Fastest 4x5" Film - B&W - *push it reeeaal good*

[holmburgers]

So it'd be one thing if we had Delta 3200 in 4x5", but unfortunately we don't.

What's the fastest you've gone with LF film? What developers are you fond of?

There's Tmax 400, HP5, Arista EDU 400, Fomapan 400, TXP 320 (isn't this discontinued though?), and is there no Tri-X 400 in 4x5".. did I miss the bus?

Anyways, share you extreme-push secrets & post examples if you've got 'em!

 

[Roger Cole]

TXP 320 IS Tri-X, though it's Tri-X Professional which is a different animal from TXT ISO 400 Tri-X. As far as I know it isn't discontinued. It was available last I looked.

EDIT: Looks just now and Freestyle at least has it.

I've never really felt the need for speeds higher than 400 when shooting 4x5 since I shoot it off a tripod anyway, but I've seen some results I liked from HP5 pushed to 1600. Never tried it myself though.

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks Roger,

Yes, I see TXP 320 is in stock, but I thought it was to be discontinued a while back. Maybe that was in smaller formats, or maybe this is just remaining stock.

1600 would be great. I'm curious about high speeds mainly for taking screen-plate color photos ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) because the screen takes away about 2 stops & I'm interested how high I can go.

 

[holmburgers]

here's a really good example of HP5 @ 1600... http://www.flickr.com/photos/schlachet/5354201473/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[sandholm]

Hi,

Well, TXP 320 has been discussed, and I know you say B/W, but remember that there is a new Portra 400 which has been pushed to 3200 with great results. I shoot some at 400,800,1600 and love what I see (4x5 not tried it as 8x10 yet).

C41 can be processed in B/W chemicals, but I have never seen anyone process the new Portra in B/W, nor do I know how it will handle the push up to 1600 nor 3200 but it could be a cool experiment....

Here is a link showing 400 pushed to 3200
http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2010/12/kodak-portra-400-miami-south-beach-fl.html

cheers

 

[holmburgers]

That's pretty amazing... Portra at 3200!

But yeah, mostly curious about b&w at the moment, though if I get a press camera like I'm hoping to, this would be great for that.

 

[BetterSense]

I imagine that TMAX 400 is probably the fastest in terms of real shadow speed. However, I have had good luck with pushing HP5 up to 1600 and maintaining pleasant tonality.

 

[Bob Carnie]

HP5 rated at 800iso processed in Microphen is a pretty standard formula for hand held 4x5.

 

[jp498]

Is Fuji's instant B&W 3000iso still available?

I've used TMax400 at 1600 before, pushed in xtol, but haven't had a need to go higher speed than that. My 4x5 speed graphic goes to f4.5, my TLR to 3.5, and if I want to show in lower light, I use a 35mm camera with 50/1.4. Right tool for the job. Digital with 50/1.4 is even better if you want low noise color.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Yes, I see TXP 320 is in stock, but I thought it was to be discontinued a while back. Maybe that was in smaller formats, or maybe this is just remaining stock.

TXP is only available in sheet film, it was discontinued in roll film. I love the look of Tri-X and would shoot at 1600 with development in D-76 at 1:1. Unless you are planning a significant enlargement, there should not be a lot of grain. I shoot this with my dwindling supply of TXP in 120 and find it a good combination, although a little too grainy larger than 11x14.

 

[Athiril]

Rollei 400S would be another contender, but its not in 4x5", though IR400 is, though it seems to be the same thing thus far.

And it's superpan as a bonus.

Unfortunate no Tri-X 400, so second best would be TMY.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You would be hard pressed to beat TMax 400 in Xtol 1:1. Shoot at 1600 if you will. Develop longer, obviously. You'll get next to full shadow detail.

 

[Silverhead]

I've seen Tri-X Pro pushed to the moon with pretty remarkable results in terms of clarity and detail. Francesca at Freestyle showed me stuff that she did on the old 120 that really blew my mind. This was about a year ago so I don't remember all the details, but she said it took an unusually long development time (I forget the developer) to get the results that she has--I think we're talking about ISO 3200 and higher. I would ask her for more details but alas I've been told she's on vacation for 2 weeks. Ah, well...so I'll wait...

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks everyone for the input!

It seems like there's no shortage of people doing this, and the fact that these larger formats can handle the grain makes it very appealing. I wonder how much pushing was done in the old days of 4x5" press photography??...

Right now, I've only got HC-110 on hand but it seems clear that I'll need to have another push-worthy developer on hand. Unless of course good results can come from HC-110, but it doesn't seem to be one of the usual suspects.

Unfortunately, I kind of naively asked this before considering that I ultimately want to reveral process these shots for use in a modern 'autochrome' of sorts. The added speed would be awesome since the screen takes quite a bit of light. It seems that getting extreme pushes in with reversal processing is no simple task though.

Cheers!

 

[polyglot]

Listen to Thomas. TMY2 in XTOL 1+1 for 12:15 at 20C (as per MDC) gives you plenty of shadow detail at 1600; I souped that combination just last night! It's kind of contrasty but that's to be expected with a 2 stop push. I've been using it to take handheld lowlight candids with my RZ and I'll be trying 3200 next for sure.

I'm not sure that reversal processing will be a problem, except for base fog. In fact, it may even be beneficial because (as I understand it, never having tried reversal processing of B&W) you need super-high contrast to achieve normal contrast in the image; negatives normally have a very shallow density curve. But you'll want to make sure that your chosen film has a crystal-clear base and that the developer you choose does not cause increased base fog.

 

[nyoung]

A long long time ago, when I was young and dinosaurs ruled the earth, some really old guys - survivors of the age Speed Graphics and TLRs in the newsroom - told me they could get 3200 on TriX with "UPI HC110" The formula was reputed to be HC110 dilution A for 5 minutes @ 110 degrees. I tried it once or twice in 35mm and it sucked BUT given the lower enlargement ratios for 4x5 it might just work. It will be interesting at any rate.

 

[2F/2F]

A long long time ago, when I was young and dinosaurs ruled the earth, some really old guys - survivors of the age Speed Graphics and TLRs in the newsroom - told me they could get 3200 on TriX with "UPI HC110" The formula was reputed to be HC110 dilution A for 5 minutes @ 110 degrees. I tried it once or twice in 35mm and it sucked BUT given the lower enlargement ratios for 4x5 it might just work. It will be interesting at any rate.

They really were dinosaurs if they were still shooting with Speed Graphics when HC-110 came out.

 

[keithwms]

What's the fastest you've gone with LF film? What developers are you fond of?

Fuji FP3000B instant film, available in 4x5 packs. Superb stuff. Developer, p'sha!

 

[nyoung]

HC110 introduced in 1965. Lots of press camera and TLR shooters around well into the 70s.

 

[2F/2F]

HC110 introduced in 1965. Lots of press camera and TLR shooters around well into the 70s.

I know when it came out; that was my point. How many people shot Speed Graphics for newspapers in and after 1965? I would think not that many. Hence my calling them dinosaurs. And I did not mention TLRs.

 

[mts]

My recollection is that the age of dinosaurs ended around 1968 when my stock of Royal-X Pan ran out. Or was that when the asteroid hit Rochester? Speeds were still in moderate use then but died out quickly as did most LF press gear.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Chris, I believe you have three or four serious contenders:
1. Ilford HP5+
2. Kodak Tri-X 320
3. Kodak TMax 400
4. Foma 400

Foma 400 doesn't push well. In my experience, Kodak Tri-X 320 has a pretty long toe even at box speed, and it would take some serious trickery to get 1600 out of it, WHILE putting any shadow details at all on the straight line and off the toe. HP5+ and TMax 400 seem to be the logical contenders.
I know which I would pick, because I'm used to it, but if either is good in your book, why not try both of those and see for yourself? TMax 400 is expensive, HP5+ less so (here in the United States anyway).
Xtol 1+1 does, in my experience, give more shadow detail than any other 'non exotic' developer. I obviously haven't tried them all, but I have tried many. Ilfotec DD-X and TMax developers will do a phenomenal job too. If you'd like to try Rodinal standing development you can yield some really impressive shadow details (a la Steve Sherman), but run the risk of uneven development and some wonky film curves with sometimes strange tonality.

TMax 400 or HP5.
Xtol, DD-X, TMax.

Go do it.

- TB

 

[polyglot]

Proof that 1600 is quite achievable with nothing fancy; excuse the "derp" expression and generally crappy snapshotness of it all:

including my self-portrait in the glasses; note also that you can quite easily make out her eye in the shadow detail:

That was shot on TMY2 at EI1600 with an RZ67, developed in XTOL 1+1. It is a truly amazing film, better IMHO than Delta-3200 in terms of achievable speed and fineness of grain. Certainly much finer than HP5 as well, if that matters to you.

 

[BetterSense]

It will be a very sad day when TMY2 goes away.

 

[jp498]

It will be a very sad day when TMY2 goes away.

I'm stockpiling as much as I can afford. I'm up to about 3 yrs worth of 35mm, 1 year of 120, 2 years of 4x5, and 3 years of 8x10.

If TMY2 stays around for a long long time, there may eventually be modern competitors based on expired patents.

Honestly, I think due to TMY2's versatility, they'd dump Tri-X first. Many might say those are fighting words, but if they find a way with that versatility to reliably make Tmax work like Tri-x in terms of tones, it's a duplicated product as far as kodak is concerned. I don't know what sells more, that would be a factor too. I know Tri-x is tops in quality among traditional films, but traditional film markets are increasingly commodity and quality might not be so big a draw if people are choosing old film in large part for lomo type of applications rather than serious exacting styles.