Provia 400X pushed to ISO 1600

[Matus Kalisky]

Hello,

I know there has been some discussion on this topic and I have also seen some successful examples of Provia 400X pushed to ISO 1600.

I have just got one roll of 400X I have exposed with a Mamiya 6 under different conditions. Most of the photos look underexposed. Even worse - there seem to be no true black in the slides. The slides also look rather flat. I will examine them into more details with a loupe on light table once I get home. But the first impression is not that great.

I will scan some of these, but probably will not manage before Friday (I leave for vacation and would like to used pushed 400X there ...)

So - I am wondering what is your experience. Do you expose the 400X and ISO 1600 and have it developed +2N or you expose it at somewhat lower ISO while keeping the development at +2N ?

How do you proceed when you want to push only to ISO 800?

Caveat I: The Mamiya 6 is rather new to me. But being aware of possible underexposure resulting of how the metering behaves I did for most occasions two exposures (one "direct" metering and one avoiding highlights in the viewfinder that did not belong to image like lamps or bright sky). At the same time I have exposed one Provia 100F and one Velvia 100 films with the same metering technique in in most cases only the "second" exposure is correct.

Caveat II: the lab I am using does always a great job (they do only slides) so I do not suspect any problems there.

 

[Erik Petersson]

I have got interesting results, although the contrast is very high. Colours are a little off. Here is a link to some of the pictures. I exposed the film on 1600 and asked the lab to press it two stops.

http://erikpetersson.livejournal.com/20913.html
http://pics.livejournal.com/erikpetersson/pic/00044twh/
http://pics.livejournal.com/erikpetersson/pic/0004b96x/

 

[Athiril]

Someone on flickr sat it in a dev tank with nothing but mercury vapour for 2 days pre-developing, post-exposure, and apparently seems to get more developable shadow detail.

 

[Josh Harmon]

Someone on flickr sat it in a dev tank with nothing but mercury vapour for 2 days pre-developing, post-exposure, and apparently seems to get more developable shadow detail.

Isnt that just film hyper-sensitization?

 

[hrst]

Push processing reduces DMAX. This is not a problem for those who print or scan, but for projection this can be a major drawback, because film is usually pushed when speed is needed in dark night shots, and that's when DMAX is crucial for pictures to look good.

 

[Athiril]

Isnt that just film hyper-sensitization?

I dont really know sorry.

 

[Rudeofus]

Isnt that just film hyper-sensitization?

Whatever it is, I sure wouldn't want even traces of (non contained) mercury vapor around my home ...

 

[Athiril]

Whatever it is, I sure wouldn't want even traces of (non contained) mercury vapor around my home ...

I cant remember his source, but break a cheap thermometer and sticking it in the bottom of a plastic hand dev tank and sealing it up does the trick, then putting the film in once the reel is loaded etc.

 

[2F/2F]

Well, there has already been some great advice in this thread so far, so I don't think I can add anything...

 

[thuggins]

I've pushed the original formulation of Provia 400 two stops, and had it developed with a two stop push. The results were very good. The shots were taken both in daylight and very dim artificial light (actually, formations in a cavern). As I recall, Fuji's spec sheet states that 400X can be pushed to 1600. If you are having problems it is probably not the film.

 

[TWoK]

I've shot a ton of Provia 400X @ 1600. Here are a few examples:


Maple Leaves by NateVenture, on Flickr

It can get some crazy colors in weird light:

Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


Keitai by NateVenture, on Flickr


Phone by NateVenture, on Flickr


Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


とまれ by NateVenture, on Flickr


Strut by NateVenture, on Flickr


Bling Bling by NateVenture, on Flickr


Just a Blur by NateVenture, on Flickr

 

[TWoK]

@800:

Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr

@3200:

The Davis by NateVenture, on Flickr

 

[clayne]

I cant remember his source, but break a cheap thermometer and sticking it in the bottom of a plastic hand dev tank and sealing it up does the trick, then putting the film in once the reel is loaded etc.

Sounds like total BS to me.

 

[Athiril]

Sounds like total BS to me.

Sorry, don't post things like that, that would lead others to believe it is when you have no evidence to say so.

 

[ntenny]

The use of mercury vapour for hypersensitisation is quite well known in the astrophotography world---I guess the only question would be whether a pool of mercury at room temperature outgasses enough to do much good. I don't see any special reason to write the claim off as "total BS".

-NT

 

[holmburgers]

TWok, great pictures! Japan is a trip, ne...

Mercury hypersensitisation is surely not BS. As for outgassing at room temp, IDK, but Daguerre's method used a candle to heat a tin of mercury. But if it's liquid at room temp, it stands to reason that some might vaporize.

 

[perkeleellinen]

TWok, great pictures!

+1

Some really great shots with lovely grain.

 

[clayne]

The use of mercury vapour for hypersensitisation is quite well known in the astrophotography world---I guess the only question would be whether a pool of mercury at room temperature outgasses enough to do much good. I don't see any special reason to write the claim off as "total BS".

-NT

Oh by no means do I not believe in mercury sensitization. It was merely in reference to breaking a thermometer and letting the film sit next to the mercury as a way to do it.

What's next? Gold from urine?

 

[Athiril]

Yeah dont say that. You are calling a person a liar. But you have no evidence.

I have several cheap mercury thermometers, I've accidentally broken some before, it's enough to fill a room quickly. Putting it in an enclosed container with film will have the film sitting in mercury vapour.

 

[Alvaro Gomez]

I will post an example that came up really nice later

 

[olleorama]

Seriously people, mercury vapour for the sake of developing film? I'd rather go digital! Mercury is nasty stuff. Specially considering it's potential benefit in this case.

 

[holmburgers]

Looking forward to it Alvaro.

 

[JSebrof]

I'm also looking forward to it, but in the meantime I found this video that shows the mercury evaporating at room temperature. It does say the beaker has been warmed by hands though.

 

[Klainmeister]

Mercury does indeed vaporize at room temperature. Check out this health and safety vid: http://www.mwsi.com/new/videos/Mercury.mpg

The ultraviolet light is needed to visually see it, since the vapor is to...ummm...'thin' to see with the naked eye (don't know a better term).

I surely wouldn't do this since exposure to mercury is so incredibly damaging to the human nervous system. That said, film speed increases can be done with ammonia or peroxide since all you're trying to do is super-saturate the film emulsion with oxygen to help speed up the halide reactions. There's an old astrophotography book somewhere on my shelf that speaks of doing this when the old BW emulsions were still very slow and they needed the increase.

 

[holmburgers]

This thread isn't really about mercury sensitization, that was just a tangent. It's just about pushing Provia 400 to 1600. I would bet that Alvaro here did nothing with mercury.