HP5+ or T-Max 400 pushed to 1600?

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

Did anyone compare Ilford HP5+ pushed to 1600 with Kodak T-Max 400 pushed to 1600? If so, which did you prefer and why?

Cheers
Peter

 

[Paul Howell]

I did shoot a roll of HP 5 to 1600, it is true 2 stop push while Tmax 400 to 1600 is more like a 1.5 push, I found more shadow details in the Tmax 400, I used Tmax developer, DDX will also work. Tmax 3200 at 1600 is really native speed, most think 3200 is a push, but has more grain than Tmax 400.

 

[pkr1979]

I did shoot a roll of HP 5 to 1600, it is true 2 stop push while Tmax 400 to 1600 is more like a 1.5 push, I found more shadow details in the Tmax 400, I used Tmax developer, DDX will also work. Tmax 3200 at 1600 is really native speed, most think 3200 is a push, but has more grain than Tmax 400.

Thanks. The way I read this is that T-Max 400 is 'better' at 1600 then HP5 as the film isnt stretched as much to its limits? What about contrast?

 

[miha]

Hi Peter, this is all very subjective. The best results I got at EI 1000 or EI 1600 were with TMAX P3200 in ILFORD DDX- tight grain and normal contrast. My observations are based on darkroom prints, not scans, but the proof is in the pudding so try it and you'll see what works best for you.

 

[pkr1979]

Thanks @miha - T-Max P3200 isnt available in sheet film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I found more shadow details in the Tmax 400, I used Tmax developer, DDX will also work. Tmax 3200 at 1600 is really native speed, most think 3200 is a push, but has more grain than Tmax 400.

Does your use of "3200 at 1600 ís really native speed" mean that you have applied a test of some kind and found that Tmax 3200 has a "box speed" of 1600 compared to the general consensus that it and D3200 have a speed of about 1000 speed?

I ask because if Tmax 3200 is genuinely as much as 2 stops faster than HP5+ then this confers on it an appreciable advantage over HP5+ and indeed over Ílford D3200 which in comparison is saíd to be about 1000 native speed

It may not be the first time anyone has said this but I can't recall seeing this claim about Tmax 3200 being 1600

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Native is an abstract, Tmax 3200 was developed for low light shooters, police surveillance news and sports, as such high ISO was given a priority over shadow detail. For those who shoots what I will call "fine arts then 1200 to a 1600 will provide increased shadow detail.

Any pushed film will have increased contrast, lack of shadow detail. Here is a shot I took while covering a story in the 70s about brothels posing as modeling studios. Lighting 1 75 or so watt bulb, no shade, Trix rated at 3200 developed in Rodinal. Nikon F2, 50mm 1.4. No shadow details whatsoever. If you are pushing film, don't worry about shadow detail. If you want shadow detail, a heavy tripod, slow shutter speed fast lens.

 

[miha]

Thanks @miha - T-Max P3200 isnt available in sheet film.

Now this got me interested. Why would you need ASA 1600 in sheet film?

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're not really "pushing" anything - you're just lopping off two zones of shadow value due to underexposure, then overdeveloping what remains to build contrast back up. I've deliberately done this a few times with TMAX 400 to get bold graphic textureless blacks combined with enhanced midtone micro-tonal expansion - ala the "Brett Weston" print look. I like the manner Tmax cleanly delivers this due to its rather steep characteristic curve way down into the shadows - those lower zones therefore come out crisply pure black.

HP5, on the other hand - another film I am very familiar with in sheet version - has a rather long toe to it, more susceptible to muddiness. And if you try to build contrast too much, it tends to shoulder off. I found myself having to resort to unsharp masking to tame that predicament - the result can be lovely, but more involved. I'm not saying don't try HP5; experiment for yourself. If your objective is just low-light snapshooting, many people reach for 35mm HP5 at rate it well above its ideal performance speed.

Now in the 35mm world, TMZ3200 is actually around 1000 speed, just like the fine print states, but will hold an amount of recoverable shadow detail at higher speeds. The question is, what is the quality of that residual amount? To get acceptable results, I found I had to shoot it at 800; and I like the results of TMY400 shot at 800 a lot more than TMZ3200 shot at any speed. My two cents worth.

 

[pkr1979]

Now this got me interested. Why would you need ASA 1600 in sheet film?

Shooting sports indoor.

 

[Paul Howell]

Boy that's that trip in Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine. What camera and lens combo?. I've attempted to shoot outdoor sports, Rodeo and track and field with my Speed Graphic using the focal plane shutter. My timing was never good enough to catch the peak of the action. By the time I cropped in I was using such a small portion of the negative that I should have just used a 6X6 SLR with a long lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In my experience, you're better off pushing HP5+ or Tri-X than Delta or T-Max films if you need to go more than one stop of EI above the film's rated speed. Despite what Drew says above, "pushing" is a long-standing technique of press photographers, originally, and for certain kinds of subject matter. You shooting sports indoors are in the former category (even if you're not publishing the results in a newspaper).

If your interest is to create images that look like Ansel Adams's work (or otherwise maintain detail from value II through IX), Drew is 100% right. If your goal is to produce usable prints when there just isn't enough light to give you the combination of aperture and shutter you need, Weejee is a better example. Use a conventional grain film rather than tabular, be prepared to lose the shadows and control contrast in scanning or printing, and get some kind of usable images vs. wasting the whole game and half a dozen film holders trying to take long enough exposures to get shadow density on rapidly moving subjects.

Or use a camera that takes roll film and buy a few rolls of T-Max P3200 or Delta 3200 and happily shoot at EI 1600, 2000, or higher.

 

[pkr1979]

Boy that's that trip in Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine. What camera and lens combo?. I've attempted to shoot outdoor sports, Rodeo and track and field with my Speed Graphic using the focal plane shutter. My timing was never good enough to catch the peak of the action. By the time I cropped in I was using such a small portion of the negative that I should have just used a 6X6 SLR with a long lens.

8x10 with 210/300/450.

 

[pkr1979]

In my experience, you're better off pushing HP5+ or Tri-X than Delta or T-Max films if you need to go more than one stop of EI above the film's rated speed. Despite what Drew says above, "pushing" is a long-standing technique of press photographers, originally, and for certain kinds of subject matter. You shooting sports indoors are in the former category (even if you're not publishing the results in a newspaper).

If your interest is to create images that look like Ansel Adams's work (or otherwise maintain detail from value II through IX), Drew is 100% right. If your goal is to produce usable prints when there just isn't enough light to give you the combination of aperture and shutter you need, Weejee is a better example. Use a conventional grain film rather than tabular, be prepared to lose the shadows and control contrast in scanning or printing, and get some kind of usable images vs. wasting the whole game and half a dozen film holders trying to take long enough exposures to get shadow density on rapidly moving subjects.

Or use a camera that takes roll film and buy a few rolls of T-Max P3200 or Delta 3200 and happily shoot at EI 1600, 2000, or higher.

Also, its more expensive to waste TMax then HP5. A less contrasty negative is preferable though.

 

[Donald Qualls]

8x10 with 210/300/450.

Wow. You've got more nerve than I do. I'd try this with my Annie Speed, Graflok converted and 3-4 Grafmatics (I'd even buy a box of Tri-X, because my usual Fomapan 400 doesn't push all that well), but I wouldn't even think of a tripod-only camera for sports. Not least because last I checked HP5+ in 8x10 was what, ten bucks a sheet?

 

[pkr1979]

Wow. You've got more nerve than I do. I'd try this with my Annie Speed, Graflok converted and 3-4 Grafmatics (I'd even buy a box of Tri-X, because my usual Fomapan 400 doesn't push all that well), but I wouldn't even think of a tripod-only camera for sports. Not least because last I checked HP5+ in 8x10 was what, ten bucks a sheet?

And T-Max is twice that I suppose. Ive done this kind of stuff with 8x10 before. Like concerts and go-karts.

 

[pkr1979]

What will provide the least contrasty negative though, of HP5@1600 or T-Max400@1600?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I once shot T-Max 400 (twenty-plus years ago, so there may have been a reformulation since then) at EI 3200 (because I had f/3.5 and only that film on hand) and got pretty think but very scannable negatives.

I don't have any experience with HP5+ so I can't compare, but I've put the old 320TXP in Super Soup and got a useful EI 5000 without excessive contrast (effectively developed to completion), and got EI 6400 with the same developer and 2000s vintage Tri-X 400. Super Soup is a witch's brew I threw together for an emergency that seems to get everything possible out of a film without excessive contrast, but I don't know if or how it would work with 8x10, since I've only used it with vigorous, continuous agitation. I've also noted Ari Jaaksi (YouTuber) shooting HP5+ at EI 12500 with a conventional push and getting negatives that looked pretty good for the subject matter (his local city in Finland, at night, during first snow of the winter).

 

[Paul Howell]

At 1600 the Tmax will have a bit more shadow detail than either TriX or HP5, but just in terms of cost, I give HP5 a spin.

 

[pentaxuser]

Native is an abstract, Tmax 3200 was developed for low light shooters, police surveillance news and sports, as such high ISO was given a priority over shadow detail. For those who shoots what I will call "fine arts then 1200 to a 1600 will provide increased shadow detail.

Any pushed film will have increased contrast, lack of shadow detail. Here is a shot I took while covering a story in the 70s about brothels posing as modeling studios. Lighting 1 75 or so watt bulb, no shade, Trix rated at 3200 developed in Rodinal. Nikon F2, 50mm 1.4. No shadow details whatsoever. If you are pushing film, don't worry about shadow detail. If you want shadow detail, a heavy tripod, slow shutter speed fast lens.

OK I now understand what your use of "native" means. I had thought that it might have meant its intrinsic( as in ISO) speed I have seen several videos of D3200 v TMax 3200 and in each case their "native speed" as defined by you looked to be a contest that was too close to call in terms of native speed.

When I used Tmax 3200 compared to D3200 I can't say I saw enough to be sure that it was anything other than a close call However I have never done a comparison at 1600 between TMax 400 and HP5+

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

OK I now understand what your use of "native" means. I had thought that it might have meant its intrinsic( as in ISO) speed

Native does mean intrinsic. It is just that the EI3200 films are designed to be very low in mid-tone and highlight contrast (in most circumstances) when they are exposed at and developed for their ISO speed.
So when you give those films less exposure - i.e. use a higher EI when metering - and then "push" develop them, the contrast increase that results brings them up to a more standard mid-tone and highlight contrast.
In comparison, "normal" films are designed to have normal contrast when they are exposed at and developed for their ISO speed, so when you under-expose them and then "push" develop them, the resulting mid-tone and highlight contrast is often excessive.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Delta 3200 is also itself really more like an 800 or 1000 speed film, but would be my first choice in a roll film needing to be stretched to its limit. Expect pronounced grain.

 

[pkr1979]

I once shot T-Max 400 (twenty-plus years ago, so there may have been a reformulation since then) at EI 3200 (because I had f/3.5 and only that film on hand) and got pretty think but very scannable negatives.

I don't have any experience with HP5+ so I can't compare, but I've put the old 320TXP in Super Soup and got a useful EI 5000 without excessive contrast (effectively developed to completion), and got EI 6400 with the same developer and 2000s vintage Tri-X 400. Super Soup is a witch's brew I threw together for an emergency that seems to get everything possible out of a film without excessive contrast, but I don't know if or how it would work with 8x10, since I've only used it with vigorous, continuous agitation. I've also noted Ari Jaaksi (YouTuber) shooting HP5+ at EI 12500 with a conventional push and getting negatives that looked pretty good for the subject matter (his local city in Finland, at night, during first snow of the winter).

Maybe I need to consider 320TXP.

 

[pentaxuser]

Native does mean intrinsic.

So we now have three words to describe a film's speed, namely "normal", " intrinsic" and box speed. Í had always thought that the word "intrinsic" meant inherent or built into the DNA so to speak and I had thought that by that definition that was box speed and the test that revealed that speed

You are right of course, Matt, in the sense that we live in two countries divided by a common language. When I spread jam on my toast tomorrow morning it should remind me of this division, especially when I drínk my non-inflammable tea and suffer no ill effects from such a liquid and have my jelly with ice cream at lunch

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Maybe I need to consider 320TXP.

Well, if you can get with ISO 1200, then with 320TXP and Diafine a divided developer that is lowis in contrast with good grain, easy to use. Just don't know if you can get it in the E.U. A gallon size kit in the U.S runs between $68 and $80. It lasts a very long time, replenish by adding fresh chemistry to part A and then to part B. It is panthermic temps between 70 and 90 degrees F work fine. Do not presoak, Miminium 3 mints in part A, 3 mints in B, water rinse, fix and wash usal. The trick is not to get any part B in A, which will turn A right away. What I don't understand why HP 5 will go to 650 while Tri X goes to 1200?

https://www.sagradapelicula.com/sites/default/files/docs/quimicos/Diafine-data.pdf