I need a film/dev/fix formula for low available light snappers

SLOWiN'_DOWN · Jul 17, 2006

I've done much research and have just about made up my mind on a combo.

I am really new at this.

I am hoping to get advise from some experienced members to help me select my final combo for this type of photography.

I use a cheap beat up old rangefinder to take snappers of people in my life with no flash.

Indoors can be quite dark so I am in search of a combo that will give good 12x8 prints.

I was thinking:

HP5 Plus pushed to 640 using Edwal FG7 & Sodium Sulfite

and for really dark conditions to keep those shutter speeds up to at least 1/30 (the slowest speed on my lens - which btw only opens up to f/3.5)

T-Max 3200 maybe at 1600 and T-Max RS?

Now I have no idea on which fixer to use.

I don't know if the fixer has to match the developer or if I can just select one fixer and use it for everything. I was looking at Adoramas fixer. I think it's just Heico NH5 repackaged?

Any guidance for the clueless would be most appreciated.

Thanks!

dmax · Jul 17, 2006

Given your shooting conditions, film speed should be your primary consideration. For your applications, the faster, the better. This takes care of 99% of the situation you present. The penalty of course is coarser grain in the negatives, which will be rather pronounced at your 8x12 print size. Most developers in the market preserve the inherent speed of the film, so as a rule of thumb, any commercially-available developer would work. Again, as a quick rule of thumb, use developer at full strength to ensure that it has enough activity to push your film to the extent that you want. Diluting developers may not be indicated for your needs.Choice of fixer is not relevant to the situation. Fixer is fixer regardless of brand or specific formulation. All that fixer does is remove unexposed silver from your film. It does not contribute to the formation of the image. I hope this is helpful.

cdholden · Jul 17, 2006

I like FP4 as a standard and HP5 for when the extra speed is necessary. If you find yourself getting into need for a tripod and extended exposures, check out TMY, Kodak's 400 offering. It has fewer issues than HP5 with reciprocity failure.
The fixer you choose is irrelevant, but depending on your film of choice, you may or may not want a hardening fixer. If you go with Ilford, they explicity say avoid hardeners. Not sure about TMY, but I never saw it necessary.
Also, are you upper or lower Appalachians? You may be interested in one of the regional groups that gets together sometimes. Lots to learn!
I see this is your first post. Welcome to APUG!
Chris

dmax · Jul 17, 2006

I neglected to point out that by "full strength" I had meant that manufacturers of film developers recommend a certain working strength as a beginning point. For instance, Kodak D76 can be used undiluted. If I recall correctly, TMax developers are to be diluted at 1 : 4. Another Kodak product, HC-110 can be diluted any which way you like from concentrate, but they recommend a 1:32 as a beginning point. This ensures that the diluted developer has enough activity to get the job done.

Ole · Jul 17, 2006

On the contrary, diluting developers more will give increased shadow detail. So for maximum film speed, you need to use a dilute developer!

Fixer plays a little part too: An acidic rapid fix has a slight solvent activity; so for maximum film speed I would use an alkaline fix.

My personal choise would be FX-2 diluted 1+1, and fixing in OF-1 (that's in the chemistry recipes section here, not commercially available. FX-2 is available from Photographers Formulary as TFX-2).

df cardwell · Jul 17, 2006

Today - and for the past several years - the best choice is Kodak's TMY in XTOL.

Here's a recent example: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It records more shadow detail ( faster),
is sharper,
has finer grain,
holds a LONGER scale ( deep shadows and bright lights)
has a perfectly straight line response ( increasing exposure
increases density by the same amount ).
It is very forgiving: exposures do not need hair splitting accuracy.

It can be exposed at speeds up to 1600 and give better pictures than HP5 at any speed.

TMZ is a very good film, but holds no advantage over TMY until you are shooting at 3200, and then the pictures - in normal scenes - are harsh and ( by comparison) grainy. Shooting at 3200 is a risky business, there is little margin for error.

When we research materials today, we often read about the state of the art of another time. D76 and Tri-X are classic, and still viable, but we've moved on since 1960.

When we shoot people, indoors, we want to record room shadows, window and light source highlights and pleasant fleshtones. We use film because digital can't do this. And - unless we use cleverly disguised cinema lighting - we can't do it with typical products either. Which makes Kodak's TMY an important film, and XTOL developer a vital developer.

Second choice will be Ilford's Delta 400, in Ilford DDX. All the same qualities and characteristics. In my results, not as perfectly perfect but far better than anything else.

For fixer, TF4 from the Photographer's Formulary is far and away the best fixer. It has a huge capacity, washes out quickly, and fixes cleanly.

AlanC · Jul 17, 2006

Don,
Have you tried Fuji Neopan 400 ?

Alan Clark

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

df cardwell said:
Today - and for the past several years - the best choice is Kodak's TMY in XTOL.

Here's a recent example: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It records more shadow detail ( faster),

It is very forgiving: exposures do not need hair splitting accuracy.

It can be exposed at speeds up to 1600 and give better pictures than HP5 at any speed.
.

Definitely a certain amount of opinion here, rather than verifiable fact. I'd say the exact opposite on most of the above, backing HP5 or Tri-X against TMY, which I would say is slow; finicky about both exposure and development; and wildly inferior to HP5 at any speed.

This is not to call Mr. Cardwell wrong, simply to say that my own experience (and that of others) does not mirror his. But you know what they say. Colour is science: black and white is alchemy. Both of us may therefore be right.

As for evidence, I'd refer people to some of the galleries on www.rogerandfrances.com. All this shows (within the limits of a monitor, which is a poor substitute for a real print) is that his combo works for him, mine for me.

Cheers,

Roger

Paul Howell · Jul 17, 2006

I shoot a lot in low light and have pushed all kinds of film. For the past few months I have looking at several films and developers, my last test was neopan 1600 in DDX and Edwal 12. I have also used TMX and Delta 3200, and for the past 30 years when I was a working photo journalist I shot Tri X at 800 and 1600, occassionly at 3200. Tri X developed in Dinafine is a winning combo, good grade, excellent shadow details, a little soft and needs to printed on grade 3 to 4 paper, some folks just hate the tones, others really like it. I have also shot TMX and Delta 3200 and developed in DDX and TMAX with very good results. Neopan 1600 in DDX was excellent, great tones, in Edwal almost grainless. I have not tested TMX, Delta 3200 or neopan 1600 in Dinafine as Dinafine is no longer carried in the local shops in my market. I know that others have found Tri X at box speed works very well with D 777. The bottom line is you really need to test several options and choose what works for you.

Bob Carnie · Jul 17, 2006

My vote for this application would be HP5 rated ISO 650 or ISO 800 processed in Microphen with the appropriate push on the developer time.
This combo works very well.

Tom Hoskinson · Jul 17, 2006

Here is the formula for a Diafine substitute:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

df cardwell · Jul 17, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Definitely a certain amount of opinion here....
This is not to call Mr. Cardwell wrong, simply to say that my own experience (and that of others) does not mirror his. But you know what they say...

Roger

OK Roger

Thanks for putting the glove on before the slap.

In between science and alchemy is where we live. This is craftsmanship,
and arguing over technique is silly.

I agree verifiability is essential. Readers have no idea whether a post is based on one roll, a hundred rolls, or a thousand. Among verifiable opinions, there will always be a range of advice.

Why we get different results from different materials is a good reason for a few bottles of wine and a long dinner.

But a even gloved slap is presumptuous.

df cardwell · Jul 17, 2006

AlanC said:
Don,
Have you tried Fuji Neopan 400 ?

Alan Clark

Yes. It is a superb film, and I wouldn't hesitate to take a trunk of the stuff on a long trip.

I like TMY better for my stuff, however. I think it's easier to adjust the curve shape to suit different needs: a slight shoulder CAN be induced in TMY, but there isn't a way to straighten out the Neopan, while keeping its other sterling qualities, if you needed to.

DBP · Jul 17, 2006

I've been using Tri-X in diafine for that type of shooting since I discovered Diafine. I rate Tri-X at 1600 pretty happily, but some will say 1200 or so. Freestyle carries Diafine in the gallon size, and it keeps forever.

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

df cardwell said:
.

But a even gloved slap is presumptuous.

It was not intended to be a slap, and no presumption was intended. One of the great problems with the internet is conveying one's meaning without causing offence.

I meant exactly what I said. What works for you is not what works for me. We can both be right. How else could I convey this?

I apologize for offending you. It was not my intention. All I wanted to say was the exact opposite of what you said, and it's not always easy to do that.

The 'Mr. Cardwell' was simply because I am hopeless at remembering people's names if they do not give them.

Cheers,

Roger

pentaxuser · Jul 17, 2006

What constitutes low light is crucial, I would have thought. I'd have thought that ISO 400 was too slow to enable an exposure of 1/30th except in light that I'd consider to be better than my definition of low. I took some pictures recently in a church in Cornwall with HP5 rated at EI250. It was mid-day and the light levels were quite good for a church but exposures were much less than 1/30th and still would have been so at ISO400.

pentaxuser

df cardwell · Jul 17, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
It was not intended to be a slap, and no presumption was intended. ..
Cheers,

Roger

Thanks Roger

First bottle of wine is on me.

Don

SLOWiN'_DOWN · Jul 17, 2006

df cardwell said:
Why we get different results from different materials is a good reason for a few bottles of wine and a long dinner.

I just knew there was a reason I listened to you!

Your advise just felt right! Now I see why!

Anyway, I want to keep it simple; so it's ordered and I'm sure I'll figure it out from here after ONE bottle of wine and a slow dinner! :O)

Now that is what I call alchemy! All of these different answers and I only picked one! :O)

Thanks!

SLOWiN'_DOWN · Jul 17, 2006

pentaxuser said:
What constitutes low light is crucial, I would have thought. I'd have thought that ISO 400 was too slow to enable an exposure of 1/30th except in light that I'd consider to be better than my definition of low. I took some pictures recently in a church in Cornwall with HP5 rated at EI250. It was mid-day and the light levels were quite good for a church but exposures were much less than 1/30th and still would have been so at ISO400.

pentaxuser

Yeah, I noticed that too! That's one reason why I'm posting here now. I'm used to SLR and a lot more flexible exposures! With my little f/3.5 having the SLOWEST shutter speed at 1/30 and no meter!!!!!!!

I think it is time to test in what I mean by low light. Candles at Dinner, Holiday Lighting, Birthday Cakes, Night Lites for slumbering babies, etc ...

They did it in the past so I can only assume that my life will be much easier!

Reminder: I'm new at this - as in I've never done it before!

Well, I have done it once when I went to visit my aging parents. The only camera I brought was the rangefinder. The pics came out acceptable and all shots were taken indoors wide open at f/3.5 - 1/30 using Tri-X pushed to 1600

I pushed in Adorama Developer using my achemical guesswork. They're not bad; but since I've fallen in LOVE with this aesthetic - for this purpose - I felt it was time to explore all possiblities before I use TOO much film! I am one snap happy mama!

ps. I may have misunderstood you - up here in the forest - it's always VERY DARK no matter what time of day! There is no way to shoot indoors or even outdoors for that matter at ISO 400 @ 1/30! It's just too dark; unless you get a chain saw out first!

Uncle Bill · Jul 17, 2006

If you are taking pictures indoors with poor lighting, how about Ilford Delta 3200 in HC 110 dil. B for 10.5 min or Rodinal 1:25 at 7.5 min? It will be grainy but the up shot is no flash.

Bill

fhovie · Jul 17, 2006

My vote is for Delta 3200 in Microphen. Unless you can get away with ASA 1600. Then my choice would be TMY in XTOL.

Delta will be a little grainy - Microphen helps a lot but you will have base fog. For me - the BF+F is about .3 Density and that is pretty harsh. Nonetheless - they print well, are sharp and have a true Zone 1 - .32?Density at ASA3200.

TMY in Xtol 1:3 one shot at ASA 1600 does a wonderful job. Very little grain and low fog. - If I can get away with ASA 1600 - this is a winning combo. Most of the time, I need that extra stop - not for shutter speed but for DOF. It very often is worth it to sacrifice a little smoothness for extra sharpness with increased gritty-ness.

Ray Heath · Jul 17, 2006

a huge range of options, who's right? who to follow?
but it seems to me that all this talk about curves and responses and straight lines, and one of the linked images in particular, makes a harshly lit, interesting scene look dull and flat, do we always need to 'flatten/straighten' the 'curve'

fhovie · Jul 18, 2006

It is hard to state everything in a simple post. Most images are most interesting if they use all the shades from white to jet black. Images are usually considered best if there are some details in the highlights and details in some of the shadows. Most films will convert 5 to 7 stops of light into a density range that will print from white to black. If the scene is too contrasty - 7 to 12 stops - film should be overexposed and under developed to squeeze all that contrast into the density range that the paper can handle. Many scenes are low contrast - 3 stops. Here the film should be underexposed and over developed. - that will expand the range to fit the paper.

Now - fast films (3200) are usually low contrast so they can be over devloped to get the speed they are designed to accomplish. When Delta 3200 is exposed and devloped to do ASA 3200, It will capture about 7 stops within the density range of grade 2 paper (1.25). Unfortunatly, most low light settings are not 7 stops but 3 stops or less. TMY is rated at ASA400. When pushed to N+2, ASA1600 it will expand that 3 stops into at least 5 stops of density range for grade 2 paper - an improvement in image quality. That is what all buzz about curves is about.

I just shot some new waterfalls in Oregon 2 months ago. My spot meter showed 5 stops. I wanted a greater density range for printing. I selected FP4 and overdeveloped it in a semi-stand process and acheived a DR of 1.3 which gave me dramitic contrast for Grade 2 paper. It was a deliberate manipulation of the image as found. It made a more interesting photo than if I had shot it with TRI-X, which easily captures 9 stops or more and developed in my normal process.

With 3200 film - you are using an 800 ASA film designed to be pushed. It is very low contrast by nature. You need to factor that in.

Roger Hicks · Jul 18, 2006

SLOWiN'_DOWN said:
They did it in the past so I can only assume that my life will be much easier!

Yes, this is quite fascinating: all those REALLY low-light shots from the late 40s/early 50s when the fastest film readily available (the equivalent of Delta 3200 today) was around ISO 200. Or indeed slower and earlier: look at the Salomon pictures in the 30s with the f/1.8 Ernistar.

Part of the secret was very long exposures, as much as 1/5 second with the elbows braced on the table. Of course we don't know what their failure rate was...

As late as the 60s I was shooting low-light with my old IIIa and 50/3.5 Elmar on ISO 50 colour, hand-held exposures as long as 1 second. Camera shake sometimes, but it surprisingly often didn't matter: the pic succeeded anyway.

Cheers,

Roger

I need a film/dev/fix formula for low available light snappers

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency