BW films @ ISO 1600

[Matus Kalisky]

Hi, the post here is actually a double-question:

1) What films (in 35mm and 120) do you use for high ISO (1600 or higher) shots and how do you develop? (please if possible to mentions the developer, times, agitation ...) I remember to se somwhere some very nice examples of Tri-X @ 1600, but can not find then anymore.

I would like to try some low light stuff and wondering what others use.

2) I have just exposed some 120 Delta 3200 @ 1600, but after previous experience it seems that Pyrocat HD was not the optimal choice - the shadows were quite blocked. So what would be your advice for a developer?

thanks

 

[keithwms]

Neopan 1600. Xtol seems to work best for me, for all the neopans, but ID11/d76 1+1 is also fine, totally fine.

I shoot delta 3200 at 1600 (and develop for 3200) but I don't use pyro for any high speed films. I just use plain old ID11/d76 1+1....

 

[DanielStone]

neopan 1600 @ 1600 or 1000 is nice. grain is pretty good too. if you like grain, get some t-max 3200 and expose at 1600.

also, are you doing the whole hybrid thing? (sc@nn!ng and processing film) or darkroom printing your negs? if its the former, you'll need to do some testing to see what works best with your d!gi+@1 setup in regards to gamut. but this part of this post is for another forum .

try this : flickr : tri-x 1600 in search bar

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tri-x+1600


-dan

 

[JohnRichard]

I shoot Delta 3200 @ 1600 and develop in Ilfordsol S per the instructions.
I think it looks good.

Dead Link Removed

I think that's the only shot of Delta 3200 in my portfolio.

Nope: Dead Link Removed

That is too...

 

[ntenny]

I've shot Delta 3200 (in 35mm) at 3200 but not at 1600. I found the results (developed in HC-110) to be OK but not superb.

Tri-X at EI 1600 in Diafine is a reasonably common combination, but a lot of people (myself included) think it's a pretty optimistic rating. I've gotten photos I liked that way, but they're high-contrast and the shadow detail is limited. I've pushed in to 3200 in PC-TEA (which is generally felt to give results quite similar to Xtol) and liked it better that way, though it's quite grainy.

A few months ago, I posted (in this thread: <(there was a url link here which no longer exists)>) the results of shooting HP5+ in 120 at EIs from 1600 to 12800(!), in a rather over-the-top developer created by Donald Qualls. 1600 actually seemed to be a stop slow, and I think the grain would be acceptable even in 35mm, with reasonable allowances for "low-light aesthetics". Tri-X at 3200 looks good in the same developer to my eye.

Much depends on taste. I seem to be settling on HP5+ in that "Super Soup" developer as my really-high-speed combination, but of course it may or may not push your aesthetic buttons.

-NT

 

[Thomas Moraitis]

For 135: Neopan 1600 @1600 - DD-X (1+4) 5 min. I enlarge to 20x30 cm.
For 120: Delta 3200 @3200 - DD-X (1+4). If the scene contrast is low, I use the manufacturer's times for 6400, otherwise I develop normally. I enlarge to 30x30 cm. I hope this helps.

 

[Leighgion]

Old reliable Tri-X 400 in D-76 has produced some results I'm quite happy with. I don't mind blocked shadows as much as many folk, but have found that D76 1+1 helps a lot with that. I basically follow the Massive Dev Chart for times, leaning on the generous side. Agitation is continuous for the first 30 seconds, then about three inversions per minute after that.

 

[naugastyle]

Times all from MDC. Agitation: I admit to not being the most accurate person out there, but usually about 30 seconds to start, then 5 inversions or less per minute depending on how high I'm pushing.

Neopan 1600 @ 1600 and 3200, in either D76 stock or XTOL 1:1.

Delta 3200 @ 1600 and 3200, in either DD-X 1:4 or XTOL 1:1.

Tri-X at all speeds including 6400, in either D76 stock or XTOL 1:1.

 

[pentaxuser]

I had good success recently at a wedding with D3200 at 1600 developed in Perceptol stock, using Ilford agitation method but 20 mins. Ilford own times for both Perceptol and DDX and D3200 are far too short IMHO.

DDX is good but Perceptol seems to give finer grain. The shots were taken in daylight and low level artificial light. Both had surprisingly good shadow detail but the daylight shots were exceptionally good at shadow detail and surprisngly grain free at up to 8x10 size.

pentaxuser

 

[DutchShooter]

I've used delta 3200@ 800-1600-3200-6400. Almost all developed in Ilford Microphen (I always use the developing time for one EI stop faster - e.g. after shooting at EI 1600, I use the time given by ilford for EI3200).

 

[Bosaiya]

Delta 3200 @ 1600 in Rodinal as per the Massive Dev Chart. Creamy goodness.

 

[Harry Lime]

I tried the three main ultra highspeed films and here's my take on them:

Neopan1600 - Nice tight grain, but lots of contrast and the shadows tend to block up real quick. I think it's more like 640asa, not 1600. I like it on an overcast day at 800, in DD-X or Diafine.

Kodak TMY3200P - Coarse, but attractive grain. I felt that this film had the worst tonality of the three, but it's got a unique look that a lot of people really like. True speed is about 800-1000 asa. Seems to work best with TMAX developer, which pushes the shadows open. I shot it at 1600.

Delta3200 - IMO the best of the three. It has the best balance of grain, tonality and exposure range. Grain is good and reminds me of the previous version of Tri-X. Tonality is excellent from 400 - 3200asa. True speed is about 1000asa. Looks great at 1600 in DD-X. I also developed it at 1600 in Diafine and liked what I saw. The developed negatives look very thin under the loop, but when you print them everything you expect to be there should be there. D3200 is also the only one that comes in 120. Drop some of this in a Blad or Rolleiflex and you're in for a treat. The only problem is that D3200 is pretty expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Tri-X @ 1250/1600 - I shoot it at 1250/1600 and develop in Diafine. The results are shockingly good. Far better than you would expect. For about 20-30 years this was the standard combination for news shooters, before the arrival of specialized high speed films.

TMAX 400-2 - Also at 1250/1600 in Diafine. Grain is terrific and the tonality very nice. There's a website somewhere that shows an example at 1600 in XTOL. It looks really good. True speed is apparently 400asa.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Thank you for all your answers.

I am quite surprised by the variety of film/developer combination. The HP5+ in the "Super Soup" sounds quite interesting, but it seems to require to mix the developer at home what I would probably like to avoid at this stage.

There was a question above about my process - currently I am doing it the "hybrid" way but I plan also to add an enlarger - for both 35mm and 6x6. But I will keep doing the "hybrid" too.

Maybe I could be even more demanding - the grain does not have to be as small as possible, but I would like to avoid sharp, pepper like grain. Tonality of the film is more important.

As I am shooting both 35mm and 6x6 I would also orient myself towards films that are available in both formats.

 

[BetterSense]

TriX in diafine.

It's not quite 1600...when I shoot at that, depending on my camera/metering, sometimes I get difficult-to-print negatives. 1250 is usually a safe bet though. Very "un-pushed-looking" tonality at 800-1250. Quite grainy but meh.

 

[2F/2F]

Delta 3200 for "normal" contrast and sharp, neat grain. HP5 (or Tri-X 400) for more contrast and more clumpy, messy grain.

 

[Bosaiya]

This is Delta 3200 6x8cm in Rodinal 1:25

Not much grain.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Bosaiya, that is a very nice portrait. But from a 370x500 image (like ~ 200 dpi scan) I would not expect to see much grain. Would it be possible for you to post a crop so that one could actually see some grain?

 

[Mark Antony]

I use Delta 3200 speeds between 1600 and 25000 in 120 size
here is some info and 100 percent crops
Delta 3200
Here is my brother in a darkened room lighting by laptop computer on e*ay page

Shot on Delta at 25000 dev 25 mins in Microphen

 

[Bosaiya]

Bosaiya, that is a very nice portrait. But from a 370x500 image (like ~ 200 dpi scan) I would not expect to see much grain. Would it be possible for you to post a crop so that one could actually see some grain?

Certainly. I have it printed at 11x14" on my wall. If you (or anyone else) is in the Seattle-area you can stop by and let me regale you with my tall tales as I show you photos.

Let me know if you want it bigger.

 

[Bosaiya]

Here's another. Same thing: Delta 3200 shot with available light, 6x8cm, Rodinal 1:25

 

[pentaxuser]

Maybe I could be even more demanding - the grain does not have to be as small as possible, but I would like to avoid sharp, pepper like grain. Tonality of the film is more important.

As I am shooting both 35mm and 6x6 I would also orient myself towards films that are available in both formats.

Based on what you say above the one I'd avoid with D3200 is ID11 and I suspect D76 is the same. It was the only dev I knew about in my early days and I found a very peppery look with ID11 even at 5 x7 size. 120 was better but not by much. I can now produce finer grain in 35mm in Perceptol or even DDX than I could in 120 and ID11

pentaxuser

 

[Matus Kalisky]

- Mark -
that is quita amazing. Actually - the exmaples of Delta 3200 on our blog were developed with Microphen too?

- Bosaiya -
thanks a lot, you have quite interestig stuff on the flickr - some shots are quite ... scary. Now the Rodinal is becoming one of the main candidates.

I have browsed the flickr for Delta 3200 developed in DDX, Microphene, XTOL, Rodinal, Perceptol and found out that Rodinal (1:25) and XTOL (stock) look best to me.

However, Tri-X @ 1600 in XTOL or Rodinal looked gerat too - but so Did Delta 400 and HP5+.

If you do not mind I would post here a link to a Flick gallery by zgodzinki not only because he used several different films pushed to 1600, but I found his portraits simply beautiful ...

***

So I guess I have heard and seen anough and now I have to do my homework - decide on either Rodinal or XTOL and simply expose a few films and see what comes out.

Only one last queston - up to now I have only used Pyrocat HD where as a stop bath only clean water is sufficient. But if I now go with Rodinal or XTOL - should I go for a dedicated stop bath or can I stay with just plain water stop?

 

[Bosaiya]

- Bosaiya -
thanks a lot, you have quite interestig stuff on the flickr - some shots are quite ... scary. Now the Rodinal is becoming one of the main candidates.

No problem, good luck!

 

[pgomena]

The results you get will vary widely depending on how the scene is lit.

Bosaiya's images are really cool, but and the concept works because his lighting scheme is almost shadowless. He can push the film like crazy to increase the local contrast and pop the highlights on the skin. It's a great technique in his very well controlled lighting situation.

In a lighting situation with a greater contrast ratio between main light and fill, the shadows would lose detail very quickly. For every doubling of film speed, you're throwing out a stop of shadow detail. Period. Special purpose developers and controlled scene contrast (flat lighting) can give you back some detail, but at some point you just can't win. Then it becomes a case of what you want the image to look like. If it's stark contrast, you're in business. If it's delicacy, you're sunk.

Tri-X in Diafine was my standard when I shot high school sports for the local newspaper. It allowed me to rate my film at 1600 and shoot in any gymnasium in town at f/2.8 at 1/250 second. Newsprint in those days couldn't hold shadow detail nearly as well as today, and so empty shadows didn't matter too much. It's not something I would want to do for aesthetic purposes then or now.

When Kodak introduced TMZ, I thoroughly tested it in T-Max developer and in Diafine. The T-Max developer results were good up to EI 3200 in gymnasium light. A full stop better than Tri-X, and the grain is much tighter. It sucked in Diafine. Tri-X beat it at EI 1600 in that soup. I've not tried Delta 3200, although I'd like to give it a spin in 120 in normal lighting conditions. I've tried Neopan 1600 for fun, and found it worked just fine rated at 800. I didn't take it beyond that point. I didn't like the grain even at 800.

My point, I think is this: Pushing film is an emergency technique for uncontrollable lighting situations that will never give you the shadow detail rating the film at "normal" speeds will produce. It can be used for a certain look in controlled lighting situations or building contrast in low-contrast scenes. It's really fun to assign huge numbers to a film and make a gritty, contrasty print that has no detail below Zone V. Don't expect miracles.

Peter Gomena

 

[Harry Lime]

Tonality of the film is more important.

As I am shooting both 35mm and 6x6 I would also orient myself towards films that are available in both formats.

Delta3200 is your film.

It has a very long tonal scale (medium contrast), attractive grain and it's the only ultra-highspeed available also in 120. A lot of people feel that it works very well in Ilford DD-X.

Personally I think D3200 is one of the best films around and should go down in history as something special.

I use it my Leicas and Rolleiflex 2.8F.