Pushing Delta 100 to 1600

I've underexposed some negs by roughly this same amount: thought it was 400 bulk loaded in a container marked 100 but it actually was Delta 100. Went for a late afternoon stroll, shot some in the relative near dark my city gets to and even with 1/30th and f/1.4 I needed an effective rating of 1600.

I put it in some HC110 1:100 and let it stew for 2 hours with agitations every 15 mins. The negs aren't anywhere near perfect but they gave me images that I wouldn't otherwise have so I'm glad I didn't just throw the roll away. Plus, now I know what that looks like.

Mistakes happen, it's part of the process. Why not try it???

pushing developing increases film contrast. You can get perfectly acceptable negs even with a lot of push development. The results all depend on the subject contrast. Just being dark doesn't mean low contrast although it usually does. But assuming subject was very low contrast then pushing 4 stops will put contrast back into the subject which may or may not be a good thing. It probably is a good thing to a certain point. You just don't want it to go too far.

Then question is whether the film has sctaully recorded anything at the bottom end and whether the developer you use can get at that very low amount of film exposure. Microphen will do that to a point better than most developers which is why I suggested it. And considering it was delta 100 which is very fined grained I wouldn't expect the results to be rediculously grainy either.

But we'll see what OP decide to do and maybe his results if he decides to post back.

Stand development is about containing highlights rather than extracting shadow as far as I'm aware. Highly dilute/reduced activity developer is unlikely to extract miniscule exposure from the shadows which actually requires highly active developer to get at them IMO. Again thats why I suggested undiluted stock microphen.

RobC said:

Stand development is about containing highlights rather than extracting shadow as far as I'm aware. Highly dilute/reduced activity developer is unlikely to extract miniscule exposure from the shadows which actually requires highly active developer to get at them IMO. Again thats why I suggested undiluted stock microphen.

Click to expand...

I would suggest there are two problems with your post.
Stand is good for shadow detail as it can be left for longer to extract shadow detail with less density growth in highlights.
Microphen is only 1/3 of a stop faster than ID11 for less fog at the same density/contrast.
You need to step wedge to refute...

Looking at my records,I see that I developed Ilford 100 in DDX at 68 deg for 15 1/2 mins and got good results.I rated the film at 500 by accident.Maybe this helps,I don't know but you can get something from your negatives,for sure.This place has become a hangout of the "Naysayers" in recent times.Innovation and invention have never been fostered by negativity.Take the helpful advice and ignore the cranks telling you it can't be done.

Xmas said:

I would suggest there are two problems with your post.
Stand is good for shadow detail as it can be left for longer to extract shadow detail with less density growth in highlights.
Microphen is only 1/3 of a stop faster than ID11 for less fog at the same density/contrast.
You need to step wedge to refute...

Click to expand...

Go back and read my first post in this thread. Micropehn WILL give more speed than ID11. As an example take Delta 3200. ID11 gives a speed of 1000. Microphen gives a speed of 3200. I doubt you will get such an increase in speed with delta 100 but you will get more than 1/3 stop extra speed.

RobC said:

Go back and read my first post in this thread. Micropehn WILL give more speed than ID11. As an example take Delta 3200. ID11 gives a speed of 1000. Microphen gives a speed of 3200. I doubt you will get such an increase in speed with delta 100 but you will get more than 1/3 stop extra speed.

Click to expand...

Not in toe speed try a step wedge.
Palace of Westminster canteen pork pie.
Impossible to wet print.
Unless you like news paper style night shot from 60s.

I don't think that there is any other aspect of photography less understood than the problem of underexposure. Yet people constantly post "if you do this and that you can remedy the situation." Perhaps the following thought experiment will help.

You put a blank disc in your CD player and press Play. You hear nothing so turn up the volume. You still hear nothing and turn the volume up some more. This continues until the volume is at the maximum. Why don't you hear anything. BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ON THE DISC TO HEAR. Increasing development time is akin to turning up the volume. It doesn't work because again THERE IS NOTHING THERE. You may get some image from the highlights but nothing else. Why is this so hard to understand?

Did anyone say you would get shadow detail all the way down to 3 or 4 stops below metered? No they didn't. Why can't people engage their brains and undestand that if film is underexposed so that only a tiny amount of exposure reaches maybe 2 or 3 stops below metered that if the developer is active and strong enough it may just be able to develop out some of that miniscule exposure that a standard developer couldn't. Why the hell do these people think the developer manufacturers go to the trouble of manufacturing developers especially for purpose. Do they think the manufacturers are conning us. Or do they actually concede that with the right developer you may get an extra 1/2 to 1 stop more into shaodows to develop out than you would with a standard developer.

Gerald C Koch said:

You put a blank disc in your CD player and press Play. You hear nothing so turn up the volume. You still hear nothing and turn the volume up some more. This continues until the volume is at the maximum. Why don't you hear anything. BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ON THE DISC TO HEAR. Increasing development time is akin to turning up the volume. It doesn't work because again THERE IS NOTHING THERE. You may get some image from the highlights but nothing else. Why is this so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

RobC said:

Did anyone say you would get shadow detail all the way down to 3 or 4 stops below metered? No they didn't. Why can't people engage their brains and undestand that if film is underexposed so that only a tiny amount of exposure reaches maybe 2 or 3 stops below metered that if the developer is active and strong enough it may just be able to develop out some of that miniscule exposure that a standard developer couldn't. Why the hell do these people think the developer manufacturers go to the trouble of manufacturing developers especially for purpose. Do they think the manufacturers are conning us. Or do they actually concede that with the right developer you may get an extra 1/2 to 1 stop more into shaodows to develop out than you would with a standard developer.

Click to expand...

Because it is easier to endless mindless senseless Zonesta testing than engaging one's brain.

TheFlyingCamera said:

NINETY MINUTES? You must have bulletproof highlights, no mid-tones, and inky black shadows if you develop for 90 minutes with continuous agitation. Also, what is E-76? I'm guessing that's a typo.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply but I was very bussy modifiing my KW Patent Etui camera.
Now, you must understand not to underexpose the film when you have a lot of contrast. When you have dull wether whitout direct sunlight the result is pretty good, also the shadow parts.
In direct sunlight and with flash it is a better idea to overexpose one stop to reduce contrast.
E76 is a variation on D76 with phenidone for the metol and vitamin C for the hydroquinone. To aggitate I build a small motor on my tank with an rpm of 8 rpm.
The film I use is fomapan 100 asa sheets.

I've exposed Portra 400 at EI 3200 and had The Darkroom push 3 stops. The negatives are usable, good midtones and highlights, though the contrast is high and the shadows are quite dark. This is two stops more underexposure, and on B&W rather than color film. Don't be Negative Nellie. There will be something there, but he will have lost 2 more stops of shadow detail than I did.

Experiment! Make mistakes, and then learn from them.

ME Super said:

Experiment! Make mistakes, and then learn from them.

Click to expand...

The purpose of experimenting is to obtain new information. Since we know what the result of under-exposure will be there seems to be little point conducting any experiments. What new information could be obtained. From previous threads the word "experiment" is too often used when what is meant is play. It just seems to me that there are better things to do in this case.

Then why do we encourage people to test film, if the results are already known? I have an answer for that - it's because though the results may be known, what is not known is whether or not the photographer will like (or be able to use) the results. This is what is not known, which is why I suggested that the OP try something anyway, instead of fretting over how to do it.

The OP underexposed 5 stops, I'd suggest a 5 stop push as a starting point. If we assume a linear progression of 1 stop for each 30% time added, a 5 stop push would be roughly 3.71 times the length of normal development (130% = 1.3; 1.3^5 is approximately 3.71). If the previous relationship is assumed, a 5 stop push on a 10 minute development would be roughly 37 minutes.

Who knows, Delta 100 rated at EI 1600 might be so high in contrast it might look like lith film, and might even be something the OP might like for certain situations/subjects. How will he know if he likes it if he doesn't try it? And if what the OP ends up with is garbage, well it is not for nothing; it will be known not to do that again.

--
"Tigers don't know if they like ice cream or not until they try every kind." -- Hobbes, from Calvin and Hobbes

ME Super said:

Then why do we encourage people to test film, if the results are already known?

Click to expand...

To give the testinestas something with which to fill their lives.

APUGuser19 said:

I read these sorts of threads all the time. I just never have made any misteaks.

Click to expand...

Only once I was wrong. I thought that I had made a mistake, but it turned out that I was write all the time.

with 20,000 posts you must be write all the time.

APUGuser19 said:

I read these sorts of threads all the time. I just never have made any misteaks.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean miss steaks? It sounds like you might've read the poem "Candidate for a Pullet Surprise."

Heck, develop it and learn. And keep in mind, you don't need to develop the whole roll. In the dark or a changing bag, snip off a few frames, develop, look, adjust, repeat. If nothing else you'll learn how dev times and agitation affect a particular film when insanely underexposed.

When I was a full on film based wedding photographer in the rush of the late evening mis-loaded a Fuji Neopan SS roll instead of the Fuji Neopan 1600 I was using for that time of the evening (not hard to do cassettes were *really* close in appearance). I knew I had a few really good frames so it was worth it to me to try and get something. Having a lot of film and pushing experience but having never tried it I went but knowing I would be very far off I opted for the technique listed in the Film Developing Cookbook with the vapors of hot hydrogen peroxide post development. It worked far better than I expected and other than more grain and a bit of blocked highlights I got the image I needed of the groom smoking a cigar surrounded by smoke.