I am photographing several stage performances with extreme low and fluctuating lighting conditions. Often, one performer would be in black outfit while the other is in white, both illuminated by spots and moving rapidly on the stage. The background is about 2 to 3 stops darker then the intermidiate reading between the two performers. (In other words...nightmare!!!) The photos are to be used for publication purposes which demands extreme fine grain, high sharpness, and good tonalities. I've tried Neopan 1600 @ 1600, Delta 3200 @3200, HP5 @ 1600, and Delta 400 @ 1600. The editor who reviewed my 8x10 and 11x14 prints felt that these still had too much grain. Also, the editor demanded excellent visibility in background as well as the performers. Can anyone give me some advise as to how I can best solve this problem? Thanks.

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999

Answers

I assume you are doing your own printing. One-hour labs will normally make a mess of this.

How much light do you have, in other words what aperture/shutter were you shooting at, with EI 3200?

I do a load of stage stuff, with Delta 3200, rated at 800. Usually 1/60s at f/1.8 or f/1.2. 8x10 prints are great, with very little grain, beacause the film is 'correctly' exposed, and not pushed. However, the backdrop is black, and shows very little detail in the negatives, and there is very little depth of field.

If I had a little more light, I could use Delta 400, with even finer grain.

If you need to push the film, and can't use a larger aperture or longer shutter, then you need more light. Can you talk to the organisers, to get more light? Flash may be an answer; ideally monoblock units, on stands. If you go this route, you can use a slower film, such as Delta 100.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 13, 1999.

Your editor's demand is a joke. To demand excellent visibility in background as well as in the performers without grain is hilarious. But I see you didn't try XP2 yet. I would recommend a spotmeter for the performers, expose for them and see how the background comes along. If not, XP2 would give most possibilities for dodging and burning and will show the least grain. Be sure to go to a good lab for its processing. Second choice for me would be the Neopan, using a Summicron lens. Try your editor for prints on 5*7.

-- Lot Wouda (lotwouda@compuserve.com), May 13, 1999.

Thanks for the timly responses, Alan and Lot. I am doing my own printing and trying all the dodging and burning in techniques. The spot reading (ISO 3200, +1 EV) on the white outfit is 1/500 at f/2.8; for the black, 1/125 at f/2.8. At that aperature, I am already losing a bit too much depth for my editor's liking. Also, 1/125 occasionally gives me too much blur. I have been shooting mostly at 1/250 at f/2.8 with the 3200 or 1/125 f/2.8 with the 1600, both gave a nice print of the performers but very dark background. The minimum print size has to be 8x10. Maybe I will try shooting the ISO 800, with no exposure compensation. In general, would you recommend pulling or pushing or shooting at the rated speed for this kind of work? Thanks again.

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999.

I think my original question may have been a bit misleading. When I spoke of extremely low light level, I was speaking with the assumption that I needed shutter speed of at least 1/125 or even 1/250 at f/2.8 to f/5.6 for the image quality demanded. Sorry about the possible confusion.

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999.

Pushing the development increases contrast. If you already have quite a gap between the performers and the background, pushing will make it worse. Similarly, one performer dressed in black, the other in white needs normal development or less. The spotmeter reading on the clothing shows only 2 stops difference, which seems suspiciously low.

On the blur, is this camera shake or performer movement? For camera movement, can you get closer with a shorter focal length lens?

If these are not public performances (rehearsals or whatever), you might get the performers to keep still for you, and you can get the lighting turned up at the same time. Difficult for dancers. Are we taking dance here, or music, or what?

Off-camera flash may be a possibility, even if this is just held at arms-length.

You might try XP2. I don't know that film.

When I do this type of shoot, I accept that many shots will be unusable because of performer blur or inadequate DoF. Anticipating movement, and lack of movement, is an important skill here, you you can expose just when the performer is momentarily stationary.

Hmm. You (or your editor) want greater DoF, less blur, less grain. You need shadow detail, so pushing is a bad idea. We are running out of options. You need more light.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 13, 1999.

Is there any way you can get them to stage the scene for photography at some time other than during performance? I have turned down some of these assignments because they would not let me do this, having told them that I could not give them the quality they wanted any other way. Keep their lighting, but like the other gentleman said, add some of your own to bring things up to where you can work with them

-- tony brent (ajbrent@mich.com), May 13, 1999.

I photograph mostly dances, from classical ballet to modern dance programs. The shoot is always done during dress rehearsal. No flashes or additional lights are allowed for two reasons: first, its distracts the dancers; second, the lighting team is usually doing a final check on the lighting levels and effects.

My spot readings may be off for two reasons: the black outfit was a shiny one; I am using a in-camera 5 degree meter for speed. I am also shooting with a ball head on tripod. The blurs are indeed motion blurs and not camera shake since I can see from the negatives that the image is sharp except for some hand or foot movements.

While I am doing my own printing, I am sending the films out for processing at a local pro lab. They told me that they are using Tmax developer. Do you think that might be the problem?

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999.

T-Max developer is OK. The choice of developer won't have a major impact here. I use T-Max dev for Delta 3200.

No, the problem is rather deeper. It is concerned, as Lot said, with your editor's expectations. I have seen some wonderful dance photography, and they were pin-sharp, but they used lots of light.

When I photograph musicians, I sometimes like some blur in the hands on the instrument, it shows life, action, whatever. You might try to persuade your editor of the merits of this.

You use a tripod. Have you tried panning (probably hand-held), following the movements of the head of one of the dancers? At least the head would be sharp. Or similarly, pan with a foot, or a hand.

But that is just making a virtue of a necessity. I fear we have a stalemate. Resignation may indeed be the best option.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 14, 1999.

Thank you all for the helpful comments. I tried out one of the suggestions last evening at another ballet dress rehearsal. The results were absolutely amazing. Lot had suggested the use of XP2. I did not have that film in my storage of film supplies; however, I did have couple rolls of TMAX-CN lying around. So, guessing that the result might be comparible since both uses C-41 and produce silverless negs, I shot one roll of TMAX-CN at 1600 (2 stops push). I sent it out for processing in Kodak HC 110. Then, I printed them on Agfa Glossy B&W Multricontrast RC paper. The 8x10 was absolutely amazing. The skin tone is great, sharpness and lack of grain was an absolute delight. I think, therefore, this is the solution to my problem. Thanks again to you all.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 14, 1999.

c41 processing in hc110?

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), May 15, 1999.

Hi Lot, thanks for pointing out the mistake...just goes to show you how much sleep I had lately, pulling hairs over the problem. The TMAX-CN was processed in C-41; I shot another roll of Delta 400 pushed to 1600 which was developed in HC. The Delta 400 result was fine but too contrasy. I liked the TMAX-CN result better.

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 15, 1999.

By the way, I came across another chromogenic film (C41) from Kodak called Kodak Select Black and White. Has anyone of you shot this film before? I am wondering about the personality of this film in comparison to the TMAX CN, especially when pushed.

-- David (dna2367@hotmail.com), May 15, 1999.

David,

As I understand it, the Select+ is very close to the same emulsion, but with the orange hue backing to print better in the typical mini-lab printer on color paper. The emulsion change was a change to the Dmin, I think.

-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), May 17, 1999.