|
downshift
Nov 10, 2001, 4:47 PM
Post #1 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Quick question. What film speed does everyone use when doing climbing shots?
I usually run 400 - 600 for no real reason. Its what I have around or already in the camera.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Nov 10, 2001, 5:10 PM
Post #2 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
I don't shoot much climbing but I like the Ilford 400 B&W, it's fast but not grainy.
Generally if you have good light then you want to be shooting at 100 or possibly 200.
If you are at all interested in submitting to magazines then slide is the only way to go.
For most pictures it doesn't make a huge difference, the graininess doesn't really get that noticeable with most films under 600 untill you blow them up past 8x10.
General rule is the worse the light, the faster(higher number) the film.
|
|
|
|
|
jstumpf
Nov 10, 2001, 5:17 PM
Post #3 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 33
|
If you're shooting your photos in well-lit daylight situations (as rock photos often are), you might consider trying a lower speed slide film. Fuji 200, 100 or even Velvia (pricy but worth it) would give you incerdible clarity and insane depth of color compared to high speed print film. You can also blow it up to much bigger sizes, should you get a shot that's worth it. For examples of what I'm talking about, just check out the "gallery" section in Rock and Ice magazine. almost every shot in there was done on Velvia.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 15, 2001, 7:40 PM
Post #4 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
You wouldn't think taht climbing has much speed associated to it, but I have a friend who managed to blur a whole roll of film because of film choice, and settings.
PLus if you want to catch a falling sequence, or a dyno sequence you will need faster film as well wouldn't you?
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Jan 21, 2002, 2:10 AM
Post #5 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I typically use 400, But if i'm going overnight I definatly bring 200 so i can get some star trails. Some people say you should use way faster film for start trails, but my best resaults have been from 200.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 22, 2002, 7:44 PM
Post #6 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Blurring is caused by slower shutter speed. Slower films need more light exposure, and thus slower shutter speeds for the same shot on a higher speed film. I like 100 but I've only ever shot two rolls of film on climbing and they were both on 400. They turned out grainy and mediocre except for a couple. I'd show you the good ones but I can't scan them to my satisfaction.
Oh yeah, if you want faster action on lowere ASA then it's probably in the lighting, but I don't know too much about it.
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Jan 22, 2002, 8:05 PM
Post #7 of 7
(2593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
I shoot primarily Velvia & Tmax 400 for B&W. One good trick if you want a faster film is to "push" process a slower film, ie: push 100 ASA to 200 ASA by exposing a roll of 100 ASA at ISO 200 and then having a good lab "push" it for you. BTW, it's really only necessary with slide film since print film has way more latitude to its exposure anyway. In full sun you shouldn't have any trouble with blur & Velvia since your exposure would be about 1/125 sec. @ f8 or faster with a larger aperture. Happy shooting,
MIke
|
|
|
|
|
|
