "new" shadow detail to highlight detail. If you still want your original 10 stops, you have to develop longer to increase highlight density an additional two stops. That's all that pushing is, it's under exposure and over development. If done right it can be highly effective.

That said, I find modern t-grain films aren't as happy being so abused. The old cubic grained films like Tri-X and HP-5+ are able to take it in stride though. So those are the films I'd be looking at for your project. When I was working for the local newspaper doing sports photography (so long ago...) Tri-X and HC-110 were our go-to combination for pushing. But it was all 35mm, long before I discovered LF. And back then even when I was well practiced in the pushing art, I never would have gone for 3200. You just loose too much.

Randy Moe
25-May-2016, 13:50
"If you take a scene that measures, say, 10 stops from shadow detail to highlight detail, and you "push it" two stops, you basically cut two stops off the shadow end of the scale and end up with 8 stops from the "new" shadow detail to highlight detail. If you still want your original 10 stops, you have to develop longer to increase highlight density an additional two stops. That's all that pushing is, it's under exposure and over development. If done right it can be highly effective."

Best explanation I have read of push. :)

Kevin Crisp
25-May-2016, 13:55
Like Bruce, last time I did this was for sports photography for newspaper work. Tri-X at 1200 or so in Accufine was our standard, 1/125th of a second at f:2.8. Nikon F or a Spotmatic completed the formula. Accufine has an interesting grain structure. Not unpleasant in an 8X10 from 35mm, but quite noticeable. If the available lighting gives you a little fill in the shadows and you keep the contrast range down it could make for outstanding results for newspaper work. The problem was a gym that had just highly direction downward pointing lights. Really hard to avoid empty eye sockets. After being converted to a half tone no grain showed up in the newspaper.

Given the lack of speed in our LF lenses, and the shallow DOF you are going to get using them wide or near wide open, you've set a challenge for yourself. Good luck.

Jac@stafford.net
25-May-2016, 13:59
This is probably a 'do not try'. In the Seventies I was desperate to make wonderful indoor gymnastic pictures. I used three electronic flashes, two of them slaved, with infrared filters over the lights. This was intended to keep the light invisible, to not disrupt the athletes.

DISASTER! I do not know if things have changed, but some young women's leotards were semi-transparent to IR, and others reflected as pure white. You can imagine how bad the former were.

None of the negatives left the editing room. Right into the trash.

Peakbagger
25-May-2016, 16:46
HP5+ easily pushes to 3200 in DD-X. A magic combo, shoot it all the time in 120.

I know this is 120, but this is about a film type available in 4x5 and a film sped pushing, so please mods, don't get snippidy that it's not 4x5 please.

All HP5+ @ 3200 in DD-X....

This is one of my girlfriends, isn't she cute? :)



Lol, StoneNYC, yes very cute! :-). Thanks, I happen to have some HP5+ lying about. I will try the DD-X and maybe the accufine too as Kevin mentioned.

Peakbagger
25-May-2016, 16:50
Try pre-flashing. I fooled around with this a long time ago using Tri-X 320 pre-flashed and then shot at ISO 5000, developed in Acufine ACU-1. But then I stopped being able to get ACU-1 - not sure how regular Acufine would do as I didn't do this much.

Also, remember that Burnett is often using an Aero-Ektar, a much faster lens.


Hrmm..never thought about pre-flashing. I've tried that with my disastrous attempts using Harman DP. Thanks for the idea!

Peakbagger
25-May-2016, 16:59
Thanks for the responses guys, I'm not shooting for anyone but myself here, so if anyone will be disappointed with the results, it would be me!

I've shot with Ilford 3200 on 120 and I rather liked it. Muddy (I mean moody) and somewhat artistic.

151204151203

I would like to try with my Pacemaker or the Pressman and some lens movements and see what I can get.

Michael E
26-May-2016, 07:10
There are things that LF is good at and other things that LF is not good at. If I shot indoor sports on LF film, I would expect pity points for doing it the hard way, but no great images. This is a field where a good digital camera is hard to beat. Just my opinion.

LabRat
26-May-2016, 07:25
"If you take a scene that measures, say, 10 stops from shadow detail to highlight detail, and you "push it" two stops, you basically cut two stops off the shadow end of the scale and end up with 8 stops from the "new" shadow detail to highlight detail. If you still want your original 10 stops, you have to develop longer to increase highlight density an additional two stops. That's all that pushing is, it's under exposure and over development. If done right it can be highly effective."

Best explanation I have read of push. :)

Your ISO speed of the film is the threshold over film base+fog where there is the start of a build up of density... The density areas can build up, but not so much activity down there, as pushing increases density more where there is greater density... So pushing is not a true ISO speed...

Steve K

Randy Moe
26-May-2016, 07:33
Not my idea. Tell OP Bruce Watson

Now you are confusing...



Your ISO speed of the film is the threshold over film base+fog where there is the start of a build up of density... The density areas can build up, but not so much activity down there, as pushing increases density more where there is greater density... So pushing is not a true ISO speed...

Steve K

LabRat
26-May-2016, 07:44
Not my idea. Tell OP Bruce Watson

Now you are confusing...

Bruce's explanation is correct... Just that someone won't get the same shadow detail at a pushed speed, as at the rated ISO... So not a true ISO speed...

Steve K

Randy Moe
26-May-2016, 08:18
Bruce's explanation is correct... Just that someone won't get the same shadow detail at a pushed speed, as at the rated ISO... So not a true ISO speed...

Steve K

OK, qualifiers confuse concrete blinkers.

Kevin Crisp
26-May-2016, 08:31
Back when I was shooting indoor high school sports (1970-1973) an auto focus camera was unheard of. And shooting at f:2 or 2.8 meant a shallow depth of field. And with that tiny piece of film you didn't want to waste any of it by not being close enough. Same issues with outdoor available light sports like football.

So we used zone focus. This was explained to me by a friend who was a pro and used to use Graphics for sports. You just know in any sport where the action is going to be, predictably, at regular intervals so you focus on that place then take the picture when the athlete gets there. This is surprisingly useful and effective, event with TTL cameras that were too dim to focus anyway. It will not let you get the critical moment of a game (the dropped pass, or whatever) since you can't predict where THAT moment will take place. But you can reliably get good action shots, which was what the editor wanted. If you want the photo of the moment in a game, then you are going to need more photographers.

I always thought volleyball was the toughest.

Peakbagger
26-May-2016, 08:40
There are things that LF is good at and other things that LF is not good at. If I shot indoor sports on LF film, I would expect pity points for doing it the hard way, but no great images. This is a field where a good digital camera is hard to beat. Just my opinion.
I'm well aware that the odds are against me. What's worse is that I only have one film holder! 2 shots and DONE! I'd like to think that it would be a character building exercise [emoji1]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Struan Gray
26-May-2016, 09:02
At 1/200 the blur will be 'artistic', even with kids. Or you'll have to stick to landings and balance poses. If you can bump the shutter speed up to 1/400 (Aero ektars are cheap) you will do much better.

The modern halls I shoot in (digital) are usually lit to EV 6 or 7, just like the older ones, but they are much more even, and the walls and floors tend to be brighter, which helps with the look. Professional arenas are usually one to two stops brighter, although some have switches that turn off half the lights when it's only kids playing :-)

You need 1/1000 to freeze the feet and hands of a tumbler, but bodies move less fast. Often, the head and eyes will be stationary when rotating or spinning, especially if the gymnast has been trained to spot a landing, which can lead to interesting effects if you do stick to slow shutter speeds. Easier to experiment with digital or MF/35 mm, and then pull out the big gun when you know the effects you are after.

Peakbagger
26-May-2016, 12:36
At 1/200 the blur will be 'artistic', even with kids. Or you'll have to stick to landings and balance poses. If you can bump the shutter speed up to 1/400 (Aero ektars are cheap) you will do much better.

The modern halls I shoot in (digital) are usually lit to EV 6 or 7, just like the older ones, but they are much more even, and the walls and floors tend to be brighter, which helps with the look. Professional arenas are usually one to two stops brighter, although some have switches that turn off half the lights when it's only kids playing :-)

You need 1/1000 to freeze the feet and hands of a tumbler, but bodies move less fast. Often, the head and eyes will be stationary when rotating or spinning, especially if the gymnast has been trained to spot a landing, which can lead to interesting effects if you do stick to slow shutter speeds. Easier to experiment with digital or MF/35 mm, and then pull out the big gun when you know the effects you are after.

This is my thought, landings or balance poses. A non-blurred jump in midair would be like the holy grail for me and I know it's beyond the capabilities of my current LF kit. At my daughter's last meet, I had a F2 200mm for my D800 and I got some frozen dynamic shots that I and her teammates' parents were really happy with. Though, focus at that shallow DOF meant I had alot of blurry shots too :p.

Corran
26-May-2016, 13:13
I don't think this was mentioned but I just thought about it, looking at some old photos I shot while planning a trip...

My best low-light photos using (almost) LF have definitely been taken with Fuji 3000B instant film, and then scanning either the print or the negative directly after cleaning up the residue.

Real ~3200 speed and instant feedback. The only problem is it's discontinued but stocks are still available. I still have quite a bit myself; no it's not for sale! It's only 3.25 x 4.25 in size though - the 4x5 variety has been discontinued much longer and even harder to find and more expensive. I've never shot it.

Here's an example, taken during rehearsal at the symphony I record with, using a Travelwide 4x5 and 90mm Angulon, scanned from the negative:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/symphony3200.jpg

Corran
26-May-2016, 13:20
Here's a print scan for reference - more contrast on the print though the above is also a bit low-contrast due to the Angulon being shot wide-open.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-W7NTWwDmLOI/UtGg2lsgyZI/AAAAAAAAEfU/ohuK5ZCINtk/s900/neworleans-0487.jpg

StoneNYC
26-May-2016, 13:24
I don't think this was mentioned but I just thought about it, looking at some old photos I shot while planning a trip...

My best low-light photos using (almost) LF have definitely been taken with Fuji 3000B instant film, and then scanning either the print or the negative directly after cleaning up the residue.

Real ~3200 speed and instant feedback. The only problem is it's discontinued but stocks are still available. I still have quite a bit myself; no it's not for sale! It's only 3.25 x 4.25 in size though - the 4x5 variety has been discontinued much longer and even harder to find and more expensive. I've never shot it.

Here's an example, taken during rehearsal at the symphony I record with, using a Travelwide 4x5 and 90mm Angulon, scanned from the negative:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/symphony3200.jpg

OMG the SHADOW DETAIL is missing!

This must not be a good shot then....


(This is sarcasm to point out that who the F(stop) caress about shadow detail in an indoor sports shot??!!!)

I mean really, these must all be bad images because the shadow detail is missing...

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160526/5ad599c01aa49e243dee56f95c624eb5.jpg

Taken from this article (source cited so no complaints from mods about "stealing" images) http://blog.allposters.com/boxing-photos-greatest-boxers/

Good luck OP, don't listen to some of the nay sayers, use your two frames wisely. Enjoy yourself.

Struan Gray
27-May-2016, 01:02
This is my thought, landings or balance poses. A non-blurred jump in midair would be like the holy grail for me and I know it's beyond the capabilities of my current LF kit. At my daughter's last meet, I had a F2 200mm for my D800 and I got some frozen dynamic shots that I and her teammates' parents were really happy with. Though, focus at that shallow DOF meant I had alot of blurry shots too :p.

I've had some good luck with panning at slower shutter speeds. I don't spray and pray, but I do discard 90–95% of what I take. I'm mostly photographing handball and basketball, where the faces and gestures of the rest of the team, and the opposing side, are important elements of the photo. Gymnastics is a little easier in that respect, but LF is going to be expensive (wasteful) if you go hunting for standard sports shots.

Were I to take LF to one of my regular gigs, I'd be inclined to photograph the wider picture, including the reactions of the crowd and the rest of the team watching from the wings. LF has a huge advantage when it comes to fine detail over a wide field, I'm not sure there's much point in going for a zoomed in close-up of an athlete in action - leave that to the 200/2s.

pierre506
29-May-2016, 14:18
HP5+ easily pushes to 3200 in DD-X. A magic combo, shoot it all the time in 120.

I know this is 120, but this is about a film type available in 4x5 and a film sped pushing, so please mods, don't get snippidy that it's not 4x5 please.

All HP5+ @ 3200 in DD-X....

This is one of my girlfriends, isn't she cute? :)

151182

The only part of my other GF I'm allowed to show, shot in a very dark bedroom

151183

To round it all off, a girl I went on a date with for a potential third gf, but she wasn't a good fit for me, still a very nice person

151184

And finally, single bulb in a very dimly lit basement...

151185

So you should be fine for what you seem to want to shoot, in 4x5 I doubt there will even be any perceptible grain.
dear stone, how long about the developing time using DD-X + HP5 on ISO 3200?
DD-X 1+4, or 1+9?

通过我的 SCH-I959 上的 Tapatalk发言

jumanji
29-May-2016, 19:51
You can rate tmax400 at 3200 and develop accordingly. I do it quite a few times and always got printable negatives.

Peakbagger
31-May-2016, 09:07
Good luck OP, don't listen to some of the nay sayers, use your two frames wisely. Enjoy yourself.

Ha ha ha, I took it to the gym yesterday and chickened out. I'll work up the courage eventually :)

Peakbagger
31-May-2016, 09:12
I don't think this was mentioned but I just thought about it, looking at some old photos I shot while planning a trip...

My best low-light photos using (almost) LF have definitely been taken with Fuji 3000B instant film, and then scanning either the print or the negative directly after cleaning up the residue.

Real ~3200 speed and instant feedback. The only problem is it's discontinued but stocks are still available. I still have quite a bit myself; no it's not for sale!

Nice examples! That's the first thing I googled - 3200 ISO 4x5, only to find it just isn't out there. I remember reading about the 3000B being discontinued. Maybe New55 will take up the gauntlet, but I think ISO 50 is what they can muster to date.

StoneNYC
31-May-2016, 13:31
dear stone, how long about the developing time using DD-X + HP5 on ISO 3200?
DD-X 1+4, or 1+9?

通过我的 SCH-I959 上的 Tapatalk发言

Pierre, as I respect your work I'll share my "secrets" ;)

DD-X requires 200ml/8x10 sheet/120 roll at 1+4 for HP5+

So always 1+4 or you risk exhaustion.

18 minutes in the JOBO rotary.


Ha ha ha, I took it to the gym yesterday and chickened out. I'll work up the courage eventually :)

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again ;)

pierre506
31-May-2016, 13:52
Pierre, as I respect your work I'll share my "secrets" ;)

DD-X requires 200ml/8x10 sheet/120 roll at 1+4 for HP5+

So always 1+4 or you risk exhaustion.

18 minutes in the JOBO rotary.



If at first you don't succeed, try, try again ;)

thank you, Stone, I use CPA 2.


通过我的 SCH-I959 上的 Tapatalk发言

AtlantaTerry
1-Jun-2016, 21:04
A couple years ago a photo studio hired to create high school student portraits for their yearbook didn't want to shoot the sport photos that he was required to provide as part of his contract. So he hired me to photograph events such as football, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, fencing, water polo, wrestling, track and field, etc. For one basketball game, I lit the gymnasium with four White Lightning 1600 strobes controlled with a Pocket Wizard transmitter attached to the hot shoe of my Nikon D3s. Two strobes were on each side of the venue, each was aimed at one of the baskets. That way I had fairly even coverage of the whole floor. After about five minutes of my shooting the game, an assistant coach came over to me to ask me to stop. He informed me that indoor high school sports in Georgia do not allow strobes. BTW the rule does not apply to outdoor sports. Colleges here do allow strobes for all events.

I did not want to upset him by asking about parents in the stands using strobes. I removed the Pocket Wizard and shot the rest of that game with available light.

BTW, if you ask an athlete if flash distracts them, most will tell you they never see it because they are concentrating on the game. But trying to convince a coach of angry parent of that is a whole 'nother thing. :)

Peakbagger
1-Jun-2016, 21:37
After about five minutes of my shooting the game, an assistant coach came over to me to ask me to stop. He informed me that indoor high school sports in Georgia do not allow strobes.

I did not want to upset him by asking about parents in the stands using strobes. I removed the Pocket Wizard and shot the rest of that game with available light.


This is my experience with the sanctioned gymnastics meets we go to...no strobes/flash allowed. Heck, I even got in trouble because of my auto focus assist light!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Robert Oliver
1-Jun-2016, 22:05
Didn't pros once put their own wireless strobes in the rafters and lower for sporting events.

Before DSLR high ISO became the obvious choice for any sports event.

As I found out, athletes want very high IQ, they are all about their body and their physical skill, not art. Sorry couldn't resist. :)

- They still do...

Robert Oliver
1-Jun-2016, 22:36
If you've got a good rapport with the building manager and have some studio strobes and wireless triggers you could light the place to any brightness you want for stopping action or for a given aperture.

Strobes are a big no-no in gymnastics competition if I recall from my days as a Sports Photographer... at least at the elite level.

Robert Oliver
1-Jun-2016, 22:43
It's been at least 30 years since I've done it... but we used push tri-x in diafine or microfine. (something with fine in it) Shadows were extremely quick to block up.

We switched to Tmax 3200 and Tmax developer when it came out. If I recall we shot it at 1600 when we could, and would only push above 3200 when absolutely necessary. I was using a 135mm f2.0 and a 50mm f1.4 for high school night sports.

Not sure what I would use now...

If it's a low level gymnastics meet, perhaps a pair of LED photo or shop lights aimed from above/side?

jp
2-Jun-2016, 08:29
Strobes are a big no-no in gymnastics competition if I recall from my days as a Sports Photographer... at least at the elite level.

Good to know. The schools I was involved in for sports photography didn't have gymnastics.

StoneNYC
2-Jun-2016, 10:53
On the flash comments.

When I was shooting a lot of gigs for musicians I was at a venue pre-show shooting for a group and using flash only because it was PRE-SHOW and the lighting guy came up to me and chewed me out telling me that no real professional would ever use a flash for a show and my flash was popping some of his stage show strobes.

Of course I knew all of this, and was using my flash to trigger the stage lights on purpose and since there was no audience and I could shoot the guys warming up and get well lit shots.

So even when there's no audience or spectators, it's not a great idea to use a strobe.

I'm a pro, I would never use a flash during the show itself, unless I was in one of those special press-penns for a huge rock concert or something, but I digress.

3200 should be fine for the OP's purposes. Heck with 4x5 even 6400 isn't unheard of, I haven't done it with HP5+ but that's really your only option, D3200 doesn't exist in 4x5 and (IMO) HP5+ is the best option 400 speed film to push that far. Maybe Tri-X 400, but Tri-X 320 doesn't push quite as well from my very limited experience using the two different films.

Jac@stafford.net
2-Jun-2016, 12:47
Strobes never bothered me when I played in the NBA. ... No, wait. That wasn't me.

Bruce Watson
2-Jun-2016, 13:10
BTW, if you ask an athlete if flash distracts them, most will tell you they never see it because they are concentrating on the game. But trying to convince a coach of angry parent of that is a whole 'nother thing. :)

It's not because they are concentrating on the game exactly, it's because they aren't looking directly at the strobe. You won't see it unless you are looking at it. And if you're looking at the ceiling during the game I don't have a lot of sympathy for ya. But the same applies to camera mounted strobes -- you'll only see it if you are looking right at it. If you're driving to the hoop, you'll never know it went off.

But you're right -- trying to change someone's preconceived notions is nearly impossible. How could it be little Johnie's fault that he choked on the layup? It had to be somebody else's fault -- like that photographer over there. Been there, done that. Sigh...