What's your best super-low light formula for small formats?

[sully75]

Hey all,

I end up working a lot in very dark bars. Still hoping to not go back to digital.

I recently tried some HP5 @800 in Diafine (what they rate it at). Not satisfied at all with the results. Even in broad daylight I had limited shadow detail.

I have a feeling Tri-X would be better in diafine, and get me 1600, but looking for suggestions. I have a roll of HP5, and don't necessarily want to dump it unless I'm going to get significantly better results with Tri-X.

Open to suggestions of other developers (stand?), film, etc.

For various reasons I'd rather not use one of the 3200 speed films, I'd really like to use something I can bulk load if possible (I've been rolling 10 shot rolls and find it's really helpful because I can shoot at various speeds and not have to burn through a roll to get a new one in there). I don't think any of the 3200 films are available in bulk?

Perhaps I should just get back to the DSLR. My results are close to what I'd like, and I really like the grittiness of film but just need a little more oomph...

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

I recommend TMY-2. Your D-76 is a viable option for development, but you might get better shadow detail with Microphen. If you want to mix your own developer, there are many more options. TMY-2 alone will substantially improve your results- the stuff is miraculous.

[sully75]

Thanks Jay, hadn't thought of that. For the record, are you not a fan of diafine?

[Jay DeFehr]

I wouldn't go that far. I don't share the same enthusiasm others seem to, or believe the film speed figures claimed for it, but mostly it's just not very useful in flat light, not very sharp or fine grained, and I don't care for the gradation. For scanning, it's probably a more viable option under a wider range of exposure conditions, since one can bend the curve at will. TMY-2 is so fine grained, that's not likely to be much of an issue, and sharpness is probably not the first consideration when shooting handheld in low light. If you have some on hand, it's certainly worth a try. Best of luck, Paul, and I hope you'll share your results.

[BetterSense]

TMY in Xtol.

[atlcruiser]

arista p 400 shot at 1600 (ie tri x)

rodinal 1:50 60ish min manual agitation, 45ish min roller

here is an example....i shoot this all the time..love the look

leica M6
CV 35/1.2

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5028009969_5e208e98aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53092319@N04/5028009969/)
rff pano-80 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53092319@N04/5028009969/) by urbanlandcruiser (http://www.flickr.com/people/53092319@N04/), on Flickr

[Bill Burk]

http://www.beefalobill.com/imgs/_MG_7028crop.JPG

TMY-2 rated EI 400 in D-76 1:1 developed by inspection.

I spot the significant shadow (in this case the walls) and place on Zone II or III.

If forced to handhold, like here at Hearst Castle, I lean up against something and make the shutter release as smooth as possible.

I sometimes handhold 1/60 despite the rules that 1/125 is probably the limit. Other times I underexpose a stop hoping to pick up the detail in development.

[Asher Kelman]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5028009969_5e208e98aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53092319@N04/5028009969/)
rff pano-80 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53092319@N04/5028009969/) by urbanlandcruiser (http://www.flickr.com/people/53092319@N04/), on Flickr





http://www.beefalobill.com/imgs/_MG_7028crop.JPG



Two very impressive images! No point of going to great lengths and not getting a good picture! Kudos! I use roll film 6x17 on my 8x10 camera sometimes, so I find this discussion very valuable.

Asher

[Roger Cole]

I love Diafine but three points: 1) you may not, 2) the film speed is more real with some films than others and it works best of all in my experience with Tri-X, and 3) only for lesser pushes. Tri-X anywhere from 800-1600 (I usually shoot at 1200-1600) is my all time favorite combination for situations where that is enough film speed. In a bar without flash, it's not nearly enough. In 35mm there's no real substitute, IMHO, for TMZ. I prefer T-Max or T-Max RS developer, usually RS because that's what I keep on hand for sheet film. Use the Kodak recommendations for one stop more. That is, if you shoot it at 3200, use the Kodak figures for 6400.

Unfortunately Kodak doesn't make TMZ in 120, so now that I have a 6x6 camera I've bought some Delta 3200 to experiment with. I understand it isn't as fast or fine grained (not as important at 6x6, that one) as TMZ, but I think it's probably faster than anything else in 120.

EDIT: Maybe this thread should go in The Lounge since it isn't Large Format? I started to post a TMZ image shot by torch light at 3200, but then realized I shouldn't in this forum because it's not LF.

And EDIT II - I agree with a comment I saw on APUG to the effect that handheld shooting in very low light is the one situation where I concede the complete superiority of digital. Game, set and match in those circumstances.

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Asher,

It was a realization of an image I held in mind for a long time before it came up in front of me with less light than I wished for.

Roger,

Mine is 4x5, and I know Paul works LF and is able to do this.

[Roger Cole]

Oh yes - I recall seeing some photos posted here of LF images on HP5+ pushed to 1600 in Rodinal. Lots of searching didn't seem to turn them up. I'm interested in that combination both for medium format and for LF. In LF the grain wouldn't be an issue at all and there are times I would at least really like to experiment with that kind of effective speed in 4x5.

[Roger Cole]

Thanks Asher,

It was a realization of an image I held in mind for a long time before it came up in front of me with less light than I wished for.

Roger,

Mine is 4x5, and I know Paul works LF and is able to do this.

By way of explanation Bill, I didn't mean to pick on you at all. The OP did ask specifically about small formats, and I have a relevant image (more than one actually) to show TMZ at 3200, but hesitated to post.

In my case, I used to be in the Society for Creative Anachronism, a medieval group, and shot a roll of TMZ at a medeival event, all shot by torchlight. This was in the 90s. Experimenting in the darkoom a certain inspiration struck. It wasn't a new idea but I'd never done it and the usage seemed perfect - I printed them in color on RA4 paper with the filtration adjusted to yield a very pale yellowish look. They look somewhat like they were shot in color under very yellow torches.

[atlcruiser]

I have shot tons of arista edu 400 and 100 in MF and now a fair bit in LF. I keep to the same times on my roller for both formats.


Grain can get rough in rodinal on longer dev times. I keep the temp down to about 18' in a waterbath and that seems to really help the grain issue.



I have a box on HP5 and a box of arista edu 400 on hand in 810. If I get time I will shoot a few frames of each at 1600 this week and post them up. I will need to figure out a way to keep the jobo 2830 tank cooled down and my darkroom is at about 80' this time of year.

[Bill Burk]

I wasn't even thinking that way at all Roger,

Just thought we could keep the discussion LF and on-topic if we tried.

Your shots sound very interesting and might be good to spontaneously post in the safe haven thread...

[Roger Cole]

I wasn't even thinking that way at all Roger,

Just thought we could keep the discussion LF and on-topic if we tried.

Your shots sound very interesting and might be good to spontaneously post in the safe haven thread...

Well *coughcough* that's a startlingly obvious idea and a couple of them just happened to appear there. ;)

[Frank Petronio]

I'm in the dslr camp now, I used to shoot low-light 35mm a lot and while I wish for the purity of a Leica, Noctilux, and TXP, it just ain't going to happen anytime soon.

Some of the older, "obsolete" DSLRs have very nice noise patterns that resemble grain and degrade nicely. I usually amp the contrast and blacks, turn off noise reduction, emphasize clarity and sharpness... cameras like the old Nikon D80 look great this way at ISO 800-1600 (CDD rather than CMOS sensor) and I even used my lowly Panasonic G1 at 1600 to good effect. And auto-focus is usually helpful too.

Also don't forget that the little on board flashes really work great for cleaning things up at higher ISOs. I never liked on-board flash but it can work really nicely once you adjust your attitude. Or look for alternative existing light sources, street lamps, mirrors, bar signs, etc.

35mm B&W still has legs but they are getting shorter ;-) Mainly I just like shooting it. But I get better results from digital.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/8636/nicole_drunk_late.jpg

That's from a Nikon D80/50mm f/1.8 AFD

[Brian C. Miller]

Google Books has The Darkroom Cookbook, and there's a couple of techniques for intesification. (link (http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZN5sEjAWDEC&pg=PA67&ots=yyEgHYC_Qu&dq=anchell+peroxide+treatment&sig=aSOKOPdBBQ24eyyackjvnvYE0sA#v=onepage&q&f=false))

One uses hydrogen peroxide to "steam" the film, and the other is to expose it to glacial acetic acid vapors. Personally, I've used Tmax 400 and Xtol 1:3.

[Mike Anderson]

I know this is a question mainly about film, but Ken Rockwell has a shot with his Fuji X100 (scroll to the bottom of the page):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100/sample-images.htm

The picture of his 2 kids watching a movie. ISO 12,800, f/2 at 1/5, claimed LV -3.

The latest digital tech is such a game changer for low light photography.

....Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

I agree digital has a technical advantage over film in low light, but that assumes one wants their low light images to look like images made in less-low light. Sometimes blank shadows, grain, and subject movement work really well. By way of example, look at this digital image:D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/4763658833/in/faves-jay_defehr/lightbox/

I marked this photo as a favorite yesterday, and when reading this thread today, thought it was a good example of how film can still work in low light if one's expectations and intentions are aligned with the limitations of the media. When I went to link it, I noticed it's a digital image. Oddly, my point still stands.

Really love this one, Paul.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm in the dslr camp now, I used to shoot low-light 35mm a lot and while I wish for the purity of a Leica, Noctilux, and TXP, it just ain't going to happen anytime soon.

Some of the older, "obsolete" DSLRs have very nice noise patterns that resemble grain and degrade nicely. I usually amp the contrast and blacks, turn off noise reduction, emphasize clarity and sharpness... cameras like the old Nikon D80 look great this way at ISO 800-1600 (CDD rather than CMOS sensor) and I even used my lowly Panasonic G1 at 1600 to good effect. And auto-focus is usually helpful too.

Also don't forget that the little on board flashes really work great for cleaning things up at higher ISOs. I never liked on-board flash but it can work really nicely once you adjust your attitude. Or look for alternative existing light sources, street lamps, mirrors, bar signs, etc.

35mm B&W still has legs but they are getting shorter ;-) Mainly I just like shooting it. But I get better results from digital.



http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/8636/nicole_drunk_late.jpg



That's from a Nikon D80/50mm f/1.8 AFD


Frank,

This is such an exceptional picture. It brings humanity, grace, and beauty to us. There's no technical conceit, craft or brilliance in composition that calls attention to itself and distracts from the photograph. When this happens, it's a winner! Also the girl is lovely.

Kudos!


Now for the low light with film, how about the preflashing under the enlarger, or with a gray card in the field for extending the use of film in low light conditions? Why not even add this extra step to the other techniques? Which combinations might work best?

Asher

[cobalt]

Don't know if this has enough oomph for you. I didn't really use a meter on these, but I did use Tri X 320. Pushed to about... 1600-3200 I suppose? This is with a twin lens... I suppose with 35mm should be at least as easy.

[Kevin Crisp]

I used to use tri-x pushed to 1000 in Accufine for newspaper work and it was excellent unless the subject was very unevenly lighted (as in stage plays). Yes, you could see grain in 8x10's but it was neat, sharp grain and if you avoided overdoing the contrast (easy to get classic soot and chalk) they looked good.

[sully75]

I agree digital has a technical advantage over film in low light, but that assumes one wants their low light images to look like images made in less-low light. Sometimes blank shadows, grain, and subject movement work really well. By way of example, look at this digital image:D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/4763658833/in/faves-jay_defehr/lightbox/

I marked this photo as a favorite yesterday, and when reading this thread today, thought it was a good example of how film can still work in low light if one's expectations and intentions are aligned with the limitations of the media. When I went to link it, I noticed it's a digital image. Oddly, my point still stands.

Really love this one, Paul.

Yeah Jay, that was a little Canon point and shoot but that's sort of the look I'm looking for. I'd like to get a little more in the shadows but don't mind it being all grainy and effed up looking.

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

I love the light-swimming-in-a-pool-of-darkness look. I tend to worry more about gradation than shadow detail or grain. I can live with featureless blacks far better than I can with featureless whites, which feel glaring and discordant, like fingernails on a chalkboard. I can enjoy a rather short scale, provided it's well balanced, as in your example.