Pushing film, high contrast situation

[cmo]

XTol is great for pushing film, but in a few weeks I have to take photos in a situation with a lot of contrast: a market at night. Pushing will increase the contrast further.

In the old days, 20 years ago, we used Diafine or Emofin. Results were okay, but not more. Are there more modern options today?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Don't push! There is usually plenty of light. Use an F1.4 or faster lens, bring along a tripod or monopod if you can, TMZ or Delta 3200 shot at 1000 or so. Do a trial run or two before hand.

Shadows usually aren't where the interest is, so it can be best to meter highlights and open up two stops and let the shadows fall where they may.

If you want lots of shadow detail you will have to pull. Do the usual meter and expose for the shadows and then meter the highlights to find how many stops to pull.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'm not a huge tester - I use the times given in a datasheets. Anyway, i've found that Tri-X in Diafine at 1250 is fantastic at controlling the highlights. TMZ can get a little toasty in the highlights if my metering is off a little or if the lighting is really contrasty. I think I prefer it at 1600, but 3200 is completely usable. I also like the look of Tri-X in XTOL at 1600 (or 800) but to be honest, for high contrast shots in dark settings, I find Diafine hard to beat. Its dead simple to develop in too and Tri-X is cheaper than the high speed films.

 

[fschifano]

Diafine + Tri-X still beats the pants off any other film in it's speed class if you want a two stop push. OK, maybe it isn't great, but for a two stop push it is damned good. Lot's of whining going on about poor print quality from the combo. Pay no mind, learn to print better. You can do it. It's not hard.

 

[cmo]

TMZ can get a little toasty in the highlights if my metering is off a little or if the lighting is really contrasty.

...toasty in the highlights... I never heard that before, what's that?

 

[cmo]

Don't push! There is usually plenty of light. Use an F1.4 or faster lens,...

The Nokton 1.2/35 and the Canon 2/100 on my M6 will be okay, I think.

bring along a tripod or monopod if you can,

Street photography with a tripod or monopod? Not even with an iPod

TMZ or Delta 3200 shot at 1000 or so. Do a trial run or two before hand.

That's a nice idea, I would rate it at 1600 probably. I will give it a try, I have some Tmax 3200 in the fridge.

Shadows usually aren't where the interest is, so it can be best to meter highlights and open up two stops and let the shadows fall where they may.

You give an answer to something I was going to ask - what's the best way of metering in such an environment? I did that often, but messes up many shots because I tried to meter some average gray, but there was only light or shadow.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's a nice idea, I would rate it at 1600 probably. I will give it a try, I have some Tmax 3200 in the fridge.

My usual high speed combo was Tmax rated at 1600 and developed in DDX or Clayton F76, but last week I shot Tmax at 3200 and developed in Edwal FG7 with and without Sulfite, even at 3200 FG7 held the shadows really well, with sulfite fine grain, without very sharp. With this combo I think 3200 is normal and 6400 is a push.

 

[Tim Gray]

Ahh, sorry, toasty = hot as in a little too bright.

 

[df cardwell]

TMY + Xtol

holds 14+ stop range with linear, normal contrast, more detail and less grain than tri-x.

using minimal agitation, 1+1 or 1+2,
you can push the shadows and pull the highlights,
hold both end of the long, long, long scale with normal midtones.

No problem. A totally different game than the diafine and tri-x of the '60s.

 

[kodachrome64]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry8300/4.5.0.55 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

I guess I'm one of the few who isn't impressed with the 3200 and 1600 speed films. I can get comparable contrast with Tri-X stand developed in Rodinal and definitely finer grain. I am going to test TMY in XTOL also, although I really hate powdered developers and hope there's some way I can make it work with HC-110, Rodinal, or TMAX dev.

 

[cmo]

TMY + Xtol

holds 14+ stop range with linear, normal contrast, more detail and less grain than tri-x.

using minimal agitation, 1+1 or 1+2,
you can push the shadows and pull the highlights,
hold both end of the long, long, long scale with normal midtones.

No problem. A totally different game than the diafine and tri-x of the '60s.

Sounds impressive. YOu are talking about the new Tmax 400, right? How far did you push it?

 

[df cardwell]

New, old, does the same, and it ISN'T a push... it is designed to do that !

Look at: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

Kodak doesn't publish higher dilutions anymore, but you might try this, from Foto Import

If you'd like to maximize the shadow, and compress the brightest highlights, use 50% longer development time ( 20 minutes ) and only agitate the film for ten seconds at the beginning, and at the 5th, 10th, and 15th minute. TRY IT FIRST ! The mid tones ought to be pretty normal.

Much of the magic is Xtol's (phenidone/ascorbate) ability to more efficiently develop shadows than metol.... which is about a stop faster than my beloved Rodinal ! The rest of the magic is from TMY's intentional LOOOONG scale.

 

[fschifano]

TMY + Xtol

holds 14+ stop range with linear, normal contrast, more detail and less grain than tri-x.

using minimal agitation, 1+1 or 1+2,
you can push the shadows and pull the highlights,
hold both end of the long, long, long scale with normal midtones.

No problem. A totally different game than the diafine and tri-x of the '60s.

You are correct, of course. It's been a while since I've used that combination and I'd forgotten about it. I was looking through some old prints I'd made and remembered that I had indeed used TMY with XTOL, 1+3 in my case, at EI 1600 and the results were pretty good. The situation was one where I was forced to use a fairly slow, and very long lens, to capture the gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. The animals are in an enclosure with a forest canopy above, and I had to shoot through some thick glass separating the visitors from the critters. The scene contrast was not bad, and the combo worked well.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Acufine?

How about using Acufine? It is designed for pushing while controlling the grain, but very importantly it is good at handling high contrast lighting. It used to be the favourite of stage and concert photographers. As they normally would shoot under contrasty stage lighting and then push the film which adds more contrast, Acufine was (and still is) ideal for controling both ends of the scale. Grain is certainley there, (though a very nice sharp grain), but usually a lot less obvious than some developers and is very good for shadow detail. The photographer I worked for in the 80s who had done a lot of theatre photography had been using it since the 50s and loved it. Once mixed it also has good keeping properties.
All the best
Mike

 

[Steve Sherman]

XTol is great for pushing film, but in a few weeks I have to take photos in a situation with a lot of contrast: a market at night. Pushing will increase the contrast further.

In the old days, 20 years ago, we used Diafine or Emofin. Results were okay, but not more. Are there more modern options today?

Develop film using a Reduced agitation form of development. The technique maximizes film speed while actually compressing highights.

All forms of traditional film development pale in comparison to this technique for what you are trying to do.

Cheers!

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Pushing film

About 3 months ago I photographed a candlelight vigil here in Ottawa; I used two of the last rolls of my beloved Agfapan 400 film. It was exposed in two of my trusty Nikon Fs; one with a 50mm lens for 1/30 second @ f/1.4, the other was exposed with a 35mm lens for 1/8 second @ f/2.8. I braced my elbows on my ribcage to make the 1/8 second exposure.

I developed the film in a 16-oz tank, in D-23, for 40 minutes at 83°F, followed by a immersion in a static bath of a 1% solution of sodium metaborate (aka Kodalk) for 5 minutes, also at 83°F. The grain is large, but sharp and tight. There is acceptable shadow detail, and while the highlights appear to be burned out in the contact sheets, there is detail and separation in the highlights, although considerable burning in is required. The base plus fog is also very high, as would be expected from that degree of development.

The stop bath and fixer (without hardener) were also at 83°F. After fixing, I placed the film in a tank of 83°F water, and gently brought the temperature down by cooling the tank with a spray of 55°F water, until the water in the tank was 68°F. Then, two minutes in hypo clear, ten minute wash, dunk in a wetting agent, and hung until dry. Before processing the film, I immersed a chip of the same film in 83°F water for two minutes, and tried my best to damage the emulsion by rubbing it between my thumb and forefinger. The emulsion stayed intact, so I figured that 83°F was okay. The next time I go this route, I will try a test with 100°F water; if the film passes, the new developing time will be about 20 minutes at 100°F.

There are as many procedures to deal with a low light, high contrast situation as there are photographers, and this is what worked for me in this situation. I estimate the exposure index that resulted from this procedure to be about EI 4000 to EI 8000, although one must keep in mind that when viewing the results there is a lot of subjective analysis involved: I am happy with the resulting prints, whereas another photographer might not be. Also, this procedure would not produce anything resembling an ANSI speed, as speed determination is based partially on midtone detail, but mostly on shadow detail, and there is a precise definition of contrast involved in the calculation.

 

[df cardwell]

How about using Acufine? ...

Acufine was a reasonable alternative to D-76, 50 years ago.

But we aren't restricted to Tri X anymore,
and we aren't limited to old time 'push developers'.

XTOL gives MORE shadow speed. It solves EVERY problem that 'pushing' presented in the old days. With minimal agitation, the wildest lighting can look like a studio shot. OR, you can use it straight up and shake the heck out of it, and get hot lights that you can still print through and not waste your time burning. Your choice !

If you dig the '50s aesthetic , cool, daddy, but times roll on.

•• I just read Steve's post: YES! YES! YES!

 

[eddym]

OK, dumb question time! I've never tried Xtol, but all this has made me want to try it. But my dumb question is....
What the heck do you use to mix up five liters of the stuff? The biggest bottles I have are 1 gallon. And I've never seen anybody advertising five liter jugs for sale.

 

[Tim Gray]

I mix it in a bucket. Then pour it into approximately 10 .5 liter water bottles (from bottled water). Keeps the developer from oxidizing when you are halfway through the 5 liters, since only ~16oz are opened at a time. Also makes it a lot easier to handle.