Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot

Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete




--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:

Grr, need to know why followups were set to rec.photo.darkroom. On topic
for both groups!

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Peter Chant" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
It seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the
subject.
If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment.

I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's
recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard)
but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it.

Sounds like a good candidate for gummed up grease in the mirror
mechanism or some such.

Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

Easy to check: 1) Take a picture at infinity and make sure
infinity on the lens gives a sharp image in the finder and
on the film; 2) Lay a newspaper on the floor, draw a line
across it with a black marker and take a picture parallel
to the line and at a 45 degree angle to floor with lens wide
open - there should be as much in focus behind the line as
in front of the line.

Bit concerned that I 'snatch' the shutter release.

It doesn't look like camera shake.

Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter
release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp
pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at
1/8th.

[If I pull any more I'll be at ASA 400]

If setting the meter at 400 is what it takes then 400
is what it takes. What ASA you set the meter at isn't the
film speed - it is what you have to set the meter to
to get a good picture. The _film_ has the same speed
no matter where the meter is set. The development you
use determines the highlight density but doesn't change
the film speed.

'Pulling' isn't really shooting the film at a lower ASA,
it is correcting the meter setting because an averaging
meter will make a balls up if the subject isn't of normal
contrast.

If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on
the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set
at the film's rated speed. Then measure the lightest spot
- usually it's a white shirt or pants: if the reading is
1-2 stops over then all should be OK, if 2-3 stops over then
use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less
development.

I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200
film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at
3200 and with normal contrast subjects results in the poorest
acceptable shadow density. If the subject is contrastier
than normal then there is _no_ shadow density. If spot
metering the shadows with TMax it is best to set the meter
to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess
is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same.

If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a
white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the
shadows and highlights to take readings.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's
recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard)
but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it.


Well, I don't _think_ that is a problem. However, camera needs new foam and
a service could not do any harm. I'm sure that I could find the same
camera in at least the same condition for the cost of this - but with the
work done at least I would know the camera had been serviced.


Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

I suspect its just that the dancers were moving and I was working at full
apertures. Depth of field seems to be of the order of 1m, these guys were
moving a lot. It was hard to get them in focus and anticipate the correct
timing for the shot. I took two other cameras (range finder and TLR) and
had similar problems. Argulably, even though using Provia pushed to 800
rather than B&W at 3200 the ranger finder worked best. (save for an
accidental flash shot from someone else's flash illumination).



Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter
release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp
pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at
1/8th.


If the other guys stay still. Noticed a sharp background - but other things
moved!


If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on
the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set
at the film's rated speed. Then measure the lightest spot
- usually it's a white shirt or pants: if the reading is
1-2 stops over then all should be OK, if 2-3 stops over then
use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less
development.


Useful advice.

I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200
film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at
3200 and with normal contrast subjects results in the poorest
acceptable shadow density. If the subject is contrastier
than normal then there is _no_ shadow density. If spot
metering the shadows with TMax it is best to set the meter
to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess
is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same.


I'll bear that in mind.

If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a
white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the
shadows and highlights to take readings.


Cunning plan.


I think, given the fortuitous flash shot, that, if there are no audience
considerations flash mounted well away from the camera to give almost side
light would work well. Due to a lot of variables it might be a bit hit and
miss though.

Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

Hmm, exposure issues are looking like the camera. Just got a film back from
some horse racing I saw, most negs dreadfully underexposed - some clear.
Even the best ones look a bit on the thin side. Full marks to the lab for
getting the prints out they did, perhaps that is why the turn around was
slower than usual. Cross checking the meter with a hand held meter it
_seems_ fine and from firing the shutter (subjective not measured) it
appears to work correctly. Don't think it is a problem with the camera
stopping the lens down incorrectly, I was using a mirror lens the other
Saturday - no iris.

BTW, on inspecting the negs immediate impression - that is familiar. Second
impression - idiot, forgot to change the iso setting from 1600 to 400, but
on checking the camera I had set it to 400.

Looks like either time to get the camera tested, CLA'ed / foam replaced or
retire it, depending on cost - though if there is nothing majorly wrong
with it I'd know I'd at least have a serviced camera with new foam.

I think my focus issues were maninly due to rapidly moving people and a
shallow depth of field. I simply could not keep up. - Probally said that
in another post.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk