Least grain film at 1600?

crumpet8 · Feb 27, 2017

Hi,

I have a project to shoot and need a lot of film speed, but would also like to make easier prints. I've found that overexposing two stops with hp5+ and developing normally has given me great negs to print with so am thinking to continue with this method on the new project.

So my question is... what will give me the least grain at 1600? Delta 3200 shot at 1600 and exposed normally? Or another film/technique? Some of my shots will also be shot at 3200, but for these the print-making isn't so important.

I recently shot a roll of ilford 3200 like this and although it was expected, I wonder if there's another option? And also, The only developer I have access to is hc110.

Thanks,

Daniel

flavio81 · Feb 27, 2017

crumpet8 said:
Hi,

I have a project to shoot and need a lot of film speed, but would also like to make easier prints. I've found that overexposing two stops with hp5+ and developing normally has given me great negs to print with so am thinking to continue with this method on the new project.

So my question is... what will give me the least grain at 1600? Delta 3200 shot at 1600 and exposed normally? Or another film/technique? Some of my shots will also be shot at 3200, but for these the print-making isn't so important.

I recently shot a roll of ilford 3200 like this and although it was expected, I wonder if there's another option? And also, The only developer I have access to is hc110.

Thanks,

Daniel

I think it HP5 pushed to 1200 should be finer than Delta 3200 shot at 1600. Delta is a faster film (ISO 1250) than HP5 (ISO 400) so grain should be bigger in general.

For developers i would recommend Microphen but HC110 was intended for pushing as well (a favorite of press photographers). But i think Microphen would give smaller grain.

rubbernglue · Feb 27, 2017

In my experience tmax 400 is (my best film) for pushing.
This is tmax400 shot at 3200 and developed as 5000 in microphen; 1+0 12min 1min/agit @20C
Have a look in good resolution at flickr, and notice the shadows

267 m645 11 by Johan, on Flickr

MattKing · Feb 27, 2017

crumpet8 said:
I've found that overexposing two stops with hp5+

This means that you metered and shot at an EI of 100.
Did you, by chance, mean underexposing?

Pioneer · Feb 27, 2017

Kodak TMY 400 pushes very nicely to 1600 but will still show some grain at EI1600. TriX will easily go to 1600 but it brings its grain with it. But Delta 3200 at 1600 is actually a bit better than TMY if developed in Ilfotec DDX. My own experience is that just about any of the fast films will have some grain in 35mm.

Medium format or 4x5 is an entirely different story. The grain is still around but you do not have to enlarge the larger films as much so it doesn't rear its head quite as quickly.

But grain is really not the terrible thing it is made out to be. Some grain helps the impression of sharpness so no grain may not give you prints that are as sharp as you expect.

kb244 · Feb 27, 2017

I wonder if shooting Tri-X as 1600 would work, when developed in a fine grain developer like Microphen?

I usually don't mind too much grain for a high speed film, as long as it seems sharp and clear what the object is. As opposed to being randomly chunky. Well in regards to 35mm anyways.

The results with that particular batch of film was worse with HC-110, microphen seemed better for pushing or keeping the grain as fine as possible, least that's what I've noticed when going thru some expired film (a category of their own) compared to either Sprint (non-blocking highlight) or HC-110.

Though I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe finding a semi-stand formula with a high dilution of HC-110 might be better if you have to use HC-110.

kb244 · Feb 27, 2017

rubbernglue said:
In my experience tmax 400 is (my best film) for pushing.
This is tmax400 shot at 3200 and developed as 5000 in microphen; 1+0 12min 1min/agit @20C
Have a look in good resolution at flickr, and notice the shadows

267 m645 11 by Johan, on Flickr

wow....

summicron1 · Feb 28, 2017

i just did some ilford hp5 plus at 1600 in a minox, pushing it by guess and by golly in Perceptol, developing it 1:1 for 30 minutes because it just seemed right, nothing anywhere recommends this.

It came out a titch grainy, yes, but not as bad as the shot of the desk worker up above. the biggest problem was i over-developed it. Maybe try it diluted 1:3 for 30 minutes next time. I dunno. Minox film, remember is 9.2mm wide, so I can't recommend using this fast a film under any circumstances, actually.

i have, in the past, with 35mm camera/film, pushed tri-x to 1600 in d-76 diluted 1:1 (about 14 minutes developing time) and the results were actually very not grainy even on an 11 by 14 print.

crumpet8 · Feb 28, 2017

MattKing said:
This means that you metered and shot at an EI of 100.
Did you, by chance, mean underexposing?

No I shoot it at 100 and develop normally. But I was just explaining the process that I would use if I had delta 3200. I.e. Shoot it at 1600 for example and develop normally. This seems to give me negs I like to print with.

I've never shot hp5 at 1600 before, but have a project now that requires shooting at 1600-3200.

crumpet8 · Feb 28, 2017

rubbernglue said:
In my experience tmax 400 is (my best film) for pushing.
This is tmax400 shot at 3200 and developed as 5000 in microphen; 1+0 12min 1min/agit @20C
Have a look in good resolution at flickr, and notice the shadows

267 m645 11 by Johan, on Flickr

Also wow! This result would be more than acceptable grain wise

crumpet8 · Feb 28, 2017

kb244 said:
I wonder if shooting Tri-X as 1600 would work, when developed in a fine grain developer like Microphen?

I usually don't mind too
.

Though I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe finding a semi-stand formula with a high dilution of HC-110 might be better if you have to use HC-110.

Thanks Karl, this is too much for my taste though, would rather bring in a flash.

kb244 · Feb 28, 2017

crumpet8 said:
Thanks Karl, this is too much for my taste though, would rather bring in a flash.

rubbernglue's results are quite stunning considering. Also bare in mind, my result is from P3200 expired in 2004. P3200 ages poorly and it was not refrigerated, also had a darker base thus reducing the contrast. The above result was in Microphen 1:1, which made the grain look close to what it would have looked like originally before expiration. But in HC-110 I had to use EI400 just to get decent denser results out of the negatives.

So there are situations where HC-110 is ill suited for the desired result, and may be required to look at other developer combinations. Though I do understand your desire to stick with HC-110, it's rather convenient and can easily be made one-shot just from the concentrate that seems to last indefinitely. If you got a few projects you want to get out of the way quickly, Microphen stock has a shelf life of about 2 months, and you can just toss any dilutions you make from it as one-shots (it's not recommended to keep dilutions for any longer than 24 hours).

By the way, here's a recipe for shooting HP5+ as 1600 in HC-110 1:63 (Dilution H I think)

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9874

The results seem decent from what I can tell from the flickr photos.

Ian Grant · Feb 28, 2017

35mm & 120 XP2 push processed, it's what I used for years photographing rock concerts, gives by far the finest grain.

LF HP5 at 1600 EI in Pyrocat HD is remarkably fine grained.

Ian

howardpan · Feb 28, 2017

I just made prints this afternoon in the darkroom with 135 format HP5+ and Delta 3200 negatives that were both shot at 1600. The HP5 negatives were developed with Spur SLD + Push Master according to the datasheet. The Delta 3200 negatives were developed in D76 stock for 13 minutes to boost the contrast. 8x10 prints were made (image size 7x9 so there was some cropping). Whereas the grain from the Delta 3200 was clearly evident, the grain from HP+ was barely noticeable. I don't think I ever achieved this degree of fine grain with HP5 when developed with D76 or Ilford DDX.

Rudeofus · Feb 28, 2017

To all these folks cheering 'this is Tri-X/HP5+/whatever pushed two stops' images: there are two factors to every exposure measurement:

whatever you set EI dial on your camera or exposure meter to
the area you point your meter at

You can trivially shoot TMAX 100 at EI 1600 and get great shadow detail even without push processing, if you point your meter at the very darkest area of your image. At the same time TMAX 100 will look underexposed even at EI50 if you meter a strong highlight.

crumpet8 · Feb 28, 2017

Thanks for the tips everyone all taken on board.

Rudeofus said:
To all these folks cheering 'this is Tri-X/HP5+/whatever pushed two stops' images: there are two factors to every exposure measurement:

whatever you set EI dial on your camera or exposure meter to

the area you point your meter at

You can trivially shoot TMAX 100 at EI 1600 and get great shadow detail even without push processing, if you point your meter at the very darkest area of your image. At the same time TMAX 100 will look underexposed even at EI50 if you meter a strong highlight.

This seems a ridiculous way of working/metering, but that was your point right? I don't have a camera with a light meter so everything is manually metered.

Lachlan Young · Feb 28, 2017

Rudeofus said:
To all these folks cheering 'this is Tri-X/HP5+/whatever pushed two stops' images: there are two factors to every exposure measurement:

whatever you set EI dial on your camera or exposure meter to

the area you point your meter at

You can trivially shoot TMAX 100 at EI 1600 and get great shadow detail even without push processing, if you point your meter at the very darkest area of your image. At the same time TMAX 100 will look underexposed even at EI50 if you meter a strong highlight.

This is often at the forefront of my mind whenever someone claims to have achieved some sort of ridiculous EI - and very rarely does the claimant actually have a print or a high end scan to provide any evidence.

Other key point for the OP, Delta 3200 metered & processed for approx G-bar of 0.55-ish & an EI of 1000 is going to have quite different contrast behaviour than TMY metered at the same & pushed - & that's before we start considering the effects of two different characteristic curves, or how they'd print on different papers & what details the toe of the film might hold, but which might get lost in the toe of the paper at a grade & exposure necessary to ensure the highlights look good.

The TMZ in post #6 is hideously oversharpened.

rubbernglue · Feb 28, 2017

Lachlan Young said:
This is often at the forefront of my mind whenever someone claims to have achieved some sort of ridiculous EI - and very rarely does the claimant actually have a print or a high end scan to provide any evidence.

I have a tiny feeling that this was towards my post above, so, how can I possibly provide "evidence" of some sort when in fact not even the negative would claim as good evidence, as I COULD hypothetically have had the camera on a tripod and had a long exposure at box speed, right? I can just say that all correctly made exposures on that roll looks really good, metered using a handheld sekonic l-358.

klownshed · Feb 28, 2017

crumpet8 said:
I've never shot hp5 at 1600 before

I love HP5+ @ 1600, in DD-X or Microphen. I regularly use this combination and love the tones I get with it.

https://instagram.com/p/BOrS1CaAn4b/

crumpet8 · Feb 28, 2017

klownshed said:
I love HP5+ @ 1600, in DD-X or Microphen. I regularly use this combination and love the tones I get with it.

https://instagram.com/p/BOrS1CaAn4b/

I think I'm going to try hp5 in hc110 seeing as that's what I also shoot in 4x5, it's been suggested here a couple of times. We just have hc110 at school now so will test that first, even though it sounds like another dev would work better.. nice Insta by the way

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

crumpet8 said:
No I shoot it at 100 and develop normally. But I was just explaining the process that I would use if I had delta 3200. I.e. Shoot it at 1600 for example and develop normally. This seems to give me negs I like to print with.

I've never shot hp5 at 1600 before, but have a project now that requires shooting at 1600-3200.

Here is the problem with extrapolating this way.
Delta 3200 is a 1000 ISO film with a characteristic curve that results in less contrast than normal. So when you underexpose, and then try to compensate a bit by increasing development, you don't really gain any shadow detail ("speed") over that 1000 figure, but your mid-tones and highlights do render better, as they are less blown out than a more typical ISO 1000 film.
HP5+ however, is a 400 ISO film with a more typical characteristic curve. So not only is it markedly less sensitive to light (ISO 400 vs. ISO 1000), with correspondingly less shadow detail, it will also give you way more in the way of distorted/blown out midtones and highlights when you increase development to try to compensate for the under-exposure.

removed-user-1 · Feb 28, 2017

Years ago I saw a gorgeous 11x14 print of a ballet dancer on stage, which had technical info. I don't remember the time or the dilution, but the film was Tri-x rated at 2000 and processed in Microdol-x. I've always wanted to try that combo out.

flavio81 · Feb 28, 2017

MattKing said:
Here is the problem with extrapolating this way.
Delta 3200 is a 1000 ISO film with a characteristic curve that results in less contrast than normal. So when you underexpose, and then try to compensate a bit by increasing development, you don't really gain any shadow detail ("speed") over that 1000 figure, but your mid-tones and highlights do render better, as they are less blown out than a more typical ISO 1000 film.
HP5+ however, is a 400 ISO film with a more typical characteristic curve. (...)

Well said, Matt.

However, i differ with you in HP5. My opinion is that HP5 is also a rather lowish contrast film, that's why it pushes so well at 1600. I have some shots made with HP5 pushed to 1600 (using Microphen) that look so good, you'd think HP5 was actually a ISO 1600 film. Of course, still there is less shadow detail, but contrast is not exaggerated.

markbarendt · Feb 28, 2017

flavio81 said:
Well said, Matt.

However, i differ with you in HP5. My opinion is that HP5 is also a rather lowish contrast film, that's why it pushes so well at 1600. I have some shots made with HP5 pushed to 1600 (using Microphen) that look so good, you'd think HP5 was actually a ISO 1600 film. Of course, still there is less shadow detail, but contrast is not exaggerated.

Um, the difference between a 400 ISO and 1600 ISO film is how much shadow detail is available.

Colin Corneau · Feb 28, 2017

I've had the best luck with TMY at 1600 -- developers will be at least as important as your film, I think. DD-X is a perfect developer for good grain and pushing film, from my experience.

Least grain film at 1600?

crumpet8

flavio81

rubbernglue

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

kb244

kb244

summicron1

crumpet8

crumpet8

crumpet8

kb244

Ian Grant

howardpan

Rudeofus

crumpet8

Lachlan Young

rubbernglue

klownshed

crumpet8

MattKing

Moderator

removed-user-1

flavio81

markbarendt

Colin Corneau

Least grain film at 1600?

Moderator

Moderator

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency