Below, I posted the leftmost panel a few weeks ago as a standalone, but it was part of a pentaptych.
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes. Five consecutive 35mm frames taken handheld, arranged as a panoramic pentaptych.
Some photos from a dance yesterday. It was dark in there; I used my Mamiya C330 with Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 to be able to get to f4 and 1/125. In retrospect I should have shot at 1/60 but was worried about getting too much motion blur with the dancers. I've learned from experience that opening it up to f2.8 on medium format doesn't work for dancers as it's too hard to nail focus. I shot another roll that I'll develop tomorrow after my tank dries, and will develop that roll a little longer (this one was 12.5 minutes in DDX).
bjhurley wrote:
Some photos from a dance yesterday. It was dark in there; I used my Mamiya C330 with Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 to be able to get to f4 and 1/125. In retrospect I should have shot at 1/60 but was worried about getting too much motion blur with the dancers. I've learned from experience that opening it up to f2.8 on medium format doesn't work for dancers as it's too hard to nail focus. I shot another roll that I'll develop tomorrow after my tank dries, and will develop that roll a little longer (this one was 12.5 minutes in DDX).
Has me wondering whether equivalence works similarly to digital, i.e. would you have gotten similar results (also in terms of resolution, etc) shooting e.g. Kentmere 400 @ 1600 at 1/125 f2 on 35mm.
fjablo wrote:
Has me wondering whether equivalence works similarly to digital, i.e. would you have gotten similar results (also in terms of resolution, etc) shooting e.g. Kentmere 400 @ 1600 at 1/125 f2 on 35mm.
It probably would have been a lot grainier with 35mm; I don't think ISO 1600 would have worked even with a fast lens (I have a few f1.4 lenses in 35mm). The meter reading and thus the range of possible f-stop and shutter speed combinations would be the same for 35mm vs. 120, but depth of field is different and of course resolution is higher in 120 (and grain is usually much less evident).
Delta 3200 is really an ISO 1000 film and its box speed of 3200 is achieved by pushing. From everything I've read, DD-X is the best developer for shooting this film at ISO 3200 and so far it has worked well for me, following the development times in Ilford's data sheet for this film. I also followed the time for pushing to 6400 but the negatives were pretty thin; I'm going to try the other roll at a little more than 13 minutes instead of 12.5.
bjhurley wrote:
Some photos from a dance yesterday. It was dark in there; I used my Mamiya C330 with Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 to be able to get to f4 and 1/125. In retrospect I should have shot at 1/60 but was worried about getting too much motion blur with the dancers. I've learned from experience that opening it up to f2.8 on medium format doesn't work for dancers as it's too hard to nail focus. I shot another roll that I'll develop tomorrow after my tank dries, and will develop that roll a little longer (this one was 12.5 minutes in DDX).
bjhurley wrote:
It probably would have been a lot grainier with 35mm
That's where I'm not too sure.
- 1/125 at f/4 and ISO 6400 is the exact same exposure as 1/125 f/2 and ISO 1600
- DOF and framing would be roughly the same if you use a 35mm f/2 lens on 35mm vs 80mm at f/4 on 120
So the question is whether the resolution from the bigger surface area of Delta 3200 in 120 is negated when it's pushed to 6400, compared to a lower-speed film in 35mm.
At lower speeds (e.g. ISO 400 vs 100) I'd lean towards 120 still being superior. But at those extreme ISO ratings, not so sure.
