ilford 400 delta vs hp5 push opinions

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

mexipike
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:49 pm

ilford 400 delta vs hp5 push opinions

Post by mexipike »

I like photos in low light without a flash, I;ve lately been using Ilford Delta 400 which works pushed to 1600 fine and is definitely printable but I don;t feel like the results are exceptional or great and there;s definitely a loss in midtones and shadows. So my question is which is better for pushing hp5 or delta, or is there another film anyone recommends for this situation? Also what is the preferred developer?

Fotohuis
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:25 pm
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Fotohuis »

Faster films like Neopan 1600 (35mm) or Delta 3200 (35mm and 120 roll film). (Tmax 3200 in 35mm also possible of course).
Speed enhancing developers: SPUR SLD, Diafine, Microphen, DD-X.
Ratings between iso 1000 - 2400 possible (Neopan 1600) or even slightly higher with Delta 3200 (Ilford).
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie ... tensld.pdf
or
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie ... -1_BKA.pdf

Take also notice of this interesting Ilford PDF:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/p ... essing.pdf
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"

http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/

mexipike
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:49 pm

Post by mexipike »

Thanks, I've been wanting to try neopan for a while now so I guess I'll have to give it a go. However one thing that I didn't mention is that I'm on a budget (student) and am currently living in mexico where i don't have many film options so every time I go back to the states I like to buy one tank of 100 speed bulk film and another of 400. For this reason it's very practical to have an excellent 400 speed film that's versatile and good for pushing. I also like to keep it simple and two films are easier to keep track of and master development. So what's an excellent 400 speed film, developing combo for pushing?

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

mexipike wrote:Thanks, I've been wanting to try neopan for a while now so I guess I'll have to give it a go. However one thing that I didn't mention is that I'm on a budget (student) and am currently living in mexico where i don't have many film options so every time I go back to the states I like to buy one tank of 100 speed bulk film and another of 400. For this reason it's very practical to have an excellent 400 speed film that's versatile and good for pushing. I also like to keep it simple and two films are easier to keep track of and master development. So what's an excellent 400 speed film, developing combo for pushing?
Pushing does not work. It's a waste of time.

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

*cough*

Pushing works. Just to spite you, Ornello, I'm going to buy a roll of Delta 3200 and shoot it at 25,000 ASA. :)

Sadly, I think something will have to give, mexipike. You can try a speed-enhancing developer, like Fotohuis listed, with either Delta or HP5. The Delta will have finer grain, but I'm totally not sure about which one is going to have a better tonality.

The problem is that the not-so-nice shadow and midtone is inherrent in pushing. The "toe" is what you are giving up to gain speed. Playing with the developer is only going to help that so much.... maybe a stop or so....

Dono. Really your situation calls for one of the three higher speed films. Or only pushing to 800 and adjusting your technique. Or saying "shadows? What shadows?" and pushing it to 3200 to complete the effect. :P Unless it turns out that a different developer (you don't mention which developer you are using) will help.

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:*cough*

Pushing works. Just to spite you, Ornello, I'm going to buy a roll of Delta 3200 and shoot it at 25,000 ASA. :)

Sadly, I think something will have to give, mexipike. You can try a speed-enhancing developer, like Fotohuis listed, with either Delta or HP5. The Delta will have finer grain, but I'm totally not sure about which one is going to have a better tonality.

The problem is that the not-so-nice shadow and midtone is inherrent in pushing. The "toe" is what you are giving up to gain speed. Playing with the developer is only going to help that so much.... maybe a stop or so....

Dono. Really your situation calls for one of the three higher speed films. Or only pushing to 800 and adjusting your technique. Or saying "shadows? What shadows?" and pushing it to 3200 to complete the effect. :P Unless it turns out that a different developer (you don't mention which developer you are using) will help.
The sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture.

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

Ornello wrote:The sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture.
Um.

Yes, that does happen to be true.

But that doesn't actually make any sort of a useful argument.

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote:The sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture.
Um.

Yes, that does happen to be true.

But that doesn't actually make any sort of a useful argument.
Yes, it does. Extending development does not make them any more sesnitive to light. If they don't receive sufficient exposure, nothing on Earth will change that (aside from some very esoteric techniques such as mercury vapor intensification, which are highly dangerous).

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

Ornello wrote:Yes, it does. Extending development does not make them any more sesnitive to light. If they don't receive sufficient exposure, nothing on Earth will change that (aside from some very esoteric techniques such as mercury vapor intensification, which are highly dangerous).
No, you haven't formed an argument. You've spewed two random facts. If you want to say that fact "A" implies that argument "D" is true, you need to show how "A" implies "B", "B" implies "C", and how "C" implies "D".

Pushing works by increasing fog and contrast to provide a useful approximation of higher speed film.

Take two rolls, meter them both at EI 25,000.

Develop one roll at the correct times for ISO-standard contrast. Overdevelop the other roll at the push time for EI 25,000.

Now, take you pick.... either scan them, or try and print them. I'll even let you use VC paper.

Which one is going to be easy to print? Sure, if you develop at the ISO-standard contrast, you might be able to print it with a lot of effort. You'd definately need a true drum scanner to get the shadow detail out if you opted to scan.

Wheras the pushed roll will place your highlights at a reasonable point on the tonal curve, which makes it easy to print or scan.

And, of course, you aren't going to have much shadow... or midtone for that matter... detail. This is something you cannot avoid because, as you say, the sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture. However, when you treat pushing as trading shadow detail for increased apparent speed, you see that pushing does work.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote:Yes, it does. Extending development does not make them any more sesnitive to light. If they don't receive sufficient exposure, nothing on Earth will change that (aside from some very esoteric techniques such as mercury vapor intensification, which are highly dangerous).
No, you haven't formed an argument. You've spewed two random facts. If you want to say that fact "A" implies that argument "D" is true, you need to show how "A" implies "B", "B" implies "C", and how "C" implies "D".

Pushing works by increasing fog and contrast to provide a useful approximation of higher speed film.

Take two rolls, meter them both at EI 25,000.

Develop one roll at the correct times for ISO-standard contrast. Overdevelop the other roll at the push time for EI 25,000.

Now, take you pick.... either scan them, or try and print them. I'll even let you use VC paper.

Which one is going to be easy to print? Sure, if you develop at the ISO-standard contrast, you might be able to print it with a lot of effort. You'd definately need a true drum scanner to get the shadow detail out if you opted to scan.

Wheras the pushed roll will place your highlights at a reasonable point on the tonal curve, which makes it easy to print or scan.

And, of course, you aren't going to have much shadow... or midtone for that matter... detail. This is something you cannot avoid because, as you say, the sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture. However, when you treat pushing as trading shadow detail for increased apparent speed, you see that pushing does work.
What it wont do though, is show details in the shadow areas when you haven`t given enough exposure to record there in the first place.
The extended development will help to increase the density in the mid to lighter tones, the increase in fog levels in the darker tones is no substitute for proper shadow detail.

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote:Yes, it does. Extending development does not make them any more sesnitive to light. If they don't receive sufficient exposure, nothing on Earth will change that (aside from some very esoteric techniques such as mercury vapor intensification, which are highly dangerous).
No, you haven't formed an argument. You've spewed two random facts. If you want to say that fact "A" implies that argument "D" is true, you need to show how "A" implies "B", "B" implies "C", and how "C" implies "D".

Pushing works by increasing fog and contrast to provide a useful approximation of higher speed film.

Take two rolls, meter them both at EI 25,000.

Develop one roll at the correct times for ISO-standard contrast. Overdevelop the other roll at the push time for EI 25,000.

Now, take you pick.... either scan them, or try and print them. I'll even let you use VC paper.

Which one is going to be easy to print? Sure, if you develop at the ISO-standard contrast, you might be able to print it with a lot of effort. You'd definately need a true drum scanner to get the shadow detail out if you opted to scan.

Wheras the pushed roll will place your highlights at a reasonable point on the tonal curve, which makes it easy to print or scan.

And, of course, you aren't going to have much shadow... or midtone for that matter... detail. This is something you cannot avoid because, as you say, the sensitivity of the crystals in the emulsion is determined at manufacture. However, when you treat pushing as trading shadow detail for increased apparent speed, you see that pushing does work.
What it wont do though, is show details in the shadow areas when you haven`t given enough exposure to record there in the first place.
The extended development will help to increase the density in the mid to lighter tones, the increase in fog levels in the darker tones is no substitute for proper shadow detail.
Films contain a variety of grain sizes, differing in sensitivity. The largest grains are the most sensitive; the smallest are the least sensitive.

'Slow' films have all very fine grains; "medium-speed" films have medium-sized grains, and 'fast' films have the largest grains.

Shadow detail is registered in the largest, most sensitive grains. Highlight detail is registered on the most sensitive grains as well as the least sensitive grains. Proper exposure is achieved when the shadow detail is sufficient. If exposure is reduced below that, not enough of even the most-sensitive grains are exposed. Developing them longer does not produce any greater yield of density, because the sensitivity of the grains is determined at manufacture.

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

Ornello wrote:Films contain a variety of grain sizes, differing in sensitivity. The largest grains are the most sensitive; the smallest are the least sensitive.

'Slow' films have all very fine grains; "medium-speed" films have medium-sized grains, and 'fast' films have the largest grains.

Shadow detail is registered in the largest, most sensitive grains. Highlight detail is registered on the most sensitive grains as well as the least sensitive grains. Proper exposure is achieved when the shadow detail is sufficient. If exposure is reduced below that, not enough of even the most-sensitive grains are exposed. Developing them longer does not produce any greater yield of density, because the sensitivity of the grains is determined at manufacture.
You are repeating, in a lot more words, what I already said: "Pushing works by increasing fog and contrast to provide a useful approximation of higher speed film."

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote:Films contain a variety of grain sizes, differing in sensitivity. The largest grains are the most sensitive; the smallest are the least sensitive.

'Slow' films have all very fine grains; "medium-speed" films have medium-sized grains, and 'fast' films have the largest grains.

Shadow detail is registered in the largest, most sensitive grains. Highlight detail is registered on the most sensitive grains as well as the least sensitive grains. Proper exposure is achieved when the shadow detail is sufficient. If exposure is reduced below that, not enough of even the most-sensitive grains are exposed. Developing them longer does not produce any greater yield of density, because the sensitivity of the grains is determined at manufacture.
You are repeating, in a lot more words, what I already said: "Pushing works by increasing fog and contrast to provide a useful approximation of higher speed film."
True, except for "a useful approximation". That part is false. The part that is true is "Pushing increases fog and contrast..." not to mention grain size.

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

Someday, Ornello, you will have to show us all how you conjure up a roll of high-speed film out of the air when you find yourself in an abandoned warehouse that somebody recently opened up an entrance to with a model and you realize that the fastest film you have in the bag is Tri-X 400 and that's not fast enough.

Also, where can you buy film with a true ISO speed in the range of 3200 to 6400?

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:Someday, Ornello, you will have to show us all how you conjure up a roll of high-speed film out of the air when you find yourself in an abandoned warehouse that somebody recently opened up an entrance to with a model and you realize that the fastest film you have in the bag is Tri-X 400 and that's not fast enough.
Tough. Plan better. That's what professionalism is all about.
Also, where can you buy film with a true ISO speed in the range of 3200 to 6400?
There is none.

Post Reply