Calculating mega-push development times

[Autonerd]

Wanted to try pushing FP4+ four stops tp 3200 just to see what it would look like. (I know it probably won't look good, but I was in a discussion on another forum and we thought it might be fun to try.) How can I calculate the development time for a push like that? Data sheet only goes up to 400 and MDC to 800.

TIA
Aaron

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, a 4 stop push would give you an EI of 2000, if you are starting from the ISO speed of 125.

 

[Paul Howell]

The rule of thumb is add 50% for each push. The trick is calculate the 50% from the last push time not the starting time. So lets say D76 stock at 68 degrees is 8.5, so convert to seconds which 510, + 50% is 765 + 50% is 1147.5 which I will round to 1148. third push, 1722 fourth push is 2583 seconds or 43 minutes. What to expect, no shadow details, blocked highlights, grain, well there will be grain. You can reduce the time in the soup by increasing the temp to 75 degrees. In the past I would have used Kodak HC 110, not sure if the new formula will push as well as the old version.

 

[M Carter]

There's really no "Correct" time for any sort of B&W film development, just the time that works with your process and your eye and makes negs that produce positives without a fight in your final output (scanning, condenser or color enlarger). Paul Howell says "rule of thumb is 50%", I've always heard (and relied on) 15-20%; shoot a test roll, cut it into quarters, take your best-guess time and develop 1/4 of the roll (for 35mm, for 120 maybe do halves, and sheet film sheet by sheet - or if you have a revolving back, make a mask so you can get two exposures on one sheet if you want to see different ISOs). Blow dry it off (this is just a test and you want to wrap it up in an hour or two, right?) and make a grade 2-ish print or do a scan. How'd you do? Pushing like this means ignore the shadows; if the highs are dull or blown, guesstimate how many stops and adjust your time. In one afternoon you'll figure it out, and bracketing a couple other pushes on that roll will give you even more development data.

When I do testing like this, I meter a still life and throw in my nice Mrs. for skin tones. I can tell down to a half stop or so if my development is off - the test below looks like it could be a third stop or so hotter, but is well in the ballpark for easy printing, I've even got texture in the black sweater. (When I do these tests, I use the leader to find the max-black time and I stick with that exposure for all the testing).

 

[Paul Howell]

Works well for finding the personal E.I for your equipment and taste, a 4 stop push is not going to show a gray scale, no shadows, just highlights. As a working PJ in the 70s and 80s I on rare occasion pushed Trix to 3200 and even 6400 in order to get shot where flash would now work or not allowed, you get a result, not all that pleasant. The 50% rule came from UPI's darkroom boss.

 

[Paul Howell]

After thinking about what I wrote, I should be clear, the 50% push only applies to traditional films, T grain films are respond very differently. Kodak says that with Tmax 400 that the a push to 800 no change in times, then it seems 20% to 30% for each additional push depending on the developer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Wanted to try pushing FP4+ four stops tp 3200 just to see what it would look like. (I know it probably won't look good, but I was in a discussion on another forum and we thought it might be fun to try.) How can I calculate the development time for a push like that? Data sheet only goes up to 400 and MDC to 800.

TIA
Aaron

Are you trying to squeeze out some notion of 'speed', or are you looking to see what the contrast effect at that sort of nominal EI is?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Wanted to try pushing FP4+ four stops tp 3200 just to see what it would look like. (I know it probably won't look good, but I was in a discussion on another forum and we thought it might be fun to try.) How can I calculate the development time for a push like that? Data sheet only goes up to 400 and MDC to 800.

TIA
Aaron

Hi Aaron,
FP4+ is too beautiful to be the victim of such crime...
Most serious users will tell you even though that film can sometimes be used at 125 for soft light, its beautiful tone and grain appear at EI64. Use it at 125 in MQ developers, and it will make you say this grain is close to ISO400 films' grain, and tone is so so... Use it at 64 in Metol only developers, and you'll say this is totally amazing: tone is so great, and I can't see grain...
Some British photojournalists pushed it up to EI200 in Microphen: it works (and that's a huge push for that film) but grain is very present, and all fine detail is totally gone. And its great shadow separation -its signature- just doesn't exist above EI64. And at 200 or 250 TMY-2 in Perceptol, for instance, is a much better option. So, not a film designed for pushing, really.
Believe me there's no fun at all when using it at 3200: that's giving FP4+ a fiftieth of the light it needs. A crime.
But you may find a lot of fun using it at EI64.
The good thing is you can avoid tripod with FP4+ by using fast lenses, so it's a good choice for portraiture under common levels of natural light.
Among the films I've compared in MQ and M developers, it's the one that benefits the most when well exposed for Metol only developers: it's like a different film.
And I've heard many great photographers and printers say it's the film.

 

[Autonerd]

Are you trying to squeeze out some notion of 'speed', or are you looking to see what the contrast effect at that sort of nominal EI is?

The latter -- just want to see what an extreme looks like. My normal go-to low-light film is HP5 @ 1600.

 

[Autonerd]

Thanks all for your answers!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, you're basically lopping off six EV of gradation by underexposing it to that degree, no matter how you develop it afterwards - kinda like trying to chop off your feet by starting at the neck, the good ole Chainsaw Massacre way.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The latter -- just want to see what an extreme looks like. My normal go-to low-light film is HP5 @ 1600.

As good as it gets for low light EI1600 in 35mm, with DD-X or Microphen.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks all for your answers!

I personally have never seen FP4+ pushed to 3200 or even 2000 which is what 4 stops is so have a go and let us see your results. It all adds to the sum of my knowledge and hopefully might be interesting for others as well

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

The latter -- just want to see what an extreme looks like. My normal go-to low-light film is HP5 @ 1600.

In that case, you might want to try something like PQ Universal 1+9 for about 8 mins at 20°C. Actual useful EI for your particular process would need to be determined by testing, but it'll squeeze a lot more contrast out than most film specific developers.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Perhaps there's another word for that...
Knowledge is when someone does the same scene with FP4+ at 50 in Perceptol, at 100 in ID-11, and at 200 in Microphen (the three classic and very different Ilford developers), and those three versions of the scene are enlarged enough and printed in the darkroom to know -after comparing those three prints- what happens exactly with tone and finest detail...
Everyone has the right to experiment, but it's positive -precisely for experimentation- to go for knowledge first, and I'm not implying autonerd has not compared those three cases.
I push constantly, but I have not seen FP4+ push well, not even to 400. Honestly, not even to 200.
Of course, as always in our field, negative produces "an image" anyway.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

Reading about things is different from actual doing it. I'm not sure why people here are discouraging OP to try something new; unfortunately it seems like a trend here. Props to those who do offer good encouragement/suggestions.

 

[MattKing]

Reading about things is different from actual doing it. I'm not sure why people here are discouraging OP to try something new; unfortunately it seems like a trend here. Props to those who do offer good encouragement/suggestions.

The discouragement is there because many of us have previously tried it and seen how disappointing experiments involving "pushing" can be.
"Pushing" used to be seen as a relatively poor quality method of partially saving the results from disaster. On the internet "pushing" has somehow turned into a normal procedure with magical powers.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

The discouragement is there because many of us have previously tried it and seen how disappointing experiments involving "pushing" can be.
"Pushing" used to be seen as a relatively poor quality method of partially saving the results from disaster. On the internet "pushing" has somehow turned into a normal procedure with magical powers.

Yes Matt, I know lots of people these days (those who jumped onto the film bandwagon less than a year ago) doesn't know how to distinguish between underexposing and push developing. OP stated he's curious on how FP4+ will look pushed and no one here seemed to have actually tried it. Of course he's gonna lose shadow details but who cares if that's intentional for artistic purposes.

I'm also speaking from personal experiences where I first joined here and asked advice for B&W reversal and to my surprise people were discouraging me from trying something I found interesting. It's almost as if we aren't doing something that's standardized then you'll get criticized. /rant

 

[MattKing]

Well, other than Drew's post, I think the responses have been measured. Essentially warnings - don't get your hopes up - rather than anything more.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

Essentially warnings - don't get your hopes up - rather than anything more.

Pretty much when it comes to scientific experimentations.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well, other than Drew's post, I think the responses have been measured. Essentially warnings - don't get your hopes up - rather than anything more.

The problem is that there are readily available materials that can do exactly what the OP wants contrast-wise (if not necessarily speed-wise - but that's a story of sensitometric complexities, acceptable shadow density etc - really to be determined by aesthetic decisions), but that some seem determined to ignore them or not understand how to use them - or to utterly blindly insist that their unthinking methodology is the only acceptable one, despite decades of peer reviewed research and mounds of patents to the contrary. It's not like the materials and methodology aren't in the literature in the case of appropriate developers to use to boost contrast to a significant degree (it's in the manufacturer's in the case of PQ Universal!), but it means wading past a large accretion of blindly promoted popular nonsense to actually try and communicate it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Pushing" can be like trying to revive someone using a defibrillator. Just depends. In this case, it's like prying a coffin open a month after the funeral and seeing if it works. Yes, in situations which have exceptionally low contrast to begin with, you might partially get away with it. And there's no law against having fun just experimenting.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

The problem is that there are readily available materials that can do exactly what the OP wants contrast-wise (if not necessarily speed-wise - but that's a story of sensitometric complexities, acceptable shadow density etc - really to be determined by aesthetic decisions), but that some seem determined to ignore them or not understand how to use them - or to utterly blindly insist that their unthinking methodology is the only acceptable one, despite decades of peer reviewed research and mounds of patents to the contrary. It's not like the materials and methodology aren't in the literature in the case of appropriate developers to use to boost contrast to a significant degree (it's in the manufacturer's in the case of PQ Universal!), but it means wading past a large accretion of blindly promoted popular nonsense to actually try and communicate it.

It doesn't help that there are too many Instagramers/Youtubers these days promoting this trend. Not to mention that specific cameras price have exploded exponentially too because of these "professional photographers".

 

[Vaughn]

My favorite line in The Big Bang Theory...Penny: "Sometimes not knowing is half the fun!" Sheldon, "That must be the motto of your community college." or something along those lines!

When I taught myself carbon printing from a magazine article back in the early 90s, I am sure glad there were no internet forums around at the time; full of old men telling me not to try stuff because everyone does it this way...not that way! Instead I made my own mistakes, followed my own dead-ends and shining paths...and found and tailored an old process to best create images in an unique manner for the time. Now it is common alternative for those carbon printing.

Got to go too far to know when to back up. Don't let others determine how far one has to go to find out. One might miss some pretty good scenery.

 

[Lachlan Young]

And there's no law against having fun just experimenting.

I've always tended to assume that unless they really specify that they're working in a low light environment - and if they specify 'contrast' as an experiential goal, that something in the manner of PROVOKE-era Moriyama et al is the aim - and in those cases, it is often much more about contrast rather than absolute speed - plenty of that era of Japanese photographers seem to have used Fuji SSS (200 speed). In fact, there's a case for something a lot more moderate to achieve the effect - take a neg that prints with good behaviour on a diffusion enlarger in the G1-1.5 range & print it very hard, or hard & with a condenser enlarger - I think it tends to get ignored that they were essentially intentionally transgressing 'acceptable' technique, but not necessarily by large amount - and that the grimy, gritty aesthetics of gravure print further informed it - as did William Klein and Eikoh Hosoe's work (and others in that vein).

It doesn't help that there are too many Instagramers/Youtubers these days promoting this trend. Not to mention that specific cameras price have exploded exponentially too because of these "professional photographers".

A lot of them are also victims of their 'education' on the matter - I would put a lot more blame on to the generations who produced much of the reference materials they rely on, & which are routinely held up as exemplars. It's a combination of a toxic stew of mangled/ scarcely understood sensitometry from the Zone System crowd & the macho nonsense of 'I pushed this film to this 'speed' in my super-special-soup for three days and got these negs!' that underpins a lot of the nonsense, whether the social media influencers know it or not. The more someone is 'sponsored' the less money they are actually really making from their photography - but as usual, there is funding & 'funding'. Anyhow, it's also perfectly possible to think you have rated FP4+ at an EI of 800-1250ish & (via metering choices) think you got wonderful negs... And if you are dealing with a limited brightness range (ignoring specular sources), you can again think you've gained some speed via pushing etc - none of this is (thankfully) new - if you take a look at 1950's photography magazines, they're full of exactly the same stuff!