Shooting film at night

Fraser Euan White

Fraser Euan White

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,062
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Went to the Christmas markets tonight and realised film is crap for this :-(
 
Maybe...

but...

I've been thinking....

I used to do quite a lot of night photography digitally. ISO 6400 f1.8 hyperfocal distance ish

I think I'll give it a go with Delta 3200 pushed a stop.

Might be crap.
 
Try a monopod as well as pushing? I have an Arca clamp on mine and an L-bracket on the camera, and with care can shoot down to around 1/8...
 
ChrisR said:
Try a monopod as well as pushing? I have an Arca clamp on mine and an L-bracket on the camera, and with care can shoot down to around 1/8...
Click to expand...

I can understand this if your prime objective is to photograph but tonight mine was to enjoy the market but thought I would take a camera. I didn't want to carry anymore than just the camera and one lens and film just does not cut it in these situations.

Ended up after taking two shots forgetting the camera and using the mobile phone!
 
Last edited:
Night and macro, two areas where a good digital camera really seems to shine. I'll still have a go with a film camera just for fun (FPOTY, etc.) but if I have a job to do and need optimal results then I'd reach for a modern DSLR every time if it's a low light with no flash situation.
 
I don't personally see why a digital camera is better for macro, but I'll pass over that.

Regulars know that I'm always saying that a camera is just a tool, and some tools are better than others for some jobs. The corollary being that no camera is perfect. And I also think that any camera can be used to photograph anything, although the limitations imposed by the camera will affect how you treat the subject.

Night photography wasn't impossible or even unknown with film cameras. Some news photos were taken at night... What a digital camera allows is much higher "film" speeds. That said, I have photos taken on Kodachrome 25 at night in Torquay, without a tripod.

On this subject,some Christmas markets are easier than others. Bath works well at twilight (I should be there on Tuesday evening). But I'd use a digital camera as well for the flexibility.
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
I can understand this if your prime objective is to photograph but tonight mine was to enjoy the market but thought I would take a camera. I didn't want to carry anymore than just the camera and one lens and film just does not cut it in these situations.

Ended up after taking two shots forgetting the camera and using the mobile phone!
Click to expand...

I take it you knew the ISO of your film before you went out, so had an idea about the shutter speeds you would need? You'd have the same issue with digital if you set the same ISO but yes, being less flexible than digital in the hardest conditions is a side effect/limitation ;0)
 
Yeah, I really don't get this. So, you know it'll be dark, you know what sort of scene you want to shoot and hence know what sort of aperture and DoF you want, you know what ISO film you have access to... and this all somehow came as a surprise on the night?! :LOL:
 
I used ISO 400 film at Edinburgh Christmas market in 2015 (Agfa Vista 400) with some success. The thing about Christmas markets is they tend to have a lot of lights; if you can use them you can get some reasonable images handheld. Images of random strangers in the semi dark would be harder at lower ISOs, I guess, but I'd be happy to try pushing if I were starting with a fresh roll...

09790014.jpg

09790017.jpg
 
Well OK a very good digital camera using high ISO would be easier but I've got by with film equipment as long as there is enough decent light. Using 400 ISO film with a good 50mm @ f1.4 would be equivalent of a digi camera set at 800 ISO with max aperture @ f2 OR digi camera set at 1600 ISO with max aperture F2.8
 
But many digital cameras (not just high end DSLRs) can now get decent images at stupid high ISO values - better than 400 film pushed to 1600 (or even 800) at 3200 or even 6400. Some even give acceptable results at 25,600 or higher and these images can be improved in PP.

If I have to visit our local commercialmas market, it'll be on a buying trip (it seems to be the easiest place to find good charcutterie!) rather than to get a few snaps.
 
Nod said:
But many digital cameras (not just high end DSLRs) can now get decent images at stupid high ISO values - better than 400 film pushed to 1600 (or even 800) at 3200 or even 6400. Some even give acceptable results at 25,600 or higher and these images can be improved in PP.

If I have to visit our local commercialmas market, it'll be on a buying trip (it seems to be the easiest place to find good charcutterie!) rather than to get a few snaps.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to add anti-shake ;) but you can get by with a film camera that's all I'm saying, but I'd rather spend my dosh on something else other than an expensive digi camera..h'mm 20mm excellent lens or an older DSLR I know what I'd choose.
 
StephenM said:
...no camera is perfect. And I also think that any camera can be used to photograph anything, although the limitations imposed by the camera will affect how you treat the subject.
Click to expand...

One of the most sensible things I've ever heard said about gear.
 
Woodsy said:
Yeah, I really don't get this. So, you know it'll be dark, you know what sort of scene you want to shoot and hence know what sort of aperture and DoF you want, you know what ISO film you have access to... and this all somehow came as a surprise on the night?! :LOL:
Click to expand...

No surprise - just hammered home the limitations of film.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Went to the Christmas markets tonight and realised film is crap for this :-(
Click to expand...

It’s not though really. I follow so many accounts over on Instagram where people use film at night, handheld, no flash. The images are great.

We made many images at night before the last ten years and all would have been on film. With limitations come creativity.
 
I don't have the photos to hand ( some were posted on here!) but some of you will recall that I did some push processing experiments with our old favourte quid film Agfa Vista 200 asa and the results ( some of the Xmas market, others of the carnaval were pretty darned good tbh shot at 1600 and home devd ( Not all the frames were shot wide open either, some were F/5.6)

I appreciate what has already been said about limitations but decent nightime film shots are possible as can be seen from some of the posting in here using other films
 
gazmorton2000 said:
It’s not though really. I follow so many accounts over on Instagram where people use film at night, handheld, no flash. The images are great.

We made many images at night before the last ten years and all would have been on film. With limitations come creativity.
Click to expand...

...and how did Hollywood make films (colour) in the old days when the light was not that good esp inside a room. Anyway a digi guy (a bit dumb) would have to say:- before digi was invented there were no decent film shots in low light. o_O
 
Reading back through the thread, it has made me chuckle a bit. Personally, I doubt I'd be able to recreate any of the images given as examples here with a digital camera. So conversely, digital is no good for images like those super images posted by @Ste_S

Well - no good for me anyways. Not without a bit of DxO magic & more time than I'd like to spend on a computer.

For me - I shoot film *because* of the way it looks. My portrait stuff is digital because I can't focus for toffee and my Fuji delivers wonderful images that print to A3 with awe inspiring clarity. For pretty much everything else at the moment, I'd shoot film.

I'm off to see Black Star Riders next week and taking my AE-1 with some Tmax 3200. I'm sure the light will be terrible, but someone once said, "f8, 1/60 & hope". I love the work of Kevin Cummins & Pennie Smith, both of whom shot in the dark & made a career out of it (amongst many ohters!). It's all about atmosphere.

For me anyway... Did I say that?
 
Harlequin565 said:
Reading back through the thread, it has made me chuckle a bit. Personally, I doubt I'd be able to recreate any of the images given as examples here with a digital camera. So conversely, digital is no good for images like those super images posted by @Ste_S

Well - no good for me anyways. Not without a bit of DxO magic & more time than I'd like to spend on a computer.

For me - I shoot film *because* of the way it looks. My portrait stuff is digital because I can't focus for toffee and my Fuji delivers wonderful images that print to A3 with awe inspiring clarity. For pretty much everything else at the moment, I'd shoot film.

I'm off to see Black Star Riders next week and taking my AE-1 with some Tmax 3200. I'm sure the light will be terrible, but someone once said, "f8, 1/60 & hope". I love the work of Kevin Cummins & Pennie Smith, both of whom shot in the dark & made a career out of it (amongst many ohters!). It's all about atmosphere.

For me anyway... Did I say that?
Click to expand...

A Canon 50mm f1.4 is nice and at f1.4 if you can get focusing right you wont be disappointed

Canon 50mm FDn @ f1.4
1GmVIP5.jpg
 
Harlequin565 said:
Personally, I doubt I'd be able to recreate any of the images given as examples here with a digital camera.
Click to expand...

I think the temptation with digital is to try to raise shadows to the extent that it starts looking unnatural for a night time shot. Film concentrates you a bit more - shooting pools of light where you know anything outside of that will be black, and then using that knowledge to plan your photos.

Not doing anything fancy with my photos by the way. Shooting on a Nikon F4s on programme with the matrix meter, basically using it as a giant p&s. Size of the camera helps to dampen vibration on lower shutter speeds.
Negs are dev'd and scanned at Palm (Xtol dip 'n' dunk; Noritsu). Jpgs are more or less straight of the scanner, they only time I have to adjust is when the scanner tries to raise exposure/shadows to extract detail that isn't there.
 
When a digi is easier is when I'm using 200 ISO film and have to use a tripod to get a sharp image and DOF
IqHiJFI.jpg
 
Harlequin565 said:
One of the most sensible things I've ever heard said about gear.
Click to expand...

I like the Edward Stiechen quote "no photographer is as good as the simplest camera".
 
I don't think there's much we can't do with film if we aren't going to absolute extremes, it just takes more effort than spinning an iso wheel.
Discontinuation of fast emulsions haven't helped though in recent years.
 
You can do anything with film, there is no argument there but when you go out not to 'photograph' and are with others that have no interest in waiting for you to photograph then it is useless compared to digital. Pushing a film is of no use - the whole roll of 36 exposures has to be exposed/developed that way. high ISO film - adds another £8 to the costs just for a night out and when you go into somewhere bright the film is too fast.

Can't shoot at slow shutter speeds because if a picture displays any camera shake I hate it straight away and it gets discarded; I shoot film because I like film cameras and the developing - I can add 'the look of film' to a digital file in software.

If I had taken my digital camera I would have had shots I was happy with, If I had gone out to specifically take film pictures I would have probably got shots I was happy with but I wouldn't have had the company I had, I would have been on my own.
 
So, film is crap for situations when you're not doing photography so have put no time and effort into using the appropriate film.

Dude....I could have told you that.

:D
 
simon ess said:
So, film is crap for situations when you're not doing photography so have put no time and effort into using the appropriate film.

Dude....I could have told you that.

:D
Click to expand...

Hi Simon,

some time ago I considered selling my digital camera and just shooting film and started a thread in this section about how many had sold their digital gear.

Last night 'brought it home' that I wouldn't like to sell my digital gear because it is just 'so good' in certain circumstances; one of the best features is being able to adjust ISO from shot to shot.

The interchangeable film backs on my MF camera helps to some degree but isn't an ideal solution for just carrying around with you 'in case' a good photo opportunity arises.

Hope this helps explain?
 
I wouldn't choose to shoot a moving subject at night with film hand-held but if the subject is static and you have a tripod then there's no issue.

1 35mm Velvia 50 at 4am

CNV00016.jpg

2. Superia 400 maybe, can't quite remember
CNV00018.jpg

Which reminds me I have a copy of Andrew Sanderson's book on night photography (with film), I should read that and get some more practice
 
Last edited:
Shooting in dark conditions is fine with the right 'tools' along with you but I didn't want to 'lug' lots of camera gear around on this night so rather naively I just took the camera and lens and found it............useless.

Pic taken on F3 Mounted on tripod (obviously not the Xmas markets!)



ScanImage44 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
U6mvN4s.jpg
Click to expand...

Now if you'd used a high quality modern DSLR you could have taken a photo in there without any flash at all! ;) Mind you, it would have been a very different photo as it probably wouldn't have had the same comedic effect, which to be honest is why it works.

As this thread seems to have morphed (pretty much instantly) into a misinterpretation of what I said, I thought I'd put the record straight. (y) I didn't say film cameras were unsuitable for night or low light photography, or imply that they should no longer be used for such. I merely pointed out that a high-quality modern DSLR is capable of doing a much better job of hand-held, sans-flash, low light photography where non-static subjects are involved. Image stabilisation can help avoid camera shake but it can't do anything to help in the case of moving objects. Shutter speed too low = motion blur.

Yes, film cameras can be used for low light photography, if you can get fast enough film, or the photographer is relying on motion blur/shake for an artistic effect, or shooting stationary objects, etc. In other words, working within (or perhaps to) the limitations of the medium. Yes, film cameras were successfully used for low light photography in the past (mainly because it's pretty much all we had!) and could produce some very good results. However, it's a lot easier to get consistently good results in far lower light levels with a modern high-quality DLSR, take a look at some of the astro-photography these days and you'll see what I mean. With non-specialist amateur kit (the sort of thing most of us would have available), years ago you wouldn't have been able to make out some of the stars for film grain!

So it's horses for courses, but that doesn't stop us having fun exploring the limitations and look of our old film cameras, because that's what this section of the forum is about. However, as much as we love the look and fun of film photography we can't honestly deny the advantages of modern camera equipment in certain circumstances.

Snip:
Harlequin565 said:
I'm off to see Black Star Riders next week and taking my AE-1 with some Tmax 3200. I'm sure the light will be terrible, but someone once said, "f8, 1/60 & hope".
Click to expand...

I think your best bet would probably be to put your AE1 on 1/125 second and let it control the aperture (depending on how bright it is, f/8 is probably going to be an unrealistic expectation/real limitation, so you'll more than likely have to shoot at a wider aperture and be sharp with your focussing), and perhaps dial in a -3/4 to -1 (darker) stop exposure compensation to stop the camera's light meter trying to turn things into 'daylight'. This should hopefully retain the lighting effects and 'atmosphere'. If you go for prints from the negs you'll need to tell the lab they're 'night shots' and ask for them to be printed as such or the auto settings on the scanner will also try to make them look like daylight, and it's not a good look for gig photos. As for a lens, depending how big the venue is and where you're standing something like a 70 -135 zoom range would probably be a handy option to take, unless you can get very close and use a 50mm, but stage clutter can often be a problem if you can't get in tight enough. I notice that Harrisons Cameras have got a Canon FD 70-210 f/4 in stock for £30 with 12 months warranty if you don't already have anything of that zoom range. Hope this is useful. (y)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top