For Ilford Film Users

[jamusu]

I have primarily only used Kodak films, but am thinking of experimenting with some of Ilfords films. I like the look of their films when pushed. The films that I am thinking of purchasing are: Hp5, Delta 3200, Fp4, and Delta 400 in both 35mm and 120.

I am not going to rate them at box speed. I am going to push them to their limits (1600-3200) to see what I get.

In the past I have used Xtol and D-76 to push my Kodak films. My questions are as follows.

1.) Should I use Xtol to push Ilfords films or should I use some of Ilfords
developers.

2.) Which Ilford developers are best used for push processing? I have
wanted to try Microphen for a while now.

3.) For those who have used these films at both box speed and pushed,
what are your experiences with them?

Any guidance will be much appreciated.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[ath]

I got nice results with Delta 400 pushed to 1600 in XTOL.

 

[jamusu]

Okay.

Jamusu.

 

[Poohblah]

i've only pushed HP5+ in D76, and i didn't like the grain compared to pushed TX400. just my personal opinion.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In order to try to answer your question better - why do you push the film? Contrast?
- Thomas

 

[elekm]

I love Pan F and FP4+ -- nice tonality, predictable grain (very fine with Pan F). I also am not a fan of HP5. The blacks always seem too heavy and featureless.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would try to determine their EI under regular conditions before pushing.

Xtol pushes nicely. DDX and Microphen will give a touch more speed though (about 1/3 to 1/2 stop).

I remember reading of a Pro lab that pushed HP5+ in Xtol for years until trying Tmax dev for a laugh and found this combo fantastic, so switched....

Delta 100 is one of Ilfords best IMO but I would not push it. Makes box speed easily in Xtol 1+1 or 1+2. Loads more bite than squishy TMAX 100

 

[Graham.b]

Would it not be easier to buy the rated film, i only push when i am in need of a faster film than i happen to have on hand.

 

[2F/2F]

I like all of their films, even the Delta 100 and 400, which I don't like!

With a 400 film, you can get usable exposures with film ratings of 1600 and 3200 with any standard or "hot" developer. Ilfotec HC, ID-11, D-76, HC-110, etc. should push the highlights just fine, but it will be easier with harsher things like DD-X, T-Max, X-Tol, Microphen, etc., and these will also probably give slightly brighter tones on the low end.

I shoot Delta 3200 quite a lot at the very edge of its usability, so I would like to give a runthough of what it is like to use it this way.

Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film. (You should read the data sheet for all these films before you try them, IMO.) Don't forget that when trying to figure out how to expose and develop it. For example, uprating it to 6400 is not a one stop underexposure, but a 2-2/3 stop underexposure.

However, like the other Deltas, it can fairly easily handle one stop of underexposure without requiring increased development to compensate. So that gives you an extra stop of underexposure latitude, if you need it. (Also interesting to note is that Delta and T-Max negs look about a stop thinner than a conventionally grained film, even when properly exposed and developed.)

For much of what I shoot (live bands and people in small local clubs), I have to pretend that I am shooting an 8,000 to 16,000 film. In better-lit venues, I am fine with a 400 film, pushed if need be, but I have to underexpose the hell out of Delta 1000 when shooting these smaller places.

For instance, I start with 1000, since that is the speed the film *actually* is. I take a spot reading with my Pentax meter off of somebody's face. Depending on the light, this ranges from EV 1 to EV 3 usually. My spot meter tells me to make an EV 1 middle grey, I need to shoot at f/1.4 at '10 sec. That ain't kosher for shooting musicians (if a sharp shot is the goal), so I say, "Shit this light sucks, but nothing in the darkroom can make up for a fast shutter speed now", so I shoot the shots at '125 when they are moving and '60 if they are more still, knowing they are going to be dreadfully underexposed no matter what I do. If I can brace myself on something, I will shoot at '30. (This is all with 50 or 55mm lenses, BTW.)

Shooting at '125, you have a 3-2/3 stop underexposure, which places the guy's or gal's face on zone I-1/3. To have it be a zone V instead, I would need to be using a 12,800 film. No matter what, though, it is a 1000 film. Always remember that. Any other rating than the true ISO of 1000 is simply a change in the amount of exposure, not actual film speed.

The problem is that something placed on zone 1-1/3 is almost impossible to push any higher with a standard soup, as it is practically blacnk and holds almost no detail when printed normally. Much can be done in development and printing however.

Standard soup will have a very hard time getting anything more out of that zone I-1/3 placement. So, in these cases that are on the absolute edge of usability, I depend on D-19, personally. It is an X-ray developer that fogs the hell out of your film, giving it "fake" speed which helps raise the shadow values on the print, and also increases its contrast to the max., which helps a little with the muddiness in the low tones when you go to print. I use it stock strength, usually for at least 15 minutes plus a 5 minute stand. (I have not ever extensively used those other hot developers I mentioned, and they might work fine as well.)

Anyhow, just the "fake" speed increase due to the increased fogging gets the zone I-1/3 placement up to around what will be a zone II density with normal printing. That's a lot of fog, but I want it there. That's why I develop it long and let it stand at the end. The contrast enhancement adds slightly more, as does intensification and toning if needed. In the end, you can get that density to be approaching the density that corresponds to a zone III with normal printing. Then, you have that easy 1 stop of underexposure latitude of the Delta/T-Max films to save your ass in printing, which means that even a poor printer would be able to get the performer's face to almost a zone IV print value. Then, with difficult printing on harder papers and/or or using infectious developers, it is a printable picture in which you can get that face up to at least a zone VI. There is loss of detail, lots of contrast, and lots of grain, but it's better than nothing.

Like I said, light this low that is also low in contrast puts this film at the edge of its usability. However, even there, there are ways to get a certain kind of picture if you work really hard at it. Imagine what you could do with it if you only had to underexpose it by one or two stops, and had some more contrast at the original scene?

I love this film so much because it is so bulletproof. You have to be trying really hard in order to not get printable pix with it.

Sorry to bore the hell out of you.

 

[Ian Grant]

Recently I switched back to Ilford films after a gap of around 22 years. (Kodak B&W films are becoming much harder to find in some parts of the world).

Delta 400, Delta 400 & HP5 are all excellent films. Like others I've tested to determine my EI's with all these films for normal lighting/contrast situations. I rarely push process film now but when I do I use Xtol, but I've also used ID-68/Microphen in the past.

In reality there's far less differences between all the films now compared to when I first began in the late 60's and all Kodak & Ilford films are capable of far higher quality compared to their forerunners.

Ian

 

[Harry Lime]

Ilford DD-X is their equivalent of XTOL. Very good for push processing all brands of film. Tri-X and DD-X at any speed is a magic combination, that produces a pearly look which is quite beautiful. I prefer this combination over XTOL.

Delta3200 in DD-X is probably the best ultra-high speed combo out there.
Obviously you can also develop it in XTOL..

In my experience D3200 is superior to TMY3200, Neopan1600 and pushed Tri-X.

TMY3200 has a very specific look. Gritty, big grained and a instantly recognizable fingerprint.

Neopan 1600 is fine grained, but high contrast. I shoot it at 800 on murky days and it's nice. At 1600 is tends to block up the shadows, so I try to not shoot it in the dark at that speed.

Delta3200 is a low contrast, very long tonal scale film that delivers about 1200asa. At 1600 and 3200 you get about as much grain, as with a good 400 asa film. You can push and a pull it at will for different looks.

I put Delta3200 in the same category as Tri-X. To me they are masterpieces of photographic engineering and the two best films on the market.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Harry,

I have heard a few people rave about DDX in TriX - can you expand on Xtol vs DDX negs (were you using Xtol neat or diluted with TriX)? I am just about to try this combo in fact. Should mean shooting at 800 is only a very small push, of perhaps 1/2 stop. I found Xtol 1+1 too smooth in trad MF 400 films (not enough bite) and tried mixing with FX-39 until I ran out... and they wont mail it to me here Now I am diluting 1+2 which seems to have added a tiny bit more grain sharpness. once I have this nailed I will try 1+3, but I have ordered 3L of DDX. I have used it before with slower films (FP4+ etc) but am curious to see how it does with TriX and Delta 400. I used some ages ago with 35mm Neopan 400 and got beautiful negs that printed very easily. DDX seems to give smooth grain rather than acutance, however. I kinda want a combination of the two and find I am struggling to get the bite I want from Xtol. This was the reason for my mixed FX-39/Xtol 1+1 experiment. 50-50 worked well, but I will try other ratios. FX-39 is so hard to get and whilst I can carry it through in my hold luggage to Kabul, I am going to keep looking for another alternative that gives a bit more bite than Xtol, even diluted. Xtol just seems to make TriX grain vanish (it does the same with APX) far more than with some other films. I dont want that! D76 is wonderful apart from film speed...so DDX is next on the list.

 

[jamusu]

WOW! What informative posts!

I have shot a few rolls of Ilford. A couple of Hp5 two years back that I pushed and loved the look. I recently shot a few rolls of Delta 3200 that I rated at 1600 that I have yet to develop. The reason that I push my film is for contrast, grain, and richer blacks. In fact, I rarely shoot at box speed.

I recently shot 10 rolls at box speed at another photographers suggestion so that I can learn how films rated at the correct ASA look because in my nearly three years as an amateur photographer I had nearly pushed all of my film from the beginning. Needless to say, I do not care for the look much, but it is nice to learn something different.

Jamusu.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Jamasu,

Are you really pusing everything or are you metering in such a way that with your technique you rate the film at a higher speed? I suppose the easiest way to tell is if you are pusing (certainly beyond a stop) you are going to have very thin shadows. I am not sure you get richer black by pushing so much as lose shadow detail so get black more easily and where you would otherwise have had dark grey. I for one have to develop films for longer than most for my soft enlarger head and generally find I use times 20% above 'normal'. I can however shoot with decent speed as the extra dev time gives a touch more speed. It can be tough to get good blacks sometimes - whatever works! As for people who shoot fims at half box speed and develop in DDX for 30% less than reccommended times - OMG a neg like that would look like mud on my enlarger at G5! As always, we have very different needs!

 

[mabman]

Ilford DD-X is their equivalent of XTOL.

Isn't Ilfosol S their XTOL equivalent? I thought DD-X was something else entirely...

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilfosol was a Gycin/Phenidone developer originally and not remotely similar to Xtol or DD-X. It's been re-formulated 3 times because of the keeping properties.

Ian

 

[monkeykoder]

I thought DDX was roughly equivalent to HC110.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You don't have to push process your negatives to get contrast, you can achieve that at the printing stage. If you really really like contrast and grain, try lith printing. Use negatives of high contrast. You can shoot the film at box speed and overdevelop it for lots of contrast, and that suits the lith printing process like hand in glove.
The attached file is a lith print from a slightly higher than normal contrast 120 6x6 Plus-X negative that has very fine grain.

- Thomas

 

[jamusu]

Jamasu,

Are you really pusing everything or are you metering in such a way that with your technique you rate the film at a higher speed? I suppose the easiest way to tell is if you are pusing (certainly beyond a stop) you are going to have very thin shadows. I am not sure you get richer black by pushing so much as lose shadow detail so get black more easily and where you would otherwise have had dark grey. I for one have to develop films for longer than most for my soft enlarger head and generally find I use times 20% above 'normal'. I can however shoot with decent speed as the extra dev time gives a touch more speed. It can be tough to get good blacks sometimes - whatever works! As for people who shoot fims at half box speed and develop in DDX for 30% less than reccommended times - OMG a neg like that would look like mud on my enlarger at G5! As always, we have very different needs!

______________________________________________________________________

Tom.

I for the most part almost always push my films by rating them at a higher speed and develop them longer than the recommeneded time for pushing. I soley rely on the meter in my Pentax-K1000 for the most part, but will sometimes open up or close down a few stops if I want the shot in a different zone from middle grey, which is what the meter on my Pentax-K1000 reads. Not everyone cares for this look though.

You are correct about the shadow detail as well which is what I meant by richer blacks. I appreciate the inquiry.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[eddym]

I thought DDX was roughly equivalent to HC110.

I believe you're thinking of Ilfotec HC.

 

[skahde]

I believe you're thinking of Ilfotec HC.

DDX is similar to Microphen. Ilfotec LC29 is prediluted Ilfotec HC which is very similar to HC110.

best

Stefan

 

[jamusu]

I finally decided on Xtol. The films that I shot were 1 roll each of (Hp5+, Fp4, Delta 400, and Delta 3200), late afternoon and night shots at my local State Fair.

I shot with yellow, red, and polarizing filters with the film pushed of course. I do not expect to get anything valuable because I am going to push the film even harder when I develop it. I was only experimenting, but who knows I may get LUCKY!

Jamusu.