Ilford Hp5+ @6400 in 510-Pyro

[pentaxuser]

Sorry, no. I wouldn't attempt to push HP5 that aggressively - the odds of getting usable negatives would be very slim, regardless of what developer you choose. Why the OP doesn't just work with one of the 3200 ASA films is a mystery to me.

Yes I understand why you or others here would not attempt to push HP5 aggressively and why you do not. However the OP did so and in this case got what looks to be a usable negative based on the picture he produced, would you not agree? I also agree that there are limits to what is a usable negative but we seem to be a long way off that limit here. Was this sheer luck and/or based on the specific conditions he had that day which appear to be overcast? I don't know.

What I do know is that the only way to find out where that limit of usable ends is to try which is what exactly what the OP is going to do.

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Again, some subjects work fine at 6400. And... the two "3200" speed films on the market are really truly just ISO 800-1000... that you are push developing to be "3200".

 

[bluechromis]

I'd agree that based on the Anchell and Troop statement above it would seem that tab grain emulsion not pushing as well as HP5+ beyond 2 stops is their conclusion but has any of them actually ran tests on this to find out. Andrew O'Neill tried D400 at 800 and 3200 in a video in 2022. Here it is:https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pushing-ilfords-delta-400.191618/

It looks as if the conclusion of Anchell and Troop, assuming they did mean what you and I think they mean may be open to question

pentaxuser

Thanks for the link.

 

[Steven Lee]

Again, some subjects work fine at 6400. And... the two "3200" speed films on the market are really truly just ISO 800-1000... that you are push developing to be "3200".

This depends on metering habits way more than on film. I watched some of your pushing videos and I can't reproduce your results because I meter differently. Your EI 800 "push" is my box speed "normie" Similarly, there is zero chance the OP's 1st image was exposed at EI 3200. It looks much closer to EI 800 to my eye.

Basically, EI is subjective and non-transferrable between photographers.

 

[cerber0s]

there is zero chance the OP's 1st image was exposed at EI 3200

It wasn’t. It was exposed at 6400

But you are correct in that metering habits makes a difference.

 

[Helge]

Yes, HP5 is probably the most versatile film available. Whether it’s the fastest can and will be debated. TMY a contender but is just too damn expensive as is now (double the price of Ilfords equivalent in the EU).

I’d take HP5 pushed (and preflashed if possible) to 3200 any day, over film that was allegedly meant for it. If we are talking perceived image quality.

Pushing IMO only makes sense if there is moving subject matter in the frame, and you don’t want motion blur. Otherwise a tripod of any kind will beat pushing for quality and speed (developing takes time too) any day.
So mainly indoors at night. That means inherently contrasty light, unless you somewhere with sports grade light.
So it becomes an exercise of choosing the lowest shutter speed you dare (generally 30th if you time your shot) max aperture and hope for the best.

 

[Helge]

I'd agree that based on the Anchell and Troop statement above it would seem that tab grain emulsion not pushing as well as HP5+ beyond 2 stops is their conclusion but has any of them actually ran tests on this to find out. Andrew O'Neill tried D400 at 800 and 3200 in a video in 2022. Here it is:https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pushing-ilfords-delta-400.191618/

It looks as if the conclusion of Anchell and Troop, assuming they did mean what you and I think they mean may be open to question

pentaxuser

There is a huge difference between exposures in daylight and at night when pushing.
It’s mostly done in daylight to be able to stop down further (which makes sense in the shade of a tree).
There is simply more photons available in daylight and they are more evenly distributed.

 

[pentaxuser]

There is a huge difference between exposures in daylight and at night when pushing.
It’s mostly done in daylight to be able to stop down further (which makes sense in the shade of a tree).
There is simply more photons available in daylight and they are more evenly distributed.

I can't disagree but how does this relate to what the OP managed in his shot of the dog ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

I did a push development test with HP5 about a year ago, but I used XTOL. I've also pushed it with 510-Pyro, and Pyrocat-HD. I found EI 1600 to be the sweet spot with all three developers. There's a video on my youtube channel (just search for analogue andy... some people said they couldn't remember my name, but were able to find me by typing in andy+doughnuts )

I enjoyed your video. Judging from your results I think 3200 would be my limit. Looking at my own test I’d probably go to 6400 in a pinch. Right now I’m itching to find out how much difference the development method (stand vs conventional) makes. Or perhaps it’s more a question of dilution?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This depends on metering habits way more than on film. I watched some of your pushing videos and I can't reproduce your results because I meter differently. Your EI 800 "push" is my box speed "normie" Similarly, there is zero chance the OP's 1st image was exposed at EI 3200. It looks much closer to EI 800 to my eye.

Basically, EI is subjective and non-transferrable between photographers.

I think the choice of film matters, too. There's a reason why people think of HP5 when it comes to push development...And yes, I imagine if someone metres a scene using average metering as opposed to reading a shadow tone as I do, and then placing on a tone, there would be a difference.

 

[Helge]

I can't disagree but how does this relate to what the OP managed in his shot of the dog ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

What doesn’t it have to do with it? 6400 might be OK in daylight and work for DoF or extreme shutter speeds. But for low light shooting it’s a completely different story.

 

[pentaxuser]

What doesn’t it have to do? 6400 might be OK in daylight and work
DoF or extreme shutter speeds. But for low light shooting it’s a completely different story.

Thanks So at least the OP knows he is OK in day light as evidenced from his dog picture As for night shots which is what is left of the light conditions to be covered, then from what I've seen at 6400 there are inky black shadows in areas outside of the lighted area but the main lighted area such as a stage or even under the lone street light is fine. Of course this is what you'd expect see in those conditions so it looks as it should

Just as it did in the night scenes in the "atmospheric" The Third Man

pentaxuser

 

[npl]

I haven't quite understood how you meter (metering for the white fur and adding +1 "regardeless of the EI" ???) but I suspect your 6400 is very different from what others would mean by that, the dog picture not looking that underexposed. I too think you actually metered around 800.

If for the sake of discussion we assume "shoot at 6400" mean setting and using an incident light meter at that ISO, 6400 is really overkill for shooting in daylight, regardeless of the weather. Even if it's heavy overcast, you will be fine at 800 or 1600, and HP5 can gives good results at that EI with the proper push in developement.

 

[cerber0s]

I haven't quite understood how you meter (metering for the white fur and adding +1 "regardeless of the EI" ???) but I suspect your 6400 is very different from what others would mean by that, the dog picture not looking that underexposed. I too think you actually metered around 800.

If for the sake of discussion we assume "shoot at 6400" mean setting and using an incident light meter at that ISO, 6400 is really overkill for shooting in daylight, regardeless of the weather. Even if it's heavy overcast, you will be fine at 800 or 1600, and HP5 can gives good results at that EI with the proper push in developement.

For this I used a Canon Eos 5, because that was the camera I had that wasn’t already loaded with film.

I set the ISO to 6400, set the metering mode to spot. I then metered for the white fur on her chest, set the exposure accordingly, then dialed in +1 on the exposure compensation. I would have done exactly the same if I had shot at box speed.

If that somehow all equates to EI 800 I guess I need to revisit 2nd grade math.

Also, it wasn’t broad daylight. It was just before dusk on an overcast day. Light wasn’t exactly great.

 

[Steven Lee]

@cerber0s The dog photo was exposed at EI800 ambient. I do not want to comment on your spot metering technique or equipment, but I've exposed enough HP5+ to know that it cannot look like this exposed at EI6400. As I said above, spot metering and all other forms of reflected metering is incompatible with the EI language because it's extremely subjective and scene-dependent.

 

[npl]

It start to make sense if you actually metered the black fur right above, which is possible since you didn't used a dedicated 1° spot meter, the dog may have moved, and the zone is not very big. The 4 stops underexposure put the black fur somewhere near zone II (from VI if it was set at box speed), and what look like a NOT extreme push in developement (400 time is around 45min ?) put the white fur around zone VI/VII. I could dig up on my other device some shots I made last month with HP5 at EI 800 pushed one stop in Adox XT-3, they feel similar to the dog picture.

Unless you're taking the dog everywhere to serve as a living grey card, how will you meter in Copenhagen ? My previous comment was a general one : If you're not shooting at night, EI 800/1600 (again, assuming incident metering) is more than enough, and HP5 works very well for that, with documented pushed times in common developers that are fine starting points.

 

[pentaxuser]

It start to make sense if you actually metered the black fur right above, which is possible since you didn't used a dedicated 1° spot meter, the dog may have moved, and the zone is not very big. The 4 stops underexposure put the black fur somewhere near zone II (from VI if it was set at box speed), and what look like a NOT extreme push in developement (400 time is around 45min ?) put the white fur around zone VI/VII. I could dig up on my other device some shots I made last month with HP5 at EI 800 pushed one stop in Adox XT-3, they feel similar to the dog picture.

I don't know what degree or degrees the Eos 5 meter in spot mode covers and cerber0s may reply with the information but presumably it allows you to aim the spot mode reasonably accurately such that accidentally "spotting" the black fur instead of the white would be noticed otherwise the spot is worse than useless, isn't it?

If the ISO dial has been pre-set to 6400 then meter reads middle grey at whatever it is pointed so if it is the black fur he has accidentally "spotted" then this looks like more like grade III to me in the photo so in that case he needs to increase the shutter speed by 2 stops in order not to overexpose the zone III fur doesn't he? If on the other hand he has as he says read the white fur on the chest which looks more like a light grey zone VI to me then he needs to dial in +1 stop as he says he did to get the white fur to zone VI so I cannot see what he did wrong

So I am not clear why either method should not work equally well

If on the other hand he thinks he has metered the white fur but has in fact metered the black then dialling in +1 stop gets him zone V1 black fur and the black fur in the picture would look far too light, wouldn't it?

At least that's what my understanding of metering for the zone system says and I appreciate that in all of the above my readings of what the two sets of fur are in terms of zones differ perhaps more than slightly from yours

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

The dog photo was exposed at EI800 ambient.

I’ll take your word for it. That would mean, if I expose using the same method at box speed, I’ll actually expose at EI 50. Correct?

how will you meter in Copenhagen

Same way I almost always do. I look at the scene, find whatever part I want to turn middle gray, expose for that, adjust up or down if I think I need it, compose and shoot.

 

[cerber0s]

I don't know what degree or degrees the Eos 5 meter in spot mode covers

It’s a 3.5% spot.

 

[MattKing]

I’ll take your word for it. That would mean, if I expose using the same method at box speed, I’ll actually expose at EI 50. Correct?

The critical thing to understand is that if you are taking your meter reading from an area of the subject that doesn't have reflectance that is close to 18%, you aren't metering at the EI set on the meter, you are metering at an EI that is offset from that meter setting.
With an averaging meter, and a subject that has a range of tones and reflectance, the average of all the reflectance in that scene will most likely average out at about 12-18% - little or no offset necessary.
With respect to the white fur on the dog, the relatively high reflectance of the fur - and intended/visualized "Zone" for the fur - might lead to an offset that could be 1, 2, 3 or maybe as much as 4 stops away from the set EI - it depends on the fur.
So if you set the meter to 6400, the actual speed you are metering for is either 3200, 1600, 800 or maybe as low as 400. Only you can judge how many "Zones" offset are necessary, because it is you that are doing the visualizing.

My guess is that the fur probably belongs on Zone VII - a two Zone offset from Zone V/medium grey. That means with a meter set to 6400, you are actually using an EI of 1600.

 

[npl]

Same way I almost always do. I look at the scene, find whatever part I want to turn middle gray, expose for that, adjust up or down if I think I need it, compose and shoot.

OK. That's a fine and standard method so I still recommend shooting at 800 (or 1600 if you think you need the speed) and developing accordingly. That's enough speed and an acceptable level of shadows details, with low risk.

@pentaxuser : yes, a spot meter will give you the reading to have middle gray on paper IF the meter is set at the actual sensitivity of the film, and a "normal" developement is given. Here the meter was tricked to think that the film was four time more sensitive that it actually is, and we do not know how many zones the highlights were moved by this 90min stand developement. If it's like rodinal, I'd guesstimate not more than 1. The method of metering the white fur and adding one stop to put it in zone VI sound fine to me IF the meter is set at box speed and a normal N developement is done.

 

[cerber0s]

My guess is that the fur probably belongs on Zone VII - a two Zone offset from Zone V/medium grey. That means with a meter set to 6400, you are actually using an EI of 1600.

But wouldn’t metering for the brightest part further underexpose rather than overexpose the rest of the scene?

 

[pentaxuser]

But wouldn’t metering for the brightest part further underexpose rather than overexpose the rest of the scene?

I'd have thought so, thus the rest of the picture would be wrong which it isn't as far as I can see or it would seem anyone can see as the one thing that nobody is stating is that the picture is anything less than at least acceptable and in my opinion is good.

So what we are trying to establish is : In what circumstances might 6400 be the correct EI and still get you this picture or under what circumstances might you think this was a genuine 6400 exposure but in fact was 3200/1600 or even 800

Hers's a thought, has anyone taken a similar picture under similar light conditions at 6400 ideally using the same camera, the same developer and processing method. If so I hope they will show us their results

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

I wanted to do another test, but in lighting conditions where ISO 6400 would actually be more or less necessary when shooting handheld. The first attempt failed miserably as the negatives came out almost blank from a 1:500 dilution. While mentally recreating my steps I realized that I accidentally mixed my developer wrong in the first test, I mixed it at 1:100, not 1:500 as I stated in my original post. Making another attempt I mixed the developer at 1:100 and did another semi stand development for 90 minutes. These were shot at night, on my dimly lit kitchen table. The exposures were 1/180 @ f4 and 1/90 @ f2.0. For the first photo (1/180@f4) I measured and exposed for the table top between the cameras. For the second photo I measured the exposure for the Fujifilm camera, and manually compensated -1 step by adjusting shutter time and aperture (I did not use the exposure compensation).

Some conclusions:

• When you say that the dog photo was in fact not exposed at EI 6400 (ambient), you are probably correct.
• When you say that using the term EI to determine exposure isn't valid when spot metering, you are also correct.
• Exposing HP5 at 6400 is still valid for me, using my method of measuring and photographing, regardless of what the actual EI turns out to be.
• I should pay more attention when mixing my chemicals.

Here are the photos. I of course dropped the negatives emulsion side down and had to re-wash them. Some scratches, spots and drying marks, but you get the picture (pun intended).

 

[Steve@f8]

Thinking of trying HP5+ at 6400 myself, using Rodinal. From recollection the MDC indicates 52mins at 21C for 1:50, with agitation for 30s in 1st minute, then 10s every minute thereafter. That sounds a bit of a chore, I’m more inclined semi-stand. What do you think?
PS I like grain.