Some good captures there, John. One of who appears to be lead Brian
Benson, then another of the bald-headed drummer (I assume that's another
group), then a couple of the lady singers--who do these people sing with?
This was a concert with more than one band performing, yes?
Thank you. Not really. It was in a small local club. I believe the man
on the keyboard has played with major names in the past as a "hired
gun." He is very good. It is a monthly "jam" which opens with a local
group for about a half hour or so. While they're playing musicians sign
up to play. After the first set, musicians are assembled into lead,
rhythm, bass and drum, along with "harp" players and possibly
vocalists. Usually the lead/rhythm is also a vocalist. Likely sounds
chaotic but it's not and works out very well. I've never been
disappointed by the mix & match results. None of them have any notoriety
beyond central Indiana that I'm aware of. Every one of them has a "day
job" and at least half of them work where I do!
Well, I certainly understand having to have a day job to supplement one's
avocations. The olio you describe isn't strange to me, though I haven't
seen it as much in northern California. (It's not all that rare to find
musicians sitting in around here for a session, especially with jazz, but
it isn't what you'd call a regular concert formula.)
I haven't bothered with the faster B&W films after my trial-and-error
period (and disappointment) with Kodak's T-MAX p3200. From what I can see
off the Ilford sheet, Delta 3200 works about the same as its Kodak
counterpart, nominally rated at 1000, with apparently greater contrast.
(One never knows anymore with web displays.)
I normally use P3200 at EI 1600 and push 1. Results are similar with TMax
giving a bit less contrast. P3200 at EI 1600 looks a bit like Tri-X at
its rated speed.
I haven't tried all the various developmental approaches Kodak suggests,
and I haven't been in a lab myself for a coon's age. The lab my stuff goes
to in Santa Cruz asks for the in-camera rating, with no apparent option for
chemicals--that may exist but as I haven't actually been to this lab I
wouldn't know. I ought to scoot over there one day. (The camera shop I drop
my film off at is the one where the owner isn't even aware that Kodak
changed Tri-X and leaves Kodachrome on the open shelf, so there you go.)
Next time I require the extra speed I'll give T-MAX p3200 another trial,
this time with specific instruction for the Santa Cruz end of the equation.
By the way, I presume you mean the _old_ Tri-X look when you speak of T-MAX
p3200 grain. This new formulation has been altered significantly in that
regard.
What I don't understand is where the benefit lies in using these other
"faster" emulsions when it's quite possible to push Tri-X a couple of
stops with very good results--_was_ possible with the older emulsion,
have no idea what the results might be with this new stuff. And assuming
one doesn't mind the Tri-X grain--which seems to have mainly disappeared
these days. <g>
IMO Tri-X at Push 2 (EI 1600) is grainier and contrastier than TMax P3200
at EI 1600. Of course this is dependent on development. I send my stuff
to a pro lab in Indianapolis. I asked a while back what they use, and
it's TMax developer.
For the new stuff I believe that'd be correct, and I've good reason to
believe this has been the case for some time with the old Tri-X. Mircodol
and XTOL or whatever might still be used but I suppose most labs would
follow the path of least resistance and drop everything into T-MAX--fewer
chemicals to bother with, shorter development times and like time. But
that's just a guess.
Either way, I never did see all _that_ much change in the end result. Do
you recall (over 30 years ago now--1970 or thereabouts) when UPI published
a picture of the Rhine river and one its bridges where the negative has
been exposed in a solution of the polluted river's water itself?! I never
followed that up, though I kept a clipping of that picture for years,
finally losing it somewhere in a move. I'm not sure that that was Tri-X or
some other film stock--wouldn't surprise me if it had been--for all I know
you could get a useable image from that stuff out of chicken soup.
First question: how was this concert lighted?
Similar to what you described. Some overhead white floods with the three
banks of colored ones . . . one on each side and a third in front. The
lights are on dimmers and they're not afraid to crank them down. Most of
the performers are not accustomed to bright stage lights; some actually
complain if they're cranked up. No spots; only the banks of floods.
Your stage lighting must have been dimmed down quite a bit, then--that, or
it stood three or four times the distance off stage than the setup I was
forced to work with last week at the Stewart concert. For these small
affairs one never knows until he takes readings at the event. A couple of
extra long spots and a white flood or two would have helped me enormously
in terms of the DOF I had to work with--basically not much at all with the
100mm in front of Tri-X, not all that much better when I used it to make
color frames. I missed a few good moments by either not having enough DOF
to get everything I wanted in focus, or missing the shot entirely trying to
get everything into acceptable focus selecting a midway point. (And I only
needed to cover about six feet, at that.)
The first attempt at shooting it was late spring or early summer last
year. I loaded up with Tri-X at rated speed after consulting my guide on
existing light for small stages. Ooops! They are definitely running
lower lighting levels than the average stage; even a small one. Since I
had started at EI 400, I finished it out at that speed after grabbing the
50/1.2 and running it wide open . . . saying prayers the entire
time. Realized I definitely needed something faster and went to TMax
P3200. This one from October was a trial of the Ilford to see how it
compared. If I do this again I will use the TMax. Both the TMax and
Delta are intended to be used at EI 3200 and Push 2 while not becoming too
harsh with contrast or grain. Backing off to EI 1600 opens both of them
up in latitude, the TMax apparently more than the Delta. Again, P3200 at
EI 1600 looks a *lot* like Tri-X at rated speed including its grainularity.
We'll see. At the moment I think of T-MAX as more of a special-purpose
medium, where it's grain might somehow aid a desire to intentionally
diffuse detail or otherwise create mood. I was going to give an image to
illustrate what I mean but it turns out I've lost track of the original
scan, and working with my JPEG copy doesn't make it. I'll re-scan and work
it up again from scratch, then present it.
I'd be using Tri-X at rated speed if it were a couple stops brighter
lighting. IMHO, it's a classic, timeless film that's matched for this
type of music and its performers.
It's well-matched for a lot of settings, and for my taste nothing can hope
to touch it for portrait work--though I like Plus-X in that regard, too.
I've stuck with Tri-X over the years for just one reason: there's never
been anything as good on balance, especially in the street. For a short
time I became mildly enamored with HP5, but soon enough it drove me back to
Tri-X--the newspaper I worked for at the time made a similar decision after
a bare month.
Has anyone on the list worker with HP5 Plus? If so, how has it changed?
I do appreciate you taking the time to be so thoughtful, John, and as
always look forward to seeing your periodic work with Kodachrome. (You
know, you're probably the last person on the planet using it for snapshots.
<g>)
Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|