Greetings from Connecticut, Last night I shot three rolls of Kodaks Portra 400 BW-C41 with my new M6. I used my 35/1.4 and my 90/2.0 both latest versions.

I shot in a theater during rehearsals for local group. I donated my time at the request of a friend.

This was my first test of the film and to be honest i am still getting used to the new M6 and lenses. I shot in extremely low light conditions and I pushed the film to 800 for 2 of the three rolls.

I dropped the film off at my regular lab and went back to work. When I went back to pick up the film a very apologetic owner explained that there had been an error and all 3 rolls were processed at 400.

We opened the photos to take a look and I have to tell you the pictures were beautiful. All of them. The images were crisp - even the ones I was not sure about when I was focusing.

The latitude built into modern film and chemistry is wonderful. But the crisp, luminescent quality delivered by the leica glass is unbelievable. I will never doubt all the "hype" again.

Fred

-- trgmail@snet.net (trgmail@snet.net), November 28, 2001

Answers

Anyone else wish to share tips on photographing theater and live music? I've never shot performances before, but it's something I want to get into with my new M6. In fact, it's one of the (many) specific reasons I just sold my soul to Leica.

I have a 35 Summilux 1.4 ASPH and an old 90 Tele Elmarit 2.8, the latter I picked up used at a good price. Will the 2.8 be fast enough for theatre and dance? I'm sure a 75 Summilux 1.4 would be the ideal choice here, but that lens is a long way off for me now.

Luke

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), November 28, 2001.

Chromogenics like Portra BW(and the cheaper consumer version, B&W+) can take the extra stop of underexposure without a one stop push, as you happily discovered.If you're interested in using a Fuji Frontier- equipped lab for enlargements, I'd highly recommend using Ilford XP2-- it produces stunning results, far better than any of Kodak's C41 process films.

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), November 28, 2001.

I have shot theater and concerts with a Summicron and Delta 400 pushed one stop to 800. I can get 1/30 to 1/60 second usually and still maintain respectable shadow detail. Lighting varies a lot. With a 90mm Elmarit I might shoot some Delta 3200 at about EI 2000. Focal length is really a matter of your seats or other access.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 28, 2001.

Tmax 3200.....Works good for me...and my M!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), November 28, 2001.

The British magaizine Practical Photography tested The chromogenic black and white films in its November 1999 issue. PP rated Kodak's T400CN as the least grainy and sharpest of these films -- ahead of Ilford XP2 Super. The article included reproductions of the 36X micrographs of the negatives. The Kodak film is quite obviously sharper than the Ilford film.

I have seen big enlargments from T400CN that rivaled, in their sharpness and freedom from grain, pictures taken on Tech Pan.

-- David Mark (dbmark@ix.netcom.com), November 28, 2001.

It is assumed you are shooting at what the camera's TTL meter tells you, correct?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), November 29, 2001.

My experience of dance shows is that you'll find 90 a bit too long and 2.8 a bit too slow. Contrast can be a real problem and I'd avoid pushing B&W film unless you can face 2 bath dev. The chromogenic films tend to work best at 250-320, the old films like tri-x (which normally I prefer) is best at 320 max. BTW, my esperience is that xp2 super is much sharper than tmax t400cn (so much so that I dread printing the kodak film (which I use for it's pretty tones) because it's a swine to focus with a grain magnifieer) but a. needs to be dried correctly (you can get reticulation if you take it to some minilabs) and b. hasn't got quite the latitude of the kodak film. Also, BTW, I've tried pushing t400cn as per Kodak's instructions to get a 1600 speed effect and my advice as a result would be don't bother. To stop rambling on, my advice would be the latest delta 400 (the one out for only about 7 months or so) rated at 500 and developed in ddx or similar - it's about as fast as you can go (Neopan 1600 is just a 400 speed film with low contrast) without going to the crazy stuff...and your 351.4 (if you can get the use of a 50 or 75 too, then so much the better, but at least with the 35 you've got a bit of depth of field to play with, cos those darned dancer types will keep moving about...)

-- stephen jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), November 29, 2001.

I strongly agree with Stephen Jones that when shooting dance performances you should avoid pushing your black and white film if you possibly can. Such performances usually take place under high contrast stage lighting. If, in those circumstances, you underexpose and overdevelop, you will only get dense negatives with no shadow detail. You will not make a good print from such a negative.

I do disagree with some of Mr. Jones's subsidiary points:

1. XP 2 vs. T400CN. You will not, I think, go too far wrong with either of these fine films. I would urge anyone looking for the sharpest possible chromogenic B+W film to do his own (very careful) testing.

2. "Neopan 1600 is just a 400 speed film with low contrast." Take any "low contrast" B+W film and develop it more and it will become "high contrast"; take any "high contrast" B+W film and develop it less and it will become "low contrast." Additional development time will produce a slight but real increase in film speed. Thus, I think it possible that Mr. Jones's disappointment with Neopan 1600 resulted from his not experimenting with it long enought to get the best out of it. I have used it for four years to shoot ballroom dance competitions. I rate it at 640 (i.e., 2/3 of a stop faster than 400), and develop it in XTOL diluted 1:3 (at stronger dilutions I found that it developed too quickly; I would, at that point, have called it a "high contrast" film!). Treated this way, I find it a beautiful film, with easily printed highlights and plenty of shadow detail.

This may be a moot point, however. If New Delta 400 gives a true speed of 500 in DDX, then even I may switch allegience to the newer film, as it is almost certainly sharper than the Neopan. Thank you, Mr. Jones, for that recommendation.

3. If you photograph a dancer 18 feet away with the 75 f1.4 at full aperture, and then photograph the dancer from that same distance with the 35 f1.4 at full aperture, there will, indeed be more apparent depth of field in the picture taken with the 35 f1.4. However, if you put the 35 on your camera and then moved closer, so that the dancer is the same size in the picture as she was with the 75 f1.4 (You would be moving from 18 feet away to about 8 feet away), you would have exactly the same depth of field with the shorter lens that you had with the longer lens. If on-film subject size and aperture are held constant, depth of field does not change with focal length.

Of course, Mr. Jones may only have meant that if you use the shorter lens from the same vantage point you will have a picture of a more distant dancer but with greater depth of field. In that case, we are not actually in disagreement.

-- David Mark (dbmark@ix.netcom.com), November 29, 2001.

I've never had consistent results with Kodak's T400CN or Ilford's XP2. When they worked right, I preferred the sharpness of XP2. The problem is that the minilabs here don't know the best way to print them.

With the T400CN, I'd get a greenish tinge. With the XP2, I'd get a magenta tinge. It depended on who processed my film.

I recently tried Portra 400 BW and I got good results. Great sharpness and moderately high contrast (I prefer high to low, so for me this is fine. I'm sure there are other opinions out there.) The advantage of this film I was told was that minilabs can process and print using a preset channel in their machines (the Portra channel) whereas with the other films, they're guessing.

Any truth to that? I do know of a minilab that knows its stuff but I don't want to have to rely on just that one, especially when I'm on the road.

All films were shot at the rated ISO.

Regarding shooting technique for dance and music concerts, I typically use Ilford 3200 rated normally or pulled one stop. I soup in D76 or microphen (I use a public darkroom where you use whatever the darkroom guru sets up). Grain is apparent obviously, but acceptable to my eye.

At that speed, I can get between 1/60 to 1/500 at f/4 normally. The only time I shoot at ISO 400 is when I know the movements will be slow and fairly predictable.

I used to shoot Delta 400 pushed to 1600 until I found that I got better results (less grain, more shadow detail and contrast) with the 3200 pulled to 1600. I know there's a scientific explanation but I don't know what that is. I've never really paid attention to those leaflets about each film.

When I meter, I meter for highlights and then overexpose 1-2 stops accounting for all that surrounding black and for the fact that stage lights are so bright.

I just recently made the jump to Leica and now shoot mostly with a 50mm summicron from about the front of the audience. I used to shoot with a 50 1.4 on my F100. I try to get enough elevation so that I'm at least at eye level with the dancers on stage.

I also shoot with a 200mm 2.8 from the back/top of the audience. mounted on an F100.

If anyone out there has used Portra 400, rated at ISO 800, but processed normally, contribute some of your insights. I'd like to try that, but at $8 a pop this close to Christmas, I think I'd leave my experimenting to another time.

Cheers.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), November 29, 2001.

David - yes, I meant, at say, 2m and f1.4 the 75 will give you extremely little d.of.f (which means that if you're not able to take shots from quite a distance you won't get a chance to use the lens at its maximum aperture (you may as well be using e.g. the voigtlander 75 2.5 at e.g. 2.8) and therefore the speed/low light advantage remains theoretical. Obviously it's a truism that the same picture can be taken from different distances and with different focal lengths with the same f stop and the same resultant depth of field - I'm assuming you might want to take e.g. portraits with one and groups with the other. Secondly, my disapointment with Neopan 400 is with its iso. You say by devving longer you can increase speed...Well, maybe a quarter of a stop (even with Micropen you'll only get 60per cent max). The fact is, I'd really like a film with a genuinely faster speed than 400 without jumping up to the superfasts. As far as the chromogenics are concerned, I have used them quite extensively and my conclusions remain as above - XP2 is sharper and T400cn has finer grain at the expensive of sharpness - as they're c41 what further experiments are there to do? yours, Steve

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 04, 2001.