Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:33:36 GMT, Mike wrote:

I have an Epson 4990 scanner. I like it, but for some reason it really
seems to magnify grain w/ 35mm negatives.

AFAIK, all scans of B-&-W films have this difficulty. I have the 4490
which is essentially the same and I dare not scan a 35mm B-&-W
negative on it. I did try some 6X7cm T-Max 400 negs and the grain was
still unacceptable.

Try Delta 3200 with Xtol.

"Just say "No !" !!

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's
recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard)
but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it.


Well, I don't _think_ that is a problem. However, camera needs new foam and
a service could not do any harm. I'm sure that I could find the same
camera in at least the same condition for the cost of this - but with the
work done at least I would know the camera had been serviced.


Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

I suspect its just that the dancers were moving and I was working at full
apertures. Depth of field seems to be of the order of 1m, these guys were
moving a lot. It was hard to get them in focus and anticipate the correct
timing for the shot. I took two other cameras (range finder and TLR) and
had similar problems. Argulably, even though using Provia pushed to 800
rather than B&W at 3200 the ranger finder worked best. (save for an
accidental flash shot from someone else's flash illumination).



Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter
release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp
pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at
1/8th.


If the other guys stay still. Noticed a sharp background - but other things
moved!


If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on
the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set
at the film's rated speed. Then measure the lightest spot
- usually it's a white shirt or pants: if the reading is
1-2 stops over then all should be OK, if 2-3 stops over then
use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less
development.


Useful advice.

I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200
film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at
3200 and with normal contrast subjects results in the poorest
acceptable shadow density. If the subject is contrastier
than normal then there is _no_ shadow density. If spot
metering the shadows with TMax it is best to set the meter
to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess
is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same.


I'll bear that in mind.

If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a
white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the
shadows and highlights to take readings.


Cunning plan.


I think, given the fortuitous flash shot, that, if there are no audience
considerations flash mounted well away from the camera to give almost side
light would work well. Due to a lot of variables it might be a bit hit and
miss though.

Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete




--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

The true speed of this film is about EI 1000. I don't care for the
film much at all. It's very grainy compared to Kodak TMZ (true speed
EI 800) or Fuji Neopan 1600 (true speed 650). I use the Fuji product
almost exclusively. It is hardly grainier than Tri-X Pan.

Peter Chant spake thus:

BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from
experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm.

Why on earth would you think that? Same film = same exposure; doesn't
matter what size the frame.

Maybe you're thinking of the smaller f-stops needed with larger formats
for the same depth of field.


--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"

- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority."

I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it
was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200
(120). Grain wasn't too bad compared to HP5+, but obviously no match
for something like Acros 100.

The first two photos on the link below are with D3200, taken on a mat
124 (TLR) with a very scratched up lens and half assed flash. F8 @
1/60, guesstimated metering at 3200. Developed in a slightly old
batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop
from 3200.

www.destroyerrock.com/readyellow.html
(slow server, in the process of moving site to another host)

You can't tell because of the size/compression of the jpgs, but the
details on the faces of the band are decent considering the lens
quality and distance. I'll try and get a full size scan of the
details up.

My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one
with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff.




On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, Peter Chant wrote:
Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete

--http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Mar 21, 9:57 am, "Dave the Guy" wrote:
I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it
was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200
(120). Grain wasn't too bad compared to HP5+, but obviously no match
for something like Acros 100.

The first two photos on the link below are with D3200, taken on a mat
124 (TLR) with a very scratched up lens and half assed flash. F8 @
1/60, guesstimated metering at 3200. Developed in a slightly old
batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop
from 3200.

www.destroyerrock.com/readyellow.html
(slow server, in the process of moving site to another host)

You can't tell because of the size/compression of the jpgs, but the
details on the faces of the band are decent considering the lens
quality and distance. I'll try and get a full size scan of the
details up.

My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one
with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff.

On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, Peter Chant wrote:

Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete

--http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band
photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the
players in the head?

They did it here a few years ago. Too bad it isn't more frequent.

http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm

Dave the Guy wrote:

I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it
was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200
(120). Grain wasn't too bad compared to HP5+, but obviously no match
for something like Acros 100.

The first two photos on the link below are with D3200, taken on a mat
124 (TLR) with a very scratched up lens and half assed flash. F8 @
1/60, guesstimated metering at 3200. Developed in a slightly old
batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop
from 3200.

Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to make
up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare it to
my experience.

BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from
experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm. Got a C330 myself -
a bit of a scoop, did not cost much more than the Yashicas were going for
on ebay. Had to sort out some focus / foam issues though but those only
showed up this year!



My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one
with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff.

Ah ha, get a C330 - you won't want to carry two cameras then...

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

Hmm, exposure issues are looking like the camera. Just got a film back from
some horse racing I saw, most negs dreadfully underexposed - some clear.
Even the best ones look a bit on the thin side. Full marks to the lab for
getting the prints out they did, perhaps that is why the turn around was
slower than usual. Cross checking the meter with a hand held meter it
_seems_ fine and from firing the shutter (subjective not measured) it
appears to work correctly. Don't think it is a problem with the camera
stopping the lens down incorrectly, I was using a mirror lens the other
Saturday - no iris.

BTW, on inspecting the negs immediate impression - that is familiar. Second
impression - idiot, forgot to change the iso setting from 1600 to 400, but
on checking the camera I had set it to 400.

Looks like either time to get the camera tested, CLA'ed / foam replaced or
retire it, depending on cost - though if there is nothing majorly wrong
with it I'd know I'd at least have a serviced camera with new foam.

I think my focus issues were maninly due to rapidly moving people and a
shallow depth of field. I simply could not keep up. - Probally said that
in another post.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:


Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to
make up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare
it to my experience.

OK, from my calculations:

Serial Name 1/Time f.stop ASA EV Comment
1 Sunny 16 100 16 100 14.64 As a check, (15)
2 Peter Chant 30 1.7 1600 2.44 Grainy, underexposed
3 Peter Chant 60 1.7 1600 3.44 Grainy, underexposed
4 Peter Chant 30 2.8 3200 2.88 Grainy, underexposed
5 Dave the Guy 60 8 3200 6.91 OK

Best viewed in a fixed width font. Also I don't think ev values are that
exact a science - round to the nearest half.

Need to add in a few more examples. Looks like I am working rather in the
dark, 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 stops below Dave the Guy, assuming all of our
exposures were metered correctly. There's the rub, if my negs are too thin
and are processed correctly then my exposures are out...

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Hey, thanks! Very dark in there (as usual in most venues) with only a
few spotlights for the band and those weak bulbs lighted around the
stage. This was the first time I got a decent shot of the crowd at
any show, with or without a flash, thanks to the D3200. The flash I
was using, by the way is an el cheapo Vivitar 2800 without any
diffuser. ISO400 just doesn't cut it for wide shots like this for my
cheap gear.

I've moved from 35mm to MF about 1.5years ago and haven't noticed any
difference really. I was used to using 50/1.4 supertaks and other
fast lenses and thought how slow the 80/3.5 yashinon was, but now I
don't go under f5.6. I actually wanted the C330, but I'm pretty happy
with the mat 124. It was ship shape when I got it save for the ugly
lens (arguably grounds for dismissal, I know).

C330s have changeable backs?





On Mar 21, 6:16 pm, Peter Chant wrote:
Dave the Guy wrote:
I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it
was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200
(120). Grain wasn't too bad compared to HP5+, but obviously no match
for something like Acros 100.

The first two photos on the link below are with D3200, taken on a mat
124 (TLR) with a very scratched up lens and half assed flash. F8 @
1/60, guesstimated metering at 3200. Developed in a slightly old
batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop
from 3200.

Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to make
up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare it to
my experience.

BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from
experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm. Got a C330 myself -
a bit of a scoop, did not cost much more than the Yashicas were going for
on ebay. Had to sort out some focus / foam issues though but those only
showed up this year!

My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one
with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff.

Ah ha, get a C330 - you won't want to carry two cameras then...

--http://www.petezilla.co.uk