120 film: HP5+ pushed to 3200 HELP!

[Rinthe]

I shot a few rolls of 120 hp5+ @3200. And I just checked the Massive Dev Chart, no time is recorded for 120 film at 3200.
<http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search>

Can someone please help me out here? How long should i Develop for?

I'm using Rodinal btw, I usually do 1+50 dilution. This is my first time doing push development. I always heard people pushed hp5+ to 3200, didn't think there was a difference between 35mm and 120.

Can someone help me out please?

E

 

[dehk]

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=pushproc

 

[Rinthe]

Is Rodinal considered as a standard developer?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'd consider expanding my reportoire to, say, Microphen. Or TMax developer, too.

 

[Rinthe]

Why? this can't be done with Rodinal?

 

[pgomena]

Yes, and a versatile one that can be used at 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100, 1:200 dilutions depending on the process. My experience pushing Tri-X to 1600 in Rodinal is that you will get a dense, foggy, very grainy negative. Think big, chunky grain. The fog can be printed through easily enough, but the negative will be noticeably foggy around the rebate edges. Unless you are after that look, you might consider an alternate developer like T-Max, Diafine or Acufine.

Peter Gomena

 

[Rinthe]

At this moment, I don't want to get any other developers if it's possible with Rodinal. I'll try a roll to see how the results look like first. Then decide whether I need a different developer or not.

No one has ever done this with Rodinal?

 

[nworth]

That is a huge push, requiring about twice the normal developing time. The contrast will increase horribly, but it may work for a flat subject. HP5+ really has a quite remarkable range.

 

[dehk]

Just do it. It'll be fun.

 

[Rinthe]

Twice? even at 1600, it needs 24mins. twice the time is only 22mins.

I will do it when I get more information

 

[patrickjames]

I haven't done this, but you may want to consider stand developing at a high dilution (1+100 or 200). If I was going to push HP5 I would probably use something else, and I am a lifelong Rodinal devotee.

I say give it a whack. You will at least know then. For future reference you are better off shooting ∆3200.

 

[Rinthe]

so how long? do i follow http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=pushproc

is rodinal a standard developer?

 

[Necator]

so how long? do i follow http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=pushproc

is rodinal a standard developer?

Yes, Rodinal is considered a standard, non compensating developer.

 

[maarten m]

HP5+ @ 400, developped in Rodinal 1+50 (20°C) will take 11min.
using the Push Process Guidelines, it would take (11min x 4.5)= about 50min te develop this one.
maybe you could consider changing temp or dilution to avoid a muscle-injury?

mm

 

[Rinthe]

can't i just let it sit there? maybe agitate only for the first min or something haha

 

[MaximusM3]

Yes, and a versatile one that can be used at 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100, 1:200 dilutions depending on the process. My experience pushing Tri-X to 1600 in Rodinal is that you will get a dense, foggy, very grainy negative. Think big, chunky grain. The fog can be printed through easily enough, but the negative will be noticeably foggy around the rebate edges. Unless you are after that look, you might consider an alternate developer like T-Max, Diafine or Acufine.

Peter Gomena

Peter,

that's not quite correct. I don't know why people think that. A two stop push is nothing for Tri-X. I have recently shot a roll @ 6400 and stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for two hours. First minute of slow/gentle inversions and then 15 seconds of gentle swirl of the tank (like a wine glass) ever 30 minutes. This is the result and it is more than acceptable. Not foggy at all and grain is visible at high magnification/enlargement.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaman/5034487285/

Best,

Max

 

[2F/2F]

Maybe you can experiment with a very strong dilution of Rodinal, such as 1:9, and or increased agitation to cut the times to more manageable levels. You really want to use intermittent or constant agitation to push; minimal agitation or standing development will lower the contrast, not raise it. The problem is that it will use up a lot of your concentrate for only a few rolls of film. You will also quite likely get very grainy prints. I have heard a lot of people recommend that Rodinal is best for slow and medium speed films, but not for high speed films.

Here is another option that you will likely be able to try with chemicals you already own. If you print in a darkroom, use your paper developer to develop the film. Some Dektol will give any film a good kick, for instance. I have also used Ilford Multigrade with good high-contrast results.

 

[perkeleellinen]

The Massive Dev Chart gives 18 minutes for 35mm HP5+ in Rodinal 1+25. Why not just follow that for your 120 film and see what happens? You'll be able to adjust for next time depending upon how you like or dislike the results. Only you know how you like your photos.

 

[MaximusM3]

can't i just let it sit there? maybe agitate only for the first min or something haha

I would stand develop in Rodinal 1:100 in a 500ml tank (important, as you want enough developer in there). A couple of gentle/slow inversions at the beginning and a couple of gentle swirls at 30 min mark. Should be fine.

 

[2F/2F]

Peter,

that's not quite correct. I don't know why people think that. A two stop push is nothing for Tri-X. I have recently shot a roll @ 6400 and stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for two hours. First minute of slow/gentle inversions and then 15 seconds of gentle swirl of the tank (like a wine glass) ever 30 minutes. This is the result and it is more than acceptable. Not foggy at all and grain is visible at high magnification/enlargement.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaman/5034487285/

Best,

Max

It is a good picture, but it does not look four stops underexposed from a correct (i.e. incident) meter reading. A shot four stops underexposed from an incident reading and stand developed would not look like that. There would be hardly anything there in the lower tones, and it would be very flat. My guess would be that the in-camera meter, having been pointed at something dark, advised you to give more exposure than would be necessary for a 6400 film, resulting in an overexposure of two to three stops (depending on how dark it was) if the film was truly 6400. This would correlate to a one-to-two stop underexposure at the film's true speed of 400. Standing development works, but it does not push the film in contrast, nor does it increase its sensitivity to light. It simply adds a little bit of density to the low tones while keeping the high tones in check.

As always, the question of what to do with development comes down largely to what you did with exposure. If you used a directly-read in-camera meter set at 6400, there will most likely be so much variation throughout the 36 pix that pix will range from seven stops underexposed to one stop underexposed. The development suited for seven stops of underexposure is certainly not the same as the development suited for one stop of underexposure. Proper exposure is essential for accurate pushes and pulls, and to be able to judge the results thereof. The only tool anyone needs to make their in-camera meter accurately place tones every time is a $5 grey card.

 

[Mark Antony]

Why not shoot a test roll in similar conditions?
I push film quite a lot and generally meter from the shadows and close down 2 stops. I understand what 2ƒ says but feel a high dilution and shorter times wouldn't be right with Rodinal. I have had more sucess with the semi stand method in other words very little agitation in weaker solutions.
I have found that Rodinal compensates for the higher tonal values in the scene while stand development exhausts the highlights the shadows play catch up. Sure the image is flatter contrast wise but often in low light situations the light is quite high contrast anyway, so flatter is better.
I have pushed Delta 3200 up to 25,000 EI and Acros to 6400 and surprising amounts of detail can be shown in the lower tones while highlights don't burn out.
So while your film doesn't get anymore speed, the results is a compressed version of the scene, that if printed boldly gives nice results.
I can't post images at the moment because I'm at work.
just my 2 pence
Mark

 

[MaximusM3]

It is a good picture, but it does not look four stops underexposed from a correct (i.e. incident) meter reading. A shot four stops underexposed from an incident reading and stand developed would not look like that. There would be hardly anything there in the lower tones, and it would be very flat. My guess would be that the in-camera meter, having been pointed at something dark, advised you to give more exposure than would be necessary for a 6400 film, resulting in an overexposure of two to three stops (depending on how dark it was) if the film was truly 6400. This would correlate to a one-to-two stop underexposure at the film's true speed of 400. Standing development works, but it does not push the film in contrast, nor does it increase its sensitivity to light. It simply adds a little bit of density to the low tones while keeping the high tones in check.

As always, the question of what to do with development comes down largely to what you did with exposure. If you used a directly-read in-camera meter set at 6400, there will most likely be so much variation throughout the 36 pix that pix will range from seven stops underexposed to one stop underexposed. The development suited for seven stops of underexposure is certainly not the same as the development suited for one stop of underexposure. Proper exposure is essential for accurate pushes and pulls, and to be able to judge the results thereof. The only tool anyone needs to make their in-camera meter accurately place tones every time is a $5 grey card.

Hi 2F/2F,

Sure...understand that. I was actually using an M3 with an old Leicameter and my brain for these so it is very possible that exposure was off a bit and got lucky. I know, not a very scientific approach

Max

 

[pgomena]

Peter,

that's not quite correct. I don't know why people think that. A two stop push is nothing for Tri-X. I have recently shot a roll @ 6400 and stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for two hours. First minute of slow/gentle inversions and then 15 seconds of gentle swirl of the tank (like a wine glass) ever 30 minutes. This is the result and it is more than acceptable. Not foggy at all and grain is visible at high magnification/enlargement.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaman/5034487285/

Max

Max - Your points are valid, and I agree this is a viable technique.

The only time I pushed Tri-X in Rodinal was using 1:50 dilution and a normal agitation scheme. I think I processed it for about 16 minutes. This was 20 years ago and my only attempt at doing it, but I remember the results very well. The negatives I produced were very grainy, very dense, but not unprintable and they produced images with an interesting look, very gritty and photojournalistic.

If I tried this with Rodinal today, I would use stand or semi-stand development, which would tame the grain and contrast. Today, I don't often need to "push" film, and if I'm doing any type of street photography or am in a situation where I need to hand-hold my camera in low light, I use Delta 3200 or T-Max P3200. Extreme underexposure and "push" processing don't give me a look I like or currently have use for. It's nice to know that the tools are out there for emergency use, though, and they do produce work with a distinctive look. Depends on what you want.

Peter Gomena

Best,

 

[Pavel+]

Rodinal is my favorite developer but it would be low on the scale for pushed film of any sort. Diafine is what I would use.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have pushed Delta 3200 up to 25,000 EI and Acros to 6400 and surprising amounts of detail can be shown in the lower tones while highlights don't burn out.
I can't post images at the moment because I'm at work.
just my 2 pence
Mark

Mark, I for one would be interested in the images. Especially Acros. This is an amazing 6 stops. I have seen some other fine examples of your pushing but I must admit I'd never thought of Acros as being capable of such a push.

Sounds as if this film has more versatility that I had thought.

Thanks

pentaxuser