Push FP4 or pull HP5?

DREW WILEY said:

Are you implying you expose TMY at ASA 12 ???

Click to expand...

yep thats what i do, it works out great !

nice BEEFY negatives.
thin film is useless ...

latitude is one of those terms which gets bounced around but it really has no defined meaning. People use the term without actually saying what they mean.

Generally for minimum grain from any film you keep exposure and development to the minimum that you can for that particular film. This means placing the exposure as near to bottom of the curve without compromising shadow detail. Any latitude means one thing only and that is that you can place the exposure further up the film curve by giving extra exposure. So generally speaking there is only latitude in one direction and that is over exposure which equates to pulling and definitely not pushing.
If you need to use 200 speed then use HP5 and pull it to 200. And that equates to one stop of over exposure. Hp5 has a long enough straight line portion of the curve in most standard developers that you shouldn't need to alter development. However, Zone system workers looking for a slightly less contrasty negative would reduce development by 30% to 50% to get the results they want so this a very common thing which is done without referring to it as pulling.

If you push FP4 you are placing the exposure lower down its natural curve and you risk losing shadow detail. And if you give it extra development to try and compensate you will increase the steepness/contrast of the result. Usually this a bad thing. However, in a low subject contrast situation it can be a good thing.

And pulling a film and reducing development is a good thing in a high subject contrast situation.

So what it really comes down to is your subject contrast. If its a low contrast subject then push the FP4 and give extra development. If its a high contrast subject then pull HP5 and reduce the development. And if its a normal contrast subject then I'd pull the HP5 and give normal development.

Note: Pushing a film makes getting your exposure correct more critical than normal so is higher risk of getting it wrong.

The above post is exactly correct.

I would only add the the current trend of hybrid workflows of shooting film and scanning have lent to a trend of developing for lower contrast and dealing with it in PP. That is a completely valid approach, but if you are printing traditionally, you will have a hard time taming these negatives in the darkroom if not developed to a standard CI.

Adam W said:

If I was to shoot both HP5 and FP4 at 200, how would they look different?

Click to expand...

To answer your question exactly as you have asked, given normal development of both films then the FP4 would lose some shadow detail/separation due to it being shifted down the curve. The HP5 would gain some extra shadow detail/separation due them being shifted up the curve.

jnanian said:

yep thats what i do, it works out great !

nice BEEFY negatives.
thin film is useless ...

Click to expand...

That's great John, I have got to give that a try!

jnanian said:

yep thats what i do, it works out great !

nice BEEFY negatives.
thin film is useless ...

Click to expand...

I like those. How do you process the negatives?

Adam W said:

If I was to shoot both HP5 and FP4 at 200, how would they look different?

Click to expand...

Negatives are an "intermediate medium" not the final output. They don't have a given "look".

In my experience, nearly identical prints can be made from either film shot at 50, 100, or 200. That means the prints would include the exact same range of subject matter and could have a printed contrast rate that was nearly indistinguishable from each other.

What I'm saying is that from 10' away, maybe even 5'; you would probably be hard pressed to see a difference.

Get closer and an FP4 negative processed normally should produce prints where fine subject details would be better defined and they should show less prominent grain than a print from normally processed HP5.

The magic word I said above is "print". A "print" in this case can be translated to mean a "positive" image.

The print/output is always, always, always a compilation of the negatives characteristics and the printer's (you, me, or whoever's) choices during the printing process.

Adam W said:

I like those. How do you process the negatives?

Click to expand...

hi adam

what i did was mix a strong batch of caffenol C.
the 4x5 sheets were processed in the moonlight lit washroom of
my father in law in france. the coffee was purchased at the local leclerc
supermarket ( the brand was "el gringo" instant coffee ) the washing soda
and vit c was purchased at a pharmacy in arcey france on rue de ste marie ..
i didn't mix by measure but free poured into a kitty litter tray about 1/3 the coffee
then a large pour of the washing soda into about 1L of water and i rocked until it was dissolved ...
i added the vit c and rocked the tray until it foamed and i stopped .. (my father in law laughed, that might have been the most important part ! )
then we began to process the sheets of film ( it wasn't pitch black )
... my father in law ketp time as i shuffled .. i was procerssing maybe 20-24 ( or more ) sheets at once ..
at about 18 mins i washed and fixed the film and hung it in his garage on a string with clothes pins ... my wife and her sisters came home from
their night on the town ( they went to an algerian restaurant i think i remember the mint tea conversation )

the 120 film was processed a week later, with the same washing soda and vit c but with local sourced instant coffee
(it was cheap gut rot from the local stop and shop ) and i added about 15cc of 7 month old full strength (stock ) ansco 130 into the caffenol c

... i pre-wet the film, ( all 120 ) and put the developer in the tanks to the top, agitated for a second or 2 and hit the tanks to get the bubbles off.
i let them sit ( stand developed ) for about 30 mins and then i washed and fixed them.

the 4x5 sheets were bulletproof, you can see through them even with a bright light. i contact print them on rc paper with a 300w bulb
the 120 negatives have a little meat to them too, not bullet proof but they looked pretty normal and i contact print them as well ..

i'd rather have long bright exposures than stopped all the way down and 2 seconds .. there is so much information on a negative when you have
density that it makes them easy and fun to print, even with a bright light and sunglasses.

but with everything, YMMV

john

====

forgot to add:

the paper and film needs to be expired .. the 4x5s were made on 20 year old polymax rc and in ansco130 1:1
the other 3 were made on ilford fbmg (5x7 ) purchased probably in 2005 and in the same ansco dilution.
the film was tmy purchased just before 9-11, it expired in around 2003. the rolls were tmy or plus x expired maybe in 2006.

Adam W said:

Thanks for all the replies and patience with a beginner. Coming from digital, where ISO is a very straightforward affair, I'm still trying to understand the subtlies of film speed and how it interrelates with other factors.

Click to expand...

Digital can be simpler for the user to think about because you shoot and instantly get a positive. Adjusting the ISO number makes a change to the final output (the positive) that you can see.

There's a lot of stuff hidden though inside the camera.

This gives the illusion that a given ISO number will always provide a given result. Adjust the preferences (the print to positive settings) in your digital camera (contrast, WB, ...) and shoot again and you may find that exposure is too light or too dark and that resetting to a different ISO setting fixes it.

With negative film the choices of how to make a positive come later, they aren't necessarily made at the camera, nor even in the film processing (as in push or pull). They are most often made as they become a positive when printed via an enlarger or as in your case when scanned and processed.

Michael R 1974 said:

I'm stealing this line for sure. A concise way of putting it.

Click to expand...

Wish I could say it was my idea. I don't remember where I got it, may have even been from you.

APUGuser19 said:

I have a stricter opinion on pushing and pulling than most on here, I'm sure. Developers like Acufine, Microphen, etc. do give a genuine honest speed increase over "standard" speed. But then I define speed pushing as maintaining film latitude while achieving the increase. My own ideas on pushing are more conservative than many out there, so my input might not be well received.

Click to expand...

Mine may not be well received either, but here it is.
The FP4 the shadows will under-exposed,and the HP5 will be over-exposed and low in contrast.

Hmmm... my testing has gotten me to really like HP5+ at around 250. It's very useable up to 1600 in a pinch, though deep shadows will suffer. But at 200-320, you can really hold some texture in shadows.

Michael R 1974 said:

Good to see some posts from you, Mark. I hope you're settling into all the changes.

Click to expand...

Been fun making a few posts and seeing what's up around here. Got a ways to go to before I'm fully settled in my new world.

Ok back to the grind stone...

To the OP, I suggest you run your own film speed tests with some 400 speed films. In certain developers HP5 or Tri-x or TMY-II etc, will be a 200 speed film. Those that keep saying HP5 will be overexposed at 200 are not necessarily correct. It all depends on the film, the way YOU and your camera meter, and your developer, and even how you agitate. In perceptol or D-76 your personal film speed for HP5 may be 200. All that being said, FP4s true film speed in any developer will never be 200.

This whole discussion tends to get derailed by the very terminology of Push and Pull. Like I already mentioned, that is borrowed from an
unrelated tweak in color film processing. The more typical and less misleading terms that would be conventionally referenced in literature, particularly in reference to Zone System technique, would be Plus or Minus development, or Normal. That way, if someone looks up a tentative starting ASA with a particular film and developer, they'll understand that the ASA itself might have to be changed in relation to
the degree of development. For example, most films will require more exposure to the shadows if the development time is reduced. We
could go on and on about this, because this is just the veneer of discussion. There are many threads to look up potential tweaks, and
many reference options. It will inevitably get confusing to a beginner, however, if this Plus and Minus talk gets mixed into the conversation,
because it isn't how most black and white discussions are phrased. And heaven help us if someone mixes Kodak contrast indexes into the
talk, but sooner or later it will happen too.

I use HP5+ and Kentmere 400 @200 during long days in summer time and results are perfect.

For me and my way of working, HP5+ has an ei @ 200. I don't consider it a "pull" at that speed, just my real personal speed for this film and me. I am happy with the results and there is plenty of detail in shadows and highlights. I develop in HC-110 dilution H.

brian steinberger said:

To the OP, I suggest you run your own film speed tests with some 400 speed films. In certain developers HP5 or Tri-x or TMY-II etc, will be a 200 speed film. Those that keep saying HP5 will be overexposed at 200 are not necessarily correct. It all depends on the film, the way YOU and your camera meter, and your developer, and even how you agitate. In perceptol or D-76 your personal film speed for HP5 may be 200. All that being said, FP4s true film speed in any developer will never be 200.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in relation to the film itself.

The OP should test some.

The big problem with the argument the over/under-exposure crowd uses is that as long as the important subject matter lands within a usable range on the film, it doesn't matter to the print.

The printing process, analog or digital can deal with a wide range of possible exposures very nicely.

For most anyone that is taking even mediocre care of exposure in the camera, a true under and over exposure rarely happens.

True underexposure or overexposure only happens when the detail isn't there on the negative

My philosophy about exposure is a lot more analogous to a sniper with a precise weapon than to someone with a machine gun or shotgun.
And yes, it does show in the final prints. One little tweak or another to technique might not seem that important; but add up all those little elements that goes into a fine print, and they cumulatively make a huge difference. If that doesn't matter to you, fine; just do what you enjoy.
But I don't personally enjoy this craft unless I do it as well as I possibly can.

DREW WILEY said:

This whole discussion tends to get derailed by the very terminology of Push and Pull. Like I already mentioned, that is borrowed from an
unrelated tweak in color film processing...

Click to expand...

Here here. When I began getting serious about B&W, I couldn't understand why giving it an extra stop in development didn't blast it wide open - but I came up on E6.

If you've learned the ropes on E6, B&W is a whole 'nother animal.

DREW WILEY said:

My philosophy about exposure is a lot more analogous to a sniper with a precise weapon than to someone with a machine gun or shotgun.
And yes, it does show in the final prints. One little tweak or another to technique might not seem that important; but add up all those little elements that goes into a fine print, and they cumulatively make a huge difference. If that doesn't matter to you, fine; just do what you enjoy.
But I don't personally enjoy this craft unless I do it as well as I possibly can.

Click to expand...

Being precise has great value Drew. That can help save on paper and time just to name two.

As you suggest it can help one get results with the specific qualities they want.

The OP is just trying to improve the look of his prints within the constraints of his equipment and style.

He's using HP5 and a half frame camera and wants to know if FP4 at 200 will have less grain than HP5 at 200.

I'd say FP4 is a safe bet for improving things. Sure, he's not going to have much of a safety factor left in the deep shadows but but In my experience FP4 @200 is very usable and given the constraints...

There are other ways to do this, say going to a full 35mm size frame but sticking with HP5 @ 400 that might provide a similar change.

markbarendt said:

The OP is just trying to improve the look of his prints within the constraints of his equipment and style.

He's using HP5 and a half frame camera and wants to know if FP4 at 200 will have less grain than HP5 at 200.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you.

markbarendt said:

I'd say FP4 is a safe bet for improving things. Sure, he's not going to have much of a safety factor left in the deep shadows but but In my experience FP4 @200 is very usable and given the constraints...

There are other ways to do this, say going to a full 35mm size frame but sticking with HP5 @ 400 that might provide a similar change.

Click to expand...

And thanks for the concise answer. (And while I do also shoot in full 35mm frame size, I really like my Pen FT!)

Have fun Adam.

BTW I'd shoot at 200 "as needed" and just process the FP4 normally, per the instructions.

What I mean by "as needed" is that you don't have to shoot the whole roll at that number, you can mix your settings on the same roll.

I happily shoot various shots on the same roll of FP4 anywhere from EI 200 to EI 25 depending on the camera and situation, and just process normally. If I have no other choice I'll go even to 400 or 8.

Whenever practical though, I do try to stay in the 125 to 64 range with FP4. It gives me more options when printing.

I just started shooting again, we have been doing some caveman film tests (my gf against a white wall in overcast sun wearing a black coat and holding a greycard)…….ISO 200 for the HP5 isn't really overexposed for my setup. 200 just about right for TriX…..but thats just my limited (this round) experience so far….

Thanks, guys!