I shoot at 1/500 or 1/1000 shutter speed in order to stop the action and offset the vibration from shooting hand held. I am confused about the results I will achieve by using films of different film-speed. For example, while I usually will shoot 400 speed film, won't I get a less grainy result (hopefully a sharper result) if I am able to shoot a 100 speed film at this same shutter speed? Since I am not changing the ISO setting on the camera to something different than the ISO for the film, I am not "pushing" the film. I shoot usually in bright or sunny/bright conditions. Thanks for your suggestions.
I'm not too sure what action it is you are trying to stop with a 1/500 or 1/1000 shutter speed but in many cases this should be sufficient.
To stop camera shake(the movement from hand holding) the general rule is that you are safe when the shutter speed equals 1/(focal length). That is to say that had you been using a 500mm lens you would need a shutter speed of 1/500 to be safe. Some folks will suggest twice that or 1/1000.
In response to shooting 100 ISO film at a 400 setting you are correct in that you will need to ask to have this film push processed. In your example it will be 2 stops. The thing to remember here is that you should shoot the entire rol in this manner. Personally, I would open my aperture all the way before trying to push 100 ISO film.
Grain size on FFuji Reala(100 ISO) is 4 RMS (root mean squared) and on their 400 Superia is 4 or 4.5 RMS. This is pretty insignificant as far as I'm concerned and their 800 ISO is like 4.5 RMS as well.
Thanks. To help clarify....my lense is a 70-210mm f/3.5 (Vivitar Series I) which I usually shoot at the long-end. (I probably could use the magnification of 300mm.) So I really can't get closer to my subject. The action and the vibration require me to shoot at 1/500 or 1/1000. From your kind reply, I still do not understand if it isn't better for me to try to use the 100 (or 200 speed) speed film (so as to increase noticeable sharpness) - although I think you are trying to tell me that there isn't much difference in "grain" between the 100, the 400 and the 800. However, from my experience, there appears to be such a noticeable difference in the negative print films I have tried. Maybe I am assigning a characteristic in my prints to the wrong cause. If I am trying to improve sharpness, maybe I am wrong in thinking it is a matter of grain. Maybe the "problem" is that my colors are "muddy"....meaning not as "sharp" as I would like to achieve. Also....since I am setting my camera for the ISO rating of the film I am using, I assume I am therefore not really "pushing" the film. To "push" the film, for example, I would need to set my camera's ISO setting at 200 when using 100 speed film to really be "pushing" the film. Do I have that right? Thanks again.
The issue you may be dealing with MM is that 100 speed film is less sensitive to light than 400 film. So you will need a slower shutter speed to achieve the same result. Thus, if you get properly exposed results shooting 400 film at 1/500 or 1/1000, you will not get properly exposed shots with those speeds on 100 speed film unless you widen your aperture. A wider aperture will give you less depth of field. It's a trade-off.
The grain in most good 400 speed films today is very fine and you would likely not be able to tell the difference between 100 and 400 film in anything up to 8x12 enlargements and maybe even larger.
Pushing or pulling deals with the processing of the film. Meaning it stays in the developer for more or less time than normal to compensate for under- or over-exposing it during shooting. What you're talking about is changing the exposure value of the film. You can still do this and not have the film push or pull processed.
There are a lot of terms used in this thread that do not follow. What does the original poster mean by sharp? What size print are you viewing to base your sharp/not sharp rating?
If you have a modern camera, it is probably setting a default program when you fiddle and try to manually set the ISO; consequently, you could be shooting at 100 not 400, if that is the default setting in the camera. Muddiness usually refers to non crispness in the colours: overexposed print film and underexposed slide film. Can you post a print or Email me personally, if you can't, and I will try to help.
I do feel you understand what it means to push process.
BUT you have MUDDY photos that aren't too SHARP.
My earlier suggestion of openig up your aperture will give you the fastest possible shutter speed but this will give you a minimum depth of field not to mention MOST lenses do not function optimally it either extreme.
Perhaps others will comment on my next two points and they are;
1) the processing of your negs in old or weak chemicals can ruin what may have been good exposures.
2) Your lens does more than focus. It by design will bend the light through the glass and refocus it on the film. If this is not done well you will get incorrect colrs and if I'm not mistaken incorrect contrast as well.
I hope others will comment on these two points as to help me further understand but I am aware that this is why so many folks go to graet lengths to care for their lenses.
One more thing.. the color of light. Light is measured in degrees of kelvin and most of the films we buy are rated for daylight.
When it is hazy and overcast the colors will not be as nice. You may notice this but your brain will help to compensate just as it does in with indoor lighting but film can't compensate.
2) Your lens does more than focus. It by design will bend the light through the glass and refocus it on the film. If this is not done well you will get incorrect colrs and if I'm not mistaken incorrect contrast as well.
I'd like to here more on that also would a lens act differently in bright light conditions than it would under less bright conditions given the same subject matter and other variables?
I shoot at 1/500 or 1/1000 shutter speed in order to stop the action and offset the vibration from shooting hand held. I am confused about the results I will achieve by using films of different film-speed. For example, while I usually will shoot 400 speed film, won't I get a less grainy result (hopefully a sharper result) if I am able to shoot a 100 speed film at this same shutter speed? Since I am not changing the ISO setting on the camera to something different than the ISO for the film, I am not "pushing" the film. I shoot usually in bright or sunny/bright conditions. Thanks for your suggestions.
You don't need to use such high shutter speeds if you are using normal or wide angle lenses. You don't even need them with telephotos up to about 200 mm. And if you are taking a picture of a building or a landscape, they're not going to get up and walk away. By rigidly adopting such fast shutter speeds you are robbing yourself of access to the other creative camera control: the lens aperture. Someday you are going to need all the depth of field that you can get out of your equipment, and that means that you will have to stop down the lens and use a significantly slower shutter speed. Learn proper camera holding technique now, for your own sake.
If you are shooting under bright sun you can use ISO 100 films and get stunning results using both fast and slow shutter speeds. The Sunny 16 base exposure is 1/125 sec. @ f/16. You can shoot at the equivalent 1/500 sec. @ f/8 and achieve a sharp subject and reasonably sharp background, even if the subject is a running back leaping over the defenders in an attempt to score. To further isolate the running back from the background, you can shoot the same play at 1/2000 @ f/4 with the same ISO 100 film. Using an ISO 400 film under bright sun forces you to use fast shutter speeds and small apertures and that can severely limit your exposure options. The base exposure becomes 1/500 @ f/16 which becomes 1/2000 @ f/8 and 1/8000 @ f/4. Few cameras give you the opportunity to use the last shutter and aperture combination, and to my eye, 1/2000 sec. gives not one iota more appearance of stopped action than 1/1000 sec.
By the same token, ISO 100 film also gives you the chance to emphasize movement, motion, and/or speed as a compositional element of your images. If your lens stops down to f/32 you can show the motion of the ball and the swing of the bat by using a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. With ISO 400 film you can only achieve 1/125 sec. at f/32. Despite the Revealed (advertising) Truth in photography since the late 1990s, ISO 400 film is not a general purpose film and is not the best film to use, even for sports, under bright sun. The reason to switch to a slower film has nothing to do with how fine the grain is (all modern color negative films have fine grain) so much as it has to do with other aesthetic considerations.
Don't consider push processing any color negative film unless the data sheet (on the inside of the box) or other information about the film tells you specifically that the film can be so processed. All consumer color negative films are manufactured such that the C-41 developer reduces all of the exposed silver halide to metallic silver. There's nothing left for the developer to act on during the extended time in the chemicals; therefore trying to push process the film is a waste of time and money (and you will be charged for it whether it works or not). The only two color negative films that I believe can be push processed are one of the Fujicolor professional 800 films and Kodak's Supra 800.
And finally, what the lens does is focus the light that comes through it onto the film plane. Unfortunately, not all wavelengths of light bend to the same degree as they come through the glass. To correct this, most modern lenses have some kind of "special" glass that brings all wavelengths to almost the same focus. Those that aren't well-corrected are said to exhibit chromatic aberration or color fringing. Lenses that are marked as having APO (apochromatic), LD, or ED glass are made with even more special glass that eliminates color fringing completely.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the light that Bill A was talking about. Overcast light is omnidirectional, meaning that the light is coming from all directions at once and providing uniform illumination without shadows. Bright sunlight is directional light and is characterized by strong, sharp shadows that come from one direction only. Strobe (flash) light is usually another kind of directional light.
"Daylight" is actually measured at noon and is pegged at about 5500 degrees Kelvin, visually blue-white. Tungsten photographic light is much cooler at about 3400 degrees Kelvin, visually red-orange. Outdoor open shade is actually hotter (bluer) light than noon sunshine at 6,000 to 18,000 degrees Kelvin. Sunrise and sunset are colder (redder) than midday sunshine at 3050 to 3150 degrees Kelvin. Your standard 75-100 watt light bulb comes in at 2800 to 2900 degrees Kelvin, while a candle is about 1200 to 1850 degrees Kelvin. The color of the light has no effect on chromatic aberrations but it does have an effect on film choice. Under the colder (in degrees Kelvin) lights, tungsten balanced films are recommended over daylight balanced films and vice versa.
My source for the color temperatures was the article on using filters in the July 2001 issue of PopPhoto. The July issue every year is also a good source of information about color films that are currently available.
Geez! Thanks for all the advice and ideas. It will take me some time to figure all this and respond. But I do need the high shutter speed to offset my movement (in a boat), the movement of my subject (in a boat), and the vibration (sitting next to a running engine while taking the shot). I truly will have more exposure optins with a lower speed film (100/200 versus 400). Maybe what is obvious is that IS (image stabilization) would be a useful camera/lense option for me, in an attempt to use a lower shutter speed. How's that sound?
Posting Permissions
