Push FP4 or pull HP5?

[Adam W]

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

 

[Adam W]

One will be under exposed, the other will be overexposed.

...and processed them correctly. That is, pulled the HP5 and pushed the FP4.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Pushing the FP4+ would leave it higher contrast, less shadow detail.
Pulling HP5+ would expand the range, lower contrast.
(all ceteris paribus, of course)
Depends what look you're going for.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Shooting them at EI 200 would be within the latitude of each film and so there would be no reed to push or pull either one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with Gerald, but it begs the question as to why. Just makes for more test-print strips or whatever your method is in the darkroom. Just more time, waste, and labor in the darkroom. Personally I'd just go with the 125 speed film uprated and done in Acufine. You'll get a more or less "normal" negative with finer grain than the 400 speed film in any scenario.

+1

Just shoot box speed, there is nothing to gain from shooting both at 200. Somethings are meant to be, so enjoy life.

 

[MattKing]

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

Under what lighting conditions?

If the lighting is contrasty, the pushed FP4+ would lose some shadow detail (due to the underexposure) and the highlights may be blocked up (due to the push). The pulled HP5+ may be slightly low in contrast, although there should be detail throughout.

If the lighting is flat, the pushed FP4+ should do reasonably well, if your metering favoured the shadows. The pulled HP5+ would be very low in contrast.

Both may have more grain (in different parts of the image) than you may prefer.

That being said, the less than one stop under-exposure with FP4+, and the one stop over-exposure with HP5+ are not far from the norm and, particularly with the HP5+, are most likely within the latitude of the film.

If I were you, I would expose either film at my normal EI, and would choose my development based on how contrasty the lighting was.

Pushing and pulling are really only useful for adjusting contrast. Changing the development time does little to change the sensitivity of the film.

 

[zanxion72]

The developer to be used should also be considered. For example, if you are to develop your FP4 roll in FX-1 then you should expose it at an EI almost double the box speed.
On the other hand HP5 in Rodinal has a true speed lower than ASA 400, most rate it at EI 320.
In these cases pushing and pulling would not mean much as the difference of exposure would be of a scale of a small exposure error and well within the latitude limits of the film

 

[Adam W]

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.

The reason for my original post was that I was wondering what options I had if I wanted 200-speed B&W film. For example, I shoot a lot of half-frame on an Olympus Pen FT. When I scan the negatives, since I enlarge the image pretty significantly, there tends to be a lot of grain. So, I was wondering, if I wanted to shoot at 200, how each of the two films would look. I wasn't thinking about a films "true" speed in different developers or the latitude of each film. I see now that the original question was too simplistic!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You can always use Fomapan 200.

 

[removed account4]

Shooting them at EI 200 would be within the latitude of each film and so there would be no reed to push or pull either one.

+1

 

[Pioneer]

If you are looking for less grain you may want to move to Kodak TMY400. By pulling slightly to 200 (or 250) and developing normally I get low grain and slightly lowered contrast. I haven't had the opportunity to use it much but I suspect that Ilford's Delta Pro 400 would respond in a similar fashion.

Fomapan 200 is also a good option if you really do need an ISO200 speed film though Eastman Kodak 5222 XX also works very well at that speed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Pushing" and "Pulling" are really misleading terms in black and white work. HP5 at 200 will be overexposed, so if you "pull" it by shortening the development time to keep the highlight from blowing out, you end up with a low contrast midtones (depends on scene contrast of course). But if you shoot FP4 at 200, it's distinctly underexposed and you lose one or two stops of shadow value, and nothing you do development-wise is likely to salvage them. Fomapan 200 is not by any means a true 200 speed film in typical developers. So that won't help you. Why not just shoot film at the correct speed? Of course, you have to do some testing with your own development method to determine exactly what this is for any particular film/developer combination. This is a case where you need to learn the basics first.

 

[miha]

HP5 at EI 200 in diluted Perceptol and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[flavio81]

The reason for my original post was that I was wondering what options I had if I wanted 200-speed B&W film. For example, I shoot a lot of half-frame on an Olympus Pen FT. When I scan the negatives, since I enlarge the image pretty significantly, there tends to be a lot of grain.

Your best bet here is to use Fuji Acros 100 pushed to 200. Acros has the finest grain of all 100-speed B/W films.

Another very good alternative is Ilford Delta 100 which is slightly grainer than Acros (but still extremely fine grained, finer than FP4), and has (imo) a nicer spectral response than Fuji Acros.

I used to own an Olympus Pen F3.5 camera and loved to use that camera. I have some 8x10" enlargements done using Kodak TMax 400 which were pin-sharp.
In some respects a better camera than the Rollei 35, which I own and will sell someday.

 

[DREW WILEY]

ACROS has distinctly finer grain and higher acutance than TMX, but then it's a wannabee 100 film, and with most developers really needs to
be shot at a lower ASA to give full shadow gradation. In comparison, TMX often works best at full 100 speed because the toe of the film is
steeper (and by virtue of the same fact, it must be exposed more carefully to begin with). I personally love the unique spectral response of ACROS. But if you rate ACROS at 200, kiss off any deep shadow separation. You aren't "pushing" anything; you're simply sacrificing the deep shadows and then trying to salvage the rest of the curve through overdevelopment. You'll probably get an OK print if the overall scene contrast is moderate. "Pushing" and "Pulling" are terms incorrectly borrowed from optional minor tweaks to color film by commercial labs.
If these kinds of outfits also do automated processing of black and white film, they might employ similar language. But to people experienced with black and white, the old adage "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" is a more realistic premise to begin
with.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Let's clear up what seems to be a common misunderstanding. If you exposure a film and you are within the latitude of the film then it is correctly exposed. You do not have to do any testing nor make any compensations in development. Film manufacturers like Kodak build into their films what is typically a 2-1/2 stop latitude for over-exposure and a 1 stop latitude for under-exposure. If this was not done then proper exposure would be very difficult. This assumes that you are using a developer recommended by the film manufacturer and not something else.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nonsense, Michael. I've shot a lot of both these films in everything from 35mm to 8x10, and with TMY have done a LOT of very technical applications too, such as color separations and advanced masking techniques involving many many densitometer plots, numerous developers, etc., and have also printed many negs on quite a variety of black and white papers. I know both these films extremely well under all kinds of lighting and development conditions. TMX and ACROS are VERY different films in many respects.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gerald - latitude is a another poor choice of concept. Films are engineered to be what they are, and how much forgiveness you might get for being sloppy with exposure just depends, but it's never a built-in factor. It all depends on curve shape in relation to actual conditions. Some films like TMX can be quite unforgiving. And a high contrast situation with any film might allow zero "latitude". I'll admit that if I'm wandering around on a very rainy day with a Nikon tucked under my parka, I might be reluctant to pull out my light meter more than I need to, and get it all wet, so I might choose a long-toe more forgiving film like Delta 3200, given the fact that the overall lighting ratio is generally modest on rainy days. But if the sun if out and I choose a fussy snapshooting film like TMY400 instead, it pays to correctly meter every shot.

 

[flavio81]

ACROS has distinctly finer grain and higher acutance than TMX, but then it's a wannabee 100 film, and with most developers really needs to be shot at a lower ASA to give full shadow gradation.

My view is different -- the film (acros) seems to have a color response rather like having a blue filter over the lens, and the increased contrast brought to usual scenes (due to such color response) make you believe it's not really a ISO 100 film (in other words, make some people prefer to expose the film at, say EI 64, and develop accordingly to soften contrast).

In my view, and my usage, Acros is a regular ISO 100 film.

 

[cliveh]

Do not push or pull. It wont improve your photography.

 

[flavio81]

Do not push or pull. It wont improve your photography.

?

Some of my best shots were done with HP5+ at ISO 1600. If i didn't have ISO 1600 film available that day, there would have been no image. So yes, it did improve my photography -- it enabled me to take a picture where i coudn't.

 

[DREW WILEY]

ACROS behaves more like it has a light yellow-green filter over the lens. This is because it's orthopan rather than typical ortho. It sees less
red and more green. This makes foliage feel more buoyant and realistic. I think it's also more amenable to desert and high mountain scenes, where I particularly like it. It's also why you should never use a red filter stronger than a no.25 with ACROS, because it has more limited red sensitivity than regular films. But it's not true ortho either - it does see red, just not as much. I expose it at 50 for PMK development, whereas with TMX I can use full 100 for the same shadow values. ACROS will tolerate more deliberate overexposure than TMX. Sadly, both films have gotten rather expensive in sheet version. 120 ACROS is still a relative bargain.

 

[removed account4]

some of my best work has been done by exposing tmy (400 ) 5 stops
and processing normally.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald - latitude is a another poor choice of concept. Films are engineered to be what they are, and how much forgiveness you might get for being sloppy with exposure just depends, but it's never a built-in factor. It all depends on curve shape in relation to actual conditions. Some films like TMX can be quite unforgiving. And a high contrast situation with any film might allow zero "latitude". I'll admit that if I'm wandering around on a very rainy day with a Nikon tucked under my parka, I might be reluctant to pull out my light meter more than I need to, and get it all wet, so I might choose a long-toe more forgiving film like Delta 3200, given the fact that the overall lighting ratio is generally modest on rainy days. But if the sun if out and I choose a fussy snapshooting film like TMY400 instead, it pays to correctly meter every shot.

Sorry but I disagree. Sloppiness has nothing to do with it. A film must have some latitude in order to be useful. For example, mechanical shutters are by their very nature inaccurate. Typical errors can range from 15% for slow speeds to upwards of 60% for fast speeds. So there must be some latitude built into any film.

Latitude is controlled by adjusting the ratios of small, medium and large grains and this is part of an emulsion's design. In fact some films use muticoating to increase their latitude. Examples of this were the well beloved Verichrome Pan and Panatomic-X. They each had a slow and a faster emulsion layer. If you look at Kodak's literature you will see recommendations as to the latitude of their films.

Remember that when your exposure is on the straight line portion of the characteristic curve changes in EI only move the film response up and down the line. The curve shape which determines contrast does not change.

My point was this. You are not going to get inferior results just because your exposure is not spot on. Indeed Kodak says that your results will be the same for all negatives exposed from at least 1 stop over to 1 stop under. This of course was the problem asked in the original post.