Ilford Hp5+ @6400 in 510-Pyro

[npl]

He surely knows that because his ISO film speed was set at 6400 and he observed the sequential change shutter speeds in accordance with that number of exposure stop changes

What is the evidence that stand development in any developer cannot give such a push. Is there a limit to pushing for stand that does not apply to "normal" development and if so what is it and is it based on actual trials or are you saying that the limit to pushing applies to any developer even if normally agitated?

Leaving aside Pyro 510 if I may for a moment, for which 1 + 100 is normal and turning to say Rodinal which at 1+100 is highly diluted the answer surely is to ensure that the minimum developer amount is met for 1 film which may be 5ml then does the dilution matter? I'd have logically thought not

I now note that you agree the OP did shoot at 6400 but I was composing my reply while you had already replied on this point My other questions are I believe still valid

Thanks

pentaxuser

I stand (no pun intended) corrected if 1:100 is normal dilution with 510-pyro. 1:500 would be a rough equivalent to rodinal/HC-110 1:100/1:119 ?

Regarding rodinal that I do know, my understanding is that at 1:100, after an hour stand the developer is exhausted (or nearly exhausted), so prolonging the time does next to nothing. On the other hand, I recall now a photographer saying that he left by mistake a roll the whole night and it came out very dense, so maybe it's not as inactive as I thought. Maybe it's possible to push one or two stop with this, but four ??

 

[pentaxuser]

I stand (no pun intended) corrected if 1:100 is normal dilution with 510-pyro. 1:500 would be a rough equivalent to rodinal/HC-110 1:100/1:119 ?

Maybe it's possible to push one or two stop with this, but four ??

Yes it is remarkable or appears to be in everyone's mind but (a) no-one has really come up with a reason for these 4 stops not being possible in which the logic used as to why it isn't 6400 is impeccable , IMO

(b) In my own case I have never seen other pictures taken with HP5+ in similar daylight with which to compare the dog picture

In my early days when photography was new to me( not that many years ago ) I would gleefully shoot every and any b&w film I could lay my hands on. I tried 35mm D3200 and knowing nothing about the real speed of D3200 exposed it at EI 3200 in slightly better daylight than the OP has in his picture and apart from being more grainy when enlarged to beyond an 8x10 print size. The print was fine. Would it have stood one stop more without a shadow problem, probably but I cannot say as I never tried it at 6400.

Of course the film was not D3200 in the OP's case but HP5+ so what's the relevance of my experience? You might argue that there isn't much but on the other hand we know that in tests of HP5+ v D3200 the differences at 3200 do not appear to be great so might HP5+ in daylight cope with one more stop? It would seem possible to me

I suspect the problem in determining what kind of issues that arise with HP5+ at 4 stops more is that there are few comparable examples to examine. By examples I mean pictures taken in similar flat shadowless daylight in HP5+ at 6400

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes it is remarkable or appears to be in everyone's mind but (a) no-one has really come up with a reason for these 4 stops not being possible in which the logic used as to why it isn't 6400 is impeccable , IMO

(b) In my own case I have never seen other pictures taken with HP5+ in similar daylight with which to compare the dog picture

In my early days when photography was new to me( not that many years ago ) I would gleefully shoot every and any b&w film I could lay my hands on. I tried 35mm D3200 and knowing nothing about the real speed of D3200 exposed it at EI 3200 in slightly better daylight than the OP has in his picture and apart from being more grainy when enlarged to beyond an 8x10 print size. The print was fine. Would it have stood one stop more without a shadow problem, probably but I cannot say as I never tried it at 6400.

Of course the film was not D3200 in the OP's case but HP5+ so what's the relevance of my experience? You might argue that there isn't much but on the other hand we know that in tests of HP5+ v D3200 the differences at 3200 do not appear to be great so might HP5+ in daylight cope with one more stop? It would seem possible to me

I suspect the problem in determining what kind of issues that arise with HP5+ at 4 stops more is that there are few comparable examples to examine. By examples I mean pictures taken in similar flat shadowless daylight in HP5+ at 6400

pentaxuser

To be fair though, the dog photo does not have deep shadows in it. A photo with deep shadow detail, taken at 6400, and the push processed, would lack most, if not all, detail there. The dog photo works because of the lack of deep shadow detail.

 

[cerber0s]

To be fair though, the dog photo does not have deep shadows in it. A photo with deep shadow detail, taken at 6400, and the push processed, would lack most, if not all, detail there. The dog photo works because of the lack of deep shadow detail.

That is very true, the little light there was, was completely flat. The photo of the cameras has some contrast in it, and it also lacks shadow detail, as expected. For me, it’s totally useable though.

I might try to print the camera photo, just for fun, to see what I can get out of it.

 

[pentaxuser]

To be fair though, the dog photo does not have deep shadows in it. A photo with deep shadow detail, taken at 6400, and the push processed, would lack most, if not all, detail there. The dog photo works because of the lack of deep shadow detail.

Yes that's my thought as well, Andy. It probably required those conditions to work properly Mind you in probably 3 out of 4 seasons north of latitude 50 or so in a lot of Europe and especially the U.K. flat dull light is very plentiful

I was just disappointed at how many on the thread seemed willing "to go to the barricades" to insist that at 6400 such a picture was virtually impossible

pentaxuser