Push processing Ilford hp5+ 400 at 1600 in a commercial lab

Hi,

I'd like to shoot at night and I have a roll of HP5+ with 24 exposures to devote to the experiment. I have read here http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=7 and on APUG that it is possible to push this film up to 3200 (as far as I understand I should simply set iso 1600 and expose like if the film was much faster, which will result in under-exposure which will be corrected at the development stage).

So far, so good. Now, I have also read that negative film has a great latitude. I am still not able to develop by my own: do I have to tell anything to the lab where I will send my film? And what, "Please push by 2 stops?"
If I tell them to over-develop, all my exposures will be equally over-developed.

On the other hand, if I understand what is meant by "latitude", I could be able to have on the same roll both "pushed exposures" and "normal exposures", is that true? In that case I wouldn't say anything, just "please develop this iso 400 roll....", did I understand correctly?

Is there a difference in result (graininess, contrast) in the two cases? I don't presume that there is an "objectively" better way, but if you have some nice example in your gallery I would be glad to look at it and learn the differences (given the limitation of the digital medium which is the only one that we can share, but if you can describe the "printed effect" it will be most excellent!)

Thanks in advance for the help. I am still very new to all this

Francesco

I'd shoot some Ilford 3200 (at 1600) instead... Unless you work with a pro lab, asking for a pushed processing is a recipe for disaster : either they'll botch the job or they'll process your Hp5 like a regular 400 iso film.

It should be a pro lab (they style themselves that way). So I guess that you cannot simply develop for iso 400 and live with an underexposed negative (and so I did get the part about latitude incorrectly)?

Ask the lab to push two stops or better still do what Pat Erson has suggested. Longer term if you are going to do night photography then seriously consider processing film yourself. That way you have control and can experiment with both HP5+ and Ilford 3200 and with developers such as DDX or Microphen and development times.

pentaxuser

Ok I'll try to get a roll of 3200. Thanks for your advice!

Increasing development ("pushing") for film does almost nothing to increase its sensitivity to the lowest light - for example the shadows.

What it does do is increase the contrast of those parts of the scene that are dark but not the darkest. With higher contrast, the near shadow and mid-tone parts of the scenes look better in the prints than if you hadn't increased the development.

Unfortunately, pushing also increases the contrast for brighter parts of the scene, and can cause the brightest parts of the scene to become too dense on the negative - you may end up with blocked up highlights.

Pushing also increases grain.

Pushing works best if the original scene is a low contrast one, and if losing detail in the shadows doesn't matter so much.

All that being said, you should try it out. Expose a roll normally with a variety of different scenes with different lighting and have it developed normally. Do the same thing with a roll that has been under-exposed by two stops and been "pushed" by two stops. Compare your results. You may find you like the pushed results in certain circumstances.

As you're shooting at night, are using a tripod? If so really best to rate at normal and accept longer exposures. Possibly even rate at 200 and cut dev a bit if it is contrasty lighting conditions. Problem about uprating is that you will lose shadow detail and contrast will increase which with most night scenes, is the last thing you want! However, if hand held, ignore this. I do quite a bit of hand held night work but use Delta 3200 (see link) which might be worth trying.
http://www.mike-crawford.co.uk/portfolio/nocturne/nocturne-five.html

Mike Crawford said:

As you're shooting at night, are using a tripod? If so really best to rate at normal and accept longer exposures. Possibly even rate at 200 and cut dev a bit if it is contrasty lighting conditions. Problem about uprating is that you will lose shadow detail and contrast will increase which with most night scenes, is the last thing you want! However, if hand held, ignore this. I do quite a bit of hand held night work but use Delta 3200 (see link) which might be worth trying.
http://www.mike-crawford.co.uk/portfolio/nocturne/nocturne-five.html

Click to expand...

Hi Mike, I'll surely check out your examples later. Thanks for linking to them. I cannot use a tripod since I would like to document a night at the pub. Actually I am going after a grainy contrast look, I am not afraid of some movement blur due to longish shutter speed. I still don't have a flash, asked a question about this on the minolta group but I haven't received suggestions yet, I will have to investigate it further.

In the meanwhile, if I am able to, I'll try to get the delta 3200 film.

Francesco

Hi Francesco

In that case no problem. Uprating HP5 or TriX in an interior setting in a pub will work fine. Worth trying Delta 3200 as well. Flash would just kill the atmosphere unless you want a Bruce Gilden meets Anders Petersen look! Mr Petersen is a very good reference in what you are describing. Though last time I was in Rome, didn't find a pub like his Cafe Lehmitz in Hamburg!
Dead Link Removed

Salute
Mike

Mike Crawford said:

Hi Francesco

In that case no problem. Uprating HP5 or TriX in an interior setting in a pub will work fine. Worth trying Delta 3200 as well. Flash would just kill the atmosphere unless you want a Bruce Gilden meets Anders Petersen look! Mr Petersen is a very good reference in what you are describing. Though last time I was in Rome, didn't find a pub like his Cafe Lehmitz in Hamburg!
Dead Link Removed

Salute
Mike

Click to expand...

Hi mike I have checked out your link. I really like this one http://www.mike-crawford.co.uk/portfolio/nocturne/nocturne-thirteen.html would you mind to tell me some details about it? Was it pushed? It really is a picture which talks to me.

I didn't know the cafe lehmitz series, what I'm planning is a bit less shocking but the mood that I'd like is similar.

When you say to uprate you suggest to expose for 1600 and ask the lab to push or not? Please forgive but I don't master the technical terminology yet.

Hi Francesco,

Don't be afraid of trying the HP5, especially if you already have it. Yes, Delta 3200 is more sensitive, but not that much more; HP5 is ISO 400, D3200 is ISO 1000.

As has been mentioned above pushing doesn't make the film more sensitive. Development changes simply prepare you for the next step in the process.

There isn't a fixed standard, the instructions provided by Ilford are just good starting points, there are lots of variables that affect the end result. The classic use of adjusting film development (push, pull, plus, minus) is designed to make printing directly to paper in an enlarger easier. Even that varies depending on the head type, paper type, and your intent; it's not a fixed quantity.

Since your next step is a lab, I'm going to guess the next step is a scan. You should ask the lab what works best in their system. Hopefully your lab is knowledgable enough to answer that question. You may actually need to test several rolls to find the sweet spot. That isn't to say you won't get decent results with HP5 shot and developed at 3200; it is to say that you may find better results when developed for 800 or ...

Hello Francesco

If you do uprate to 1600, you must let the lab know as otherwise you are purposely underexposing by two stops. If are planing to shoot a lot of film, always best to shoot a test roll first to see if it works. Even then, when you go to the lab, good idea to get them to process one roll first, (or possibly a clip test which is the first few frames), to see if the negs are right. The idea about 'pushing' film is usually to get a faster shutter speed or smaller f stop so is always a compromise as you are purposely not using the film to it's full potential. While there are dev times for most films plus 2 or 3, it doesn't promise perfect results compared to processing normally as there will be an increase in contrast and comparatively less shadow detail. As Matt King points out, it may give a look that you like, though it may not. If you don't mind some blur, it could be fine shooting at 400 if there is enough light. When you are in the pub, you will see if the meter reckons you can get away with it. Otherwise best to try both. As a test, you could try shooting a roll at two speeds, first half at 400, the second at 1600. Then give the lab instructions to cut the roll in two in the dark and process each accordingly. They wont be able to cut it exactly in the middle, but should give you a good idea. This is a good reason to do your own processing as makes testing a lot easier.

If you think of the work Robert Frank shot in bars for The Americans, that would have been all Trix (I expect) and possibly all rated normally as the contact sheets have indoor and outdoor scenes. Actually, checking on line, some of his work was on Plus X. I have the big Steidl edition at home of The Americans which reproduces many of the contacts. Will have to check.
http://www.fimdalinha.com/the-americans-robert-frank-ii/

Antoine D'Agata did some work in bars quite a bit stronger the Anders Petersen. Link to his book Mala Noche here;
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53T_6

That shot of mine is pretty simple technically. Shot on Delta 3200 as part of a series on the night. It's given the 'Day for Night' treatment used in the cinema. Otherwise shot in daylight but printed to give a more nocturnal feeling. It was a very early, misty morning so the negative is of a very soft contrast, (processed in Ilfosol 3 I think), but is lith printed as the rest of the series is which gives an increase in contrast, grain and the soft, warm midtones.

PS. That link for D'Agata doesn't seem to go direct to the work. Under Selected Photo Essays, click on the book Mala Noche.

Mike Crawford said:

If you do uprate to 1600, you must let the lab know as otherwise you are purposely underexposing by two stops.

Click to expand...

That is a bit of a misconception.

By shooting HP5 at 1600 one is purposely giving up about two stops of detail on the negative, end of story. That underexposure exists regardless of how the film is developed. Extra development doesn't fix a photographers choice to use reduced exposure.

That is true for all films, if you reduce camera exposure you reduce the shadow detail available on the film.

Mike Crawford said:

always best to shoot a test roll first to see if it works.

Click to expand...

Great advice.

What isn't normally understood by casual users is that negative films almost always capture considerably more info than gets used in the print, when film is shot at the ISO rating there's normally both extra shadow and highlight detail that won't normally be used. This extra info is why negative films are said to have significant exposure latitude, the range of info we print comes from somewhere "in the middle" of what the negative actually caught.

When needed I'll move from EI400 to EI800 with HP5 or Delta 400 to TX or Portra 400 without a second thought. It is rare that that choice will affect the final print I want to make. No film development change needed.

If I have no other choice I'll go to EI 1600 or even 3200 with HP5 knowing that I'll be losing more and more shadow detail.

The only way to know what works is to test for one's self.

In the end I shot hp5+ 400 film at 400, and delta 3200 at 1600. I am sure that it will be a learning experience, and look forward to see the results...! Thank you everybody for the patience that you are showing to my naive questions. I appreciate it a lot.

Francesco_from_Rome said:

In the end I shot hp5+ 400 film at 400, and delta 3200 at 1600. I am sure that it will be a learning experience, and look forward to see the results...! Thank you everybody for the patience that you are showing to my naive questions. I appreciate it a lot.

Click to expand...

Sounds a good way to go! Hope you get some good shots.