HP5+ or T-Max 400 pushed to 1600?

DREW WILEY said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are right, I don't understand why it is Dx coded at 3200 other than it is a push, the Kodak Professional Black and White Films handbook 1990 says that the "Nominal Speed is 1000 when developed in Tmax developer and 800 with other Kodak developers. So 1600 is a half push 3200 push and a half. But states that you get better shadow details at 3200 than 400 speed films push to 3200 which is a 3 stop push.

Mere shadow "detail" is a somewhat ambiguous description, while shadow gradation (instead) is more related to the steepness of the toe geometry itself. A very long toe (like Delta 3200) will bag more something or other detail or texture when seriously underexposed, like when rated at 3200, but not as well defined as a film having a steeper toe at a more realistic speed. It depends what you want.

Kodak used to make something called Recording Film for low light detective work. It had an exaggerated S-curve with an especially long toe and blatant grain. The point was to bag as much courtroom-worthy discernible information as possible down in the shadows using handheld exposures, but not necessarily anything esthetically pleasing in a darkroom print.

Paul Howell said:

I don't understand why it is Dx coded at 3200 other than it is a push

Click to expand...

It is Dx coded at 3200, and its "box" speed" is 3200, because it is designed to be used that way.
Most film is designed to give optimum results at its ISO speed.
Whereas the 3200 films are designed to perform better at an EI of 3200 than they do at their ISO speed.
The compromise imposed when one sacrifices shadow detail in return for better mid-tone and highlight that "pushing" film involves is designed into the film that way.

Paul Howell said:

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

Click to expand...

How do you know the PDF refers to 320TXP and not Tri-X 400? I know that today the only Tri-X version in sheets is the 320TXP, but was that the case when they made that PDF?

Matt - perform "what" better at 3200, in the case of D3200? It certainly doesn't print better. There's only so much can you scrape off the bottom of the barrel. That's why it's important to read the actual spec sheet, which gives its more realistic speed of 1000, rather than just the marketing label, or over-optimistic DX coding. D3200 actually has lovely gradation, at least for moderate contrast scenes, if shot more realistically at a distinctly lower speed. Quite a number of people have found this out.

My 1990 Kodak Professional Black and White Films handbook only list TriX 320 in sheet film. TriX 400 is rated at 1600 while roll TriX 320 is at 1000. Not sure why the 320 sheet is rated at 1200 rather than 1000. My handbook lists Plus X, Verichrome pan as well other films no longer in production listed on the Diafine datasheet. These are the new times for thinner emulsions, my Diafine box from the 70s rates Trix X at 2400. But it is a risk, you may be spot on at 1200, but if your shutters are fast or slow, meter is off a bit, only testing would tell. Depending on your time frame for this project, assuming you have a MF camera, if you can order a quart size Diafine from E bay you can shoot a roll of Tri X 320 at E.I 1000 for a test. If that works then test a sheet 4X5 before jumping in with 8X10.

MattKing said:

It is Dx coded at 3200, and its "box" speed" is 3200, because it is designed to be used that way.

Click to expand...

Matt that sounds like or at least very close to a form of "marketing speak" to me to conflate its aim to be usable at 3200 with labelling that on the box as if it was "box speed"

pentaxuser

@pentaxuser, to me Kodak is quite open about it:

pentaxuser said:

Matt that sounds like or at least very close to a form of "marketing speak" to me to conflate its aim to be usable at 3200 with labelling that on the box as if it was "box speed"

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Anyway, Ilford asks its customers, especially those who shoot with compact autoexposure and autofocus cameras, to expose this film at 3200. There is a great responsibility in that and it doesn't seem to me that it's just marketing.

Like I already sated, D3200 is engineered to capture "something" when underexposed; but it would be a mistake to assume that that implies an optimal performance from this particular film. I shoot it at 800; and that is exactly what the spec sheet recommends. But I am also a thinking human being who knows what I want, and does not defer those kinds of decisions to any kind of non-sentient rote autoexposure system. Does a DX coder read the actual specs, or look at the actual characteristic curve of this film?

Films like D3200 and TMZ3200 can be used in multiple manners, just like Ilford explains; but that doesn't mean they are, by any normal convention, anywhere near the MARKETED film speed implied on the label. All kinds of products are marketed with overt wishful thinking labels.

However, that does not preclude the norms being leveraged for special low-light applications. So for an impression of just how diversely this particular film gets used, look it up on the Massive Development Chart.

Paul Howell said:

My 1990 Kodak Professional Black and White Films handbook only list TriX 320 in sheet film. TriX 400 is rated at 1600 while roll TriX 320 is at 1000. Not sure why the 320 sheet is rated at 1200 rather than 1000. My handbook lists Plus X, Verichrome pan as well other films no longer in production listed on the Diafine datasheet. These are the new times for thinner emulsions, my Diafine box from the 70s rates Trix X at 2400. But it is a risk, you may be spot on at 1200, but if your shutters are fast or slow, meter is off a bit, only testing would tell. Depending on your time frame for this project, assuming you have a MF camera, if you can order a quart size Diafine from E bay you can shoot a roll of Tri X 320 at E.I 1000 for a test. If that works then test a sheet 4X5 before jumping in with 8X10.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this @Paul Howell I have never used Diafine before and have to admit it looks like an interesting and convenient developer.

There might a good DIY formula, otherwise finding it on your side the pond. In the 70s and 80 when a working PJ I covered Southern Europe and Africa for the wires, I always carried a quart size kit, a small bottle of photo flo and a quart dry kit for standard fixer along with a 2 reel Stainless Steel tank and reels. There were times that I could not get my film developed and shipped back to the home office and I had to develop in the field. I would buy 3 one liter bottles of beer, if available, 4 liters of distilled water, and mixe in my hotel room. I generally shot Kodak Plus at 650. I have used Diafine with 4X5 but don't of anyone who has used it with 8X10.

I see several have mentioned DIafine, which I had started typing a post recommending last night but never finished.

I've been using it a decent bit lately. Not only has it been sort of a new "toy" for me to play with(as I'd not used it before starting to develop film again a few weeks ago) but I'm also seriously backlogged on B&W after not developing anything since 2020...the initial attraction to me is that i can toss whatever I want in the tank(even if it's 3 or 4 different film stocks) and get results, and I've come to even like the results with some film. I use to do that with stand Rodinal also, but there's something attractive about not needing an hour when you're getting through a bunch of film.

In any case, I can't offer a TON of relevant data, as I have developed 35mm HP-5+ in it, but know I shot it at box speed. I've also developed 35mm and 120 Tr-X in it, and have tested the 120 most extensively-the roll I shot was in my Pentax 645N and was shot intending to develop in diafine, so I did a lot of bracketing and also depended on its fairly trustworthy/accurate TTL meter. It also edge prints exposure data, so it doesn't have to rely on my notes/memory for what's what. Tri-X(fresh, 2026 ex.) for me gave WAY too dense of negatives for my liking at box speed. BTW, for all of these, I set the camera to 400, and sued exposure compensation to make adjustments. EI800 gave me a negative that was a lot more workable(less dense) but fairly flat. If wet printing(which I hope to do again someday, but not anytime soon probably), I'd not be surprised if the EI 400 took a really long exposure and ended up being printed at grade 5 or 6, where EI 800 probably would have printed at grade 4 or maybe even 3(and for reference, I tend to prefer a lower contrast print, and even an objectively "good" negative I'll often end up at grade 1 or 0 for my liking). EI 1600 gave me negatives a bit on the thin side, but very useable, and with more normal contrast. I think they would have printed decent. I did not test beyond there, but IMO the best negatives were around EI 1200, although they were a bit flat still.

The Diafine datasheet posted above is a good reference point, but I'd still suggest testing for yourself. I have no idea how old it is, but given the number of long-gone film stocks still on there, and that as I understand it the Tri-X of today is not the same as the Tri-X of even 20 years ago, it's worth checking. It makes sense to me intuitively that "thick" emulsion films should develop more in Diafine than "thin" ones given that it relies on carry-over of solution A to solution B. By the data sheet, Super-XX, a stereotypical thick emulsion film, is listed with a 2-stop increase in EI(800 vs. 200), where Tri-X they only give 1 2/3 stop, and a lot of other films are anyhwere from 1/2 stop to 1.5 stops over box speed.

Of course all of this presents a quandry for the OP, given that Tri-X is no longer available in sheets and HP5+ is only stated as an EI of 800. I don't currently have any TXP-320 sheets that I could even test(otherwise I would) and I've never shot HP5+ in sheets. I do have some TXP-320 in 220, but I'm not sure how inclined I am to test it in this developer or how valid my tests would be for fresh film given that the freshest I have is nearly 20 years old(even though it's always been cold-stored). With that said, I'm wondering on the DIafine datasheet if the "Tri-X Professional-120" is TXP-320, especially given that it was once available in 120(and one of the last 220 B&W films Kodak made...).

I will also caution that based on what I've seen, you need to have a pretty high tolerance for grain especially in 35mm to use Diafine, although I doubt that would be an issue in 8x10.

Thinking about it, in terms of cost, availability of film and chemistry, I would go with HP5 and Microphen. With 8X10 grain is not going to be an issue. You can shoot a roll of MF or 35mm HP5 and test in Microphen. I would also contact ILford for recommended push times for 1600 and 3200.

Shooting indoor sports, depending on the lighting, the light lighting is often flat with reflected light from the floor taming the shadows.

pentaxuser said:

Matt that sounds like or at least very close to a form of "marketing speak" to me to conflate its aim to be usable at 3200 with labelling that on the box as if it was "box speed"

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Speaking in terms of the Kodak offering, it is a special purpose film.
I think that the results it gives at an EI of 1000 are crummy, even though the shadow rendition is better at that exposure level.
The mid-tones and highlights look crummy when it is exposed and developed at 1000.
When you give it less exposure - EIs of 1600 or 3200 - and develop it for that exposure the shadows falter, but the mid-tones and highlights get much better.
It is designed that way - and that is why the DX is set that way, and that is why it has 3200 on the box.
I was trying to think of an analogous product outside photography, but the only things that came to mind are things that relate to driving cars faster than would be safe.

Just the opposite for me, Matt. Fortunately, I've never owned a camera that responded to a DX code, and never will. I like to control everything myself. And relying on the box??? - that reminds me of way back when Kellogg cereals came in little zip-open wax-papered boxes so kids could eat right out of them, alleviating the roadside breakfast stop from needing to wash another bowl.

This is true, it was a film of last resort, useful in very limited range of situations. Kodak stopped producing Tmax 3200 for a number of years saying that Tmax 400 pushed to 3200 produced almost as good results and was better at 800 and 1600. But, you can get printable images at 6400 with Tmax 3200.

DREW WILEY said:

Matt - perform "what" better at 3200, in the case of D3200? It certainly doesn't print better. There's only so much can you scrape off the bottom of the barrel. That's why it's important to read the actual spec sheet, which gives its more realistic speed of 1000, rather than just the marketing label, or over-optimistic DX coding. D3200 actually has lovely gradation, at least for moderate contrast scenes, if shot more realistically at a distinctly lower speed. Quite a number of people have found this out.

Click to expand...

I have used it at 800 with great results! Never have used it at higher speeds.

Paul Howell said:

Thinking about it, in terms of cost, availability of film and chemistry, I would go with HP5 and Microphen. With 8X10 grain is not going to be an issue. You can shoot a roll of MF or 35mm HP5 and test in Microphen. I would also contact ILford for recommended push times for 1600 and 3200.

Shooting indoor sports, depending on the lighting, the light lighting is often flat with reflected light from the floor taming the shadows.

Click to expand...

I'll consider this.

pkr1979 said:

Maybe I need to consider 320TXP.

Click to expand...

Well, to be very clear, that was the 320TXP from around 2000, not what you can get now after they moved production (which always requires some reformulation). And with the updates to the production facility going on this winter, next year's production may not perfectly match what they made this year to bolster stock before their shutdown.

Paul Howell said:

why HP 5 will go to 650 while Tri X goes to 1200?

Click to expand...

Different films respond differently to the combination of phenidone-based developing agents and two-bath development. One important factor is the thickness of the gelatin, as that largely controls the amount of Solution A that carries over into Solution B (activator).

@pkr1979 whatever film you choose to use, I’d be really interested to see some photos from your project if you’re willing to share them here.

MattKing said:

Speaking in terms of the Kodak offering, it is a special purpose film.
I think that the results it gives at an EI of 1000 are crummy, even though the shadow rendition is better at that exposure level.
The mid-tones and highlights look crummy when it is exposed and developed at 1000.
When you give it less exposure - EIs of 1600 or 3200 - and develop it for that exposure the shadows falter, but the mid-tones and highlights get much better.
It is designed that way - and that is why the DX is set that way, and that is why it has 3200 on the box.
I was trying to think of an analogous product outside photography, but the only things that came to mind are things that relate to driving cars faster than would be safe.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Matt

pentaxuser

If you want the best quality neg with high speed films to print them then expose at it's nominal speed and then develop for the push time, so TMZ would be exposed at 1000 then developed for 3200. This was pretty common knowledge among everyone I knew back in the day.

miha said:

@pkr1979 whatever film you choose to use, I’d be really interested to see some photos from your project if you’re willing to share them here.

Click to expand...

Will do - but this is long term though.