[dugrant153]

One of the main advantages I've found with digital has been the ability to change ISO "mid roll" ...er... "mid SD card" and just keeping shooting like there's no tomorrow

I love the feel of film at the moment and it has produced for me some really good images. My question is... in the roll of 24 or 36 shots, are there films out there that can handle ISO switching mid-roll without major ill effects? Let's assume that I can't tell my lab to push process and they just process normally.

I heard Kodak BW400CN is pretty pushable... but what about color negative films? Fuji Superia maybe?

The reason I'm asking is cuz I want to use full-format film SLRs (for full frame benefits) to coincide with my Pentax K7 digital SLR (weathersealed, digital). And I tend to shoot in various lighting, especially when I'm doing events or weddings.

[Adam]

Sure you can change the ISO, but wouldn't it have the same effect as an EV shift?

[mickeyobe]

Some of today's films have amazing latitude and I think that, within reasonable limits you could switch. But don't expect miracles.

Perhaps I should modify "today's films". I stopped using film over 5 years ago so what I used to use when I wanted negatives was Kodacolor 200 and 400. I don't know what is available today.

Mickey

[SpecialK]

In my film days the rule was to overexpose negs and underexpose slides if you were uncertain about exposure. Underexposing negs and hoping for the best print quality is what you are trying to do. I would pick the right ISO and work with that for your exposures.

[Wheatfield]

The manufacturers of film put a speed rating on it for a reason.
In very general terms, the film speed is the film speed and nothing you do after the fact in processing is going to have much effect on it.
C-41 process is a develop to completion process, meaning that at 3:15 seconds (IIRC) the film is fully developed and any more development will merely increase the mask density.

When I was teaching myself the Zone System I spent a great deal of time with gray scales and a densitometer, charting characteristic curves of the films I was interested in to see how they reacted to varying exposure and development.
I didn't find a single film whose speed altered by more than about 1/3 stop, no matter how much extended development I gave it.
Slide film is perhaps a little more willing to push, but even then, I wouldn't be looking for more than 1/2-2/3 of a stop of speed increase.

[stevebrot]

@Wheatfield,
Are your comments regarding ineffectiveness of push processing limited to C41 B&W films?

I was going to suggest to the OP that he shoot Tri-X or TMax 400 at ISO 800 with normal development and forget the concept of "mixing" ISO (intentional over/underexposure) within a roll. There will be some loss of shadow detail, but the grain and contrast should remain manageable.

Steve

[Steve Beswick]

No, there isn't any good way to change ISO mid roll, but on the plus side negative film tends to be much more forgiving than digital when it comes to exposure. In my experience, you can sometimes be off by as much as 2 full stops and still get a good print out of it. This is especially true of non-C41 black and white films, thanks to darkroom "tricks". Color slide film, on the other hand, is usually even more of a bitch about exposure than digital.

*Insert standard disclaimer here*

[Wheatfield]

@Wheatfield,
Are your comments regarding ineffectiveness of push processing limited to C41 B&W films?

I was going to suggest to the OP that he shoot Tri-X or TMax 400 at ISO 800 with normal development and forget the concept of "mixing" ISO (intentional over/underexposure) within a roll. There will be some loss of shadow detail, but the grain and contrast should remain manageable.

Steve

Nope, my comments relate to push processing in general.
What extending the development does to B&W film is extend the tonal range from ~ Zone 3 or 4 on up, but does nothing for the threshhold exposures in the zone 1 & 2 range. What this does is give much deeper shadows with brighter midrange and highlights.
This may be of some use in some situations, but it is not increasing the film speed, and can lead to frying the highlights if there are any.
It works fairly well in low contrast scenes (think hockey rink or gymnasium) when the entire scene is sitting at around Zone 5, but the available exposure is closer to Zone 3. In this sort of situation, it can be useful to increase development to increase both tonal range and low exposure density.
Extending development in B&W pretty much just increases contrast and granularity.

C-41 doesn't push.
Period.

E-6 may a little, but not by more than 1/3 to perhaps 1/2 stop, and again, it will be more like the effect that you'll see with B&W film.

[tuco]

The reason I'm asking is cuz I want to use full-format film SLRs (for full frame benefits) to coincide with my Pentax K7 digital SLR (weathersealed, digital). And I tend to shoot in various lighting, especially when I'm doing events or weddings.

Well, we all shoot our film camera's in various lighting conditions, no doubt. With low light and slow film you just have to accept slow shutter speeds or make it up some with a faster lens at the expense of DOF with short focus distances if that matters. As everyone has said, with negative film you do have a stop of latitude in general to play with safely. So if the loaded film doesn't cut it for the condition you want to shoot, you either take out the film (you don't have to shoot the entire roll up if it's important) and load a new roll or grab another camera loaded with film more suited for the task.

[dugrant153]

Hmm... I've been doing some research and sounds like Ilford XP2 Super has some "exposure latitude".

I'm trying out some Kodak BW400CN and will see if it has any at all. From what I've seen, when exposure is off on certain films (especially color ones), the pic is usable but detail is lost and it looks cloudy

But my guess is probably best just to stay with a set ISO and adjust everything else.

Or get that second camera

[penties rider]

Hmm... I've been doing some research and sounds like Ilford XP2 Super has some "exposure latitude".

I'm trying out some Kodak BW400CN and will see if it has any at all. From what I've seen, when exposure is off on certain films (especially color ones), the pic is usable but detail is lost and it looks cloudy

But my guess is probably best just to stay with a set ISO and adjust everything else.

Or get that second camera

hi dugrant153

following decades of experience on film, what you have said yourself in the end of your message is the only best solution if you don't want to sacrifice image quality vs for film sensitivity: stick with a fixed ISO and then adjust lighting for the scene.

however, films with a larger exposure latitude, if photographed properly and then processed rightly too, can yield up to 9 stops difference between highlight and lowlight areas of the subject UNDER sufficient light, namely sunlight or well lit sutdio conditions.

and that applies true to most b&w as well as many types of color films.

there were (still are) 'variable ISO' b&w films out there too. using such films you can set the exposure meter of the camera to say ISO 200, but go ahead and shoot almost in any lighting condition and stay assured that everything within a 5 stops ramge of exposure will be recorded correctly, well, almost.

i said "almost" because again, the brighter the scene (say under sunlight) the broader the range of contrast / color shades such an emulsion can capture, without loss of sharpness and grain structure (granualrity) which is different (as well as somewhat weak) in such variable ISO film emulsions, as compared to a regular emulsion with lower exposure latitude yet more evenly distributed grain pattern ...

and last but not least, the most important factor about such films, even 'regular' films, b&w or color, is the processing and chemicals of course, plus darkroom or photo lab techniques and handling expertise, which is a fact that i have noticed even some pro photographers do not pay much attention to.

if you really want the widest spectrum of colors and broadest of exposure latitudes inherent in ANY emulsion, the first thing you HAVE TO avoid would be to leave your exposed film to regular commercial print shops, namely those in the convenience stores or similar places, unless you know they will 'wash' your film using only 'fresh / non-replenished' developer and fixer, as well as you are sure they will handle the film roll just like a new born baby!

i would even go further as to recommend that if a photographer using film material is truly after the best possible quality to come out of his or her hearty efforts, s/he ought to take care of the processing department him or herself just as s/he does it at the photographic stage.

however, achieving desirable high quality results under similar lighting conditions but using digital technology, can of course come in much handier for most photographers these days mainly due to handling issues: film (and chemicals) is much trickier (thus harder and messier) to tackle than digital storage medai due to obvious reasons.

i hope this helps.

[dugrant153]

thank penties rider, and all others who have provided info!

I still like the look of film, but as you know being a digital shooter has made me so comfortable with just flipping the ISO button and going nutso in any lighting... but AWB is just not the same as film - not as consistent (guess that's what RAW files are for but that's extra comp work - something I'm trying to push away from with film).

I think I'm beginning to now understand the 'latitude' and all the different factors that affect a film. Curious, then, on what people do to "switch ISO" to a higher ISO when things get darker? Sounds like a lot of people just changed films out, though I can see that being an extra step that could be really distracting during a very busy day.

Let's take a wedding scenario and split it into 3 scenarios - getting ready, ceremony, reception. I love 400 ISO film simply for availability and ease of use in most lighting conditions. Going flashless (for personal style reasons) and using low light prime lenses (Thinking Canon 28mm F1.8, Canon 50mm F1.4 and ... something else). Contemplating use of a monopod! Note that I shoot mainly photojournalist style with minimal direction (except during formal portraits as they request).

Getting Ready (at bride's house) - I'm thinking ISO 400 film. My current pick is kind of a split between Fuji Superia 400 and Fuji Pro 400H.

Ceremony - Even though it's day time, some churches are not that well lit or could be a dark ceremony. Thinking of using ISO 400 film, but "pushing" the roll to 800 ISO to achieve usable shots? I can see issues with the couple coming out of the church into bright daylight.

Reception - usually very dark or getting dark. Thinking ISO 3200 film like Ilford B&W film, or maybe an 800 film pushed to 1600?


Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I would like to restate that I'm a complete film newb having grown up with digital, but I am open to learning more!!!

[Wheatfield]

if you really want the widest spectrum of colors and broadest of exposure latitudes inherent in ANY emulsion, the first thing you HAVE TO avoid would be to leave your exposed film to regular commercial print shops, namely those in the convenience stores or similar places, unless you know they will 'wash' your film using only 'fresh / non-replenished' developer and fixer,.....

If you are talking about colour films (widest spectrum of colours?), then you are just plain wrong.

[John Poirier]

thank penties rider, and all others who have provided info!

I still like the look of film, but as you know being a digital shooter has made me so comfortable with just flipping the ISO button and going nutso in any lighting... but AWB is just not the same as film - not as consistent (guess that's what RAW files are for but that's extra comp work - something I'm trying to push away from with film).

I think I'm beginning to now understand the 'latitude' and all the different factors that affect a film. Curious, then, on what people do to "switch ISO" to a higher ISO when things get darker? Sounds like a lot of people just changed films out, though I can see that being an extra step that could be really distracting during a very busy day.

Let's take a wedding scenario and split it into 3 scenarios - getting ready, ceremony, reception. I love 400 ISO film simply for availability and ease of use in most lighting conditions. Going flashless (for personal style reasons) and using low light prime lenses (Thinking Canon 28mm F1.8, Canon 50mm F1.4 and ... something else). Contemplating use of a monopod! Note that I shoot mainly photojournalist style with minimal direction (except during formal portraits as they request).

Getting Ready (at bride's house) - I'm thinking ISO 400 film. My current pick is kind of a split between Fuji Superia 400 and Fuji Pro 400H.

Ceremony - Even though it's day time, some churches are not that well lit or could be a dark ceremony. Thinking of using ISO 400 film, but "pushing" the roll to 800 ISO to achieve usable shots? I can see issues with the couple coming out of the church into bright daylight.

Reception - usually very dark or getting dark. Thinking ISO 3200 film like Ilford B&W film, or maybe an 800 film pushed to 1600?


Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I would like to restate that I'm a complete film newb having grown up with digital, but I am open to learning more!!!

If you really, really want to use film the trick is to switch bodies rather than switching films in mid roll.

Personally, I greatly prefer a photojournalist approach to the formulaic pap that a lot of wedding photographers crank out. Good for you!

On the other hand, as an old (and still very active) film shooter, I have to say there is no way I would shoot weddings with film, especially 35mm colour negative, when digital is available. Technical issues aside, with digital you can instantly confirm that you got the shot, which is the big thing with weddings.

I think your expectation that film is a better bet than digital for mixed lighting is a bit unrealistic. Try it yourself.

My impression is that part of digital wedding photography involves setting up custom white balances during the prep process. You also have the option of shooting RAW and using something like Lightroom for consistent batched white balance adjustments.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a photojournalistic style on digital, and developing an automated system for producing an appropriate slightly raw look.


If you do insist on shooting film, here a couple of suggestions:

Rather than speculating as you did in your first posting, you must test your film methods in a variety of situations to make absolutely sure that what you're proposing will really work. Go into your first paid wedding absolutely familiar with your technical methods and certain that everything will work. Anything else is unfair to you clients, and will wreck your abilty to focus on the event rather than fumbling with technical stuff.


Consider sticking to black and white, which at least gets you off the hook in terms of the pitfalls of colour images shot in mixed lighting. (Hint: Ilford XP2 is great at capturing highlight detail in white wedding dresses, and is C-41 process.)

Good luck!

[dugrant153]

Thanks for the reply. I totally hear what you mean about using two bodies. If I do decide to go all out film, I'm thinking probably ISO 400 for a majority of the day (indoor church ceremony may require me to push that to ISO 800). Then a fast 3200 B&W film for the reception.

And you're right. I will have to be very proficient in my techniques in order to make this work, especially on a hardcore event like a wedding day. Guess that's why I'm asking all the questions now and training as much as I can!

I've used Kodak BW400CN (and have even pushed it iso 800 mid roll) to great effect and love it. Might try another shot at Ilford XP2 but found it to be a bit muddy at times.