Pushing HP5+ to 3200

[miha]

I don't kwow. Who is all. I have no experience with D3200.

 

[markbarendt]

Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?

It could be something as simple as the shape of the film curve. Unlike HP5 and Delta 400 and TMax 400, D3200 has a very long shoulder, a little extra development pushes some of that shoulder up off the paper's range. The TXP we talked about a week or two ago had the opposite shape, a long toe that could be dealt with by adjustments to exposure or development. Each film has it's tendencies.

So, Ilford isn't technically wrong, the film is simply different artistically from others.

Given the success of your underdeveloped negs described a few posts ago my bet is that the extra development some like for D3200 may actually make things worse for you.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks guys for all the input and assistance, I'll let you know what develops.

(If Sean will awake from his Tryptophan coma and re-up my subscription privileges... lol).

 

[Chris Lange]

I use D76 straight up with my Delta 3200. I process for around 22 minutes some times up to 30 minutes, with normal agitation once every 60 seconds. This may seem long, but it gives me negs that I like.

I push HP5+ and Tri-X up to 3200 and 6400 with Acufine, as well. 16 minutes or so, straight up.

These are not suggested starting point times...they work for how I expose my film at night.

 

[MattKing]

Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?

Stone:

Anyone who says Ilford is WRONG doesn't know what they are talking about, and should not be paid attention to.

However, anyone who says that they prefer the results they obtain when they develop longer than Ilford's recommendations may very well be worth paying attention to.

Go back and READ my first post in this thread - post #12 - and note the choice of words:

"Ilford's recommendation is that if you underexpose it by 2/3 of a stop (at an EI of 1600) you will get appropriate contrast if you develop it for X minutes at 20C. They have similar recommendations for underexposure by 1 2/3 of a stop (at an EI of 3200) and further additional development.

Many people prefer the resulting contrast if it is developed longer than Ilford's recommendation for the EI used".

Note in particular the highlighted words: "recommendation", "appropriate", "prefer"

Now contrast those with the following words in your first post and the most recent post: "I'm wondering if it's like D3200 where you have to develop for the next stop", "WRONG"

There is no standard for "pushing" film. There isn't anything you have to get, and there isn't anything defined as being WRONG. It isn't like the ISO standard, where speed and contrast are pre-defined, and you can have a "WRONG".

The results you get when you under-expose and then "push" development can only be analyzed subjectively. If you had started out this thread asking for subjective impressions from those who use the combination, you would have had more success.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?

Because it's a starting point that gets the film, in controlled experiments, to the contrast that the film was designed for.

That starting point is what each and everyone of us have to jump off of when we begin. Some people do things scientifically and use step wedges and film curves to determine how they must expose and process their film to suit their needs. Some use step wedges and contact prints to do the same. Others might use a 'let's see how the print looks' and determine from there what their regimen of film use must be.

The common denominator is - what you get from me, any other expert of hack on this forum, Ilford, Massive Development Chart, or any other source is to be treated as a 'recommendation'. You must then take it and make it yours by using the same combination and finding out for yourself.

That's why I said 'no free lunch'. Can you read the above paragraph and just realize that nobody else can tell you how long your dev time should be?

 

[removed account4]

Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?

its because some people just say what other people say without doing any film tests or development tests for themselves
the internet is full of people with no experience who piggyback on other people, claim their results as their own
and seem like experts, and often times they all hang-out together and just say stuff, but when it comes time
for them to actually show what they are talking about, they can't.

ilford, kodak agfa, foma, forte, bregger shanghai, lucky &c ALL test their films to find the native iso,
they ALL test their films in lab conditions, not YOUR conditions
that is why often times the manufacturer's recommendations
are said to be a good "starting point" because, well, not everyone
uses the same processing methods,not everyone has a camera where
the speeds are accurate, and not everyone has a clue as to how to see if
their meter or camera's internal meter is calibrated as, and to see what looks good "for them".

my first photo class i was given a hand spooled roll of tri x, told to set my camera's
asa on 320 and to bracket my exposures. i was then told to process the film the way the
film developer said for normaldevelopment, and to make a contact sheet of my negatives
because it was easier to SEE what exposure looked the best, and then i was instructed to
make an enlargement so i could see again, what looked good and why ..
THEN i was told to remember what the light meter in the camera was at ( usually 1 stop above center ) ...

i wasn't told to take someone's word for it, but told to actually do the test.
you have it ez stone, you can take someone's word for it, AND do the test AND scan your results to see
what exposure works best with your scanner seeing the scanner beam likes different exposed film than a cold light head
and a different than a condenser head, which is a different than a making a contact sheet .. &C

maybe the people who recommend you over expose the film should also show WHY and what enlargement / printing process they are using
so people who follow their advice can SEE why ... then again, maybe the people who recommend "stuff" have nothing to show for their recommendations mainly
because they have none ....

often times people say YMMV because well, their methods are not yours, and your results may vary from what is suggested ...

YMMV

 

[StoneNYC]

Because it's a starting point that gets the film, in controlled experiments, to the contrast that the film was designed for.

That starting point is what each and everyone of us have to jump off of when we begin. Some people do things scientifically and use step wedges and film curves to determine how they must expose and process their film to suit their needs. Some use step wedges and contact prints to do the same. Others might use a 'let's see how the print looks' and determine from there what their regimen of film use must be.

The common denominator is - what you get from me, any other expert of hack on this forum, Ilford, Massive Development Chart, or any other source is to be treated as a 'recommendation'. You must then take it and make it yours by using the same combination and finding out for yourself.

That's why I said 'no free lunch'. Can you read the above paragraph and just realize that nobody else can tell you how long your dev time should be?

I think the problem is you guys are just in it too much, you're TOO good, so you can't answer simple questions because your understanding of it is way more complex than mine and refuse to dummy it down to a simple level because you believe that viewpoint to contradict your greater understanding.

Alas, I am just too simple minded for the likes of you...

And what I really mean by all that is that I'm really just tired of talking about this, I can't take anymore, all you people get so complex and so elaborate and make everything so complicated. It does to always have to be so complicated, and you don't always have to be do semantically correct all the time, wrong vs "wrong for me" sometimes I think everyone here just likes to be difficult.

You're all great photographers and in a sense I value your information, but I'm tired...

It never ends with your constant correcting (this isn't directed at you specifically Thomas or Matt just happened to be happening with many) every turn is "Stone you aren't thinking about it right, Stone you aren't doing it right, Stone you are not successful because you have no style, Stone why do you bother posting such crappy images, Stone your vocabulary sucks, Stone you won't understand anything until you print, Stone you have to read these 8 books to understand anything.... Etc.... It never ends...

Sometimes you can learn things on your own without using the system in place, Ansel invented his own system, why can't I?

*barbaric yawlp*

 

[Chris Lange]

I think the problem is you guys are just in it too much, you're TOO good, so you can't answer simple questions because your understanding of it is way more complex than mine and refuse to dummy it down to a simple level because you believe that viewpoint to contradict your greater understanding.

Alas, I am just too simple minded for the likes of you...

And what I really mean by all that is that I'm really just tired of talking about this, I can't take anymore, all you people get so complex and so elaborate and make everything so complicated. It does to always have to be so complicated, and you don't always have to be do semantically correct all the time, wrong vs "wrong for me" sometimes I think everyone here just likes to be difficult.

You're all great photographers and in a sense I value your information, but I'm tired...

It never ends with your constant correcting (this isn't directed at you specifically Thomas or Matt just happened to be happening with many) every turn is "Stone you aren't thinking about it right, Stone you aren't doing it right, Stone you are not successful because you have no style, Stone why do you bother posting such crappy images, Stone your vocabulary sucks, Stone you won't understand anything until you print, Stone you have to read these 8 books to understand anything.... Etc.... It never ends...

Sometimes you can learn things on your own without using the system in place, Ansel invented his own system, why can't I?

*barbaric yawlp*

Photography isn't easy.

But it's true, it is usually better to make your own mistakes and correct them for results you like rather than using someone else's system. I think most "styles" develop from the solutions people come up with to solve their individual problems.

 

[eddie]

Those that have the desire to excel at this put in the time. They do the boring stuff, delve into the science part (at least to some degree), find out what curves mean when it keeps popping up in discussions, examine their work critically, etc.
Not being willing to do the above indicates a lack of passion, and without the passion what's the point?

 

[ME Super]

Stone, I feel your pain. I too use experience of others, but only as a starting point. Let me give two examples, one which I was happy with the results by following others' recommendations, and another which I was not entirely happy.

Like you, I shoot E-6. All I had was Provia 100F, but I needed a faster film. At the time Provia 400X wasn't discontinued, but my local camera store didn't have any in stock. I did research online and found most people recommended that when pushing 2 stops, Provia 100F is best exposed at EI 320. I followed their lead, and was happy with the results.

Now, for something a bit trickier, I was experimenting for the first time with Infrared photography. I was using the Rollei IR 400 film, and looked online to see what EI most people use to shoot this film with an IR720 filter. I got recommendations ranging anywhere from ISO 12 to ISO 3. The first roll I shot, I bracketed my shots at EI 12, 6, and 3. I switched the camera to manual exposure mode, my ISO to 400, and then dialed in exposure compensation (no filter) to get EI 12, 6, and 3, then put the filter on and took the shots. Like you, I don't have a dark room, so my output is scans. Unlike you, I'm not set up to do my own developing, so I sent the film to the lab. In my opinion, the results from this process all looked overexposed. The shots taken at EI 12 were the least overexposed, and only seemed to be over a little. They were still usable. The next roll of IR 400 I shot, I shot at EI 25, and used the same process as before, and I am happy with the results.

If I were you, I'd pick a recommendation and go with it. You'll get something usable, even if it may not quite be what you wanted.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I feel your pain. I too use experience of others, but only as a starting point. Let me give two examples, one which I was happy with the results by following others' recommendations, and another which I was not entirely happy.

Like you, I shoot E-6. All I had was Provia 100F, but I needed a faster film. At the time Provia 400X wasn't discontinued, but my local camera store didn't have any in stock. I did research online and found most people recommended that when pushing 2 stops, Provia 100F is best exposed at EI 320. I followed their lead, and was happy with the results.

Now, for something a bit trickier, I was experimenting for the first time with Infrared photography. I was using the Rollei IR 400 film, and looked online to see what EI most people use to shoot this film with an IR720 filter. I got recommendations ranging anywhere from ISO 12 to ISO 3. The first roll I shot, I bracketed my shots at EI 12, 6, and 3. I switched the camera to manual exposure mode, my ISO to 400, and then dialed in exposure compensation (no filter) to get EI 12, 6, and 3, then put the filter on and took the shots. Like you, I don't have a dark room, so my output is scans. Unlike you, I'm not set up to do my own developing, so I sent the film to the lab. In my opinion, the results from this process all looked overexposed. The shots taken at EI 12 were the least overexposed, and only seemed to be over a little. They were still usable. The next roll of IR 400 I shot, I shot at EI 25, and used the same process as before, and I am happy with the results.

If I were you, I'd pick a recommendation and go with it. You'll get something usable, even if it may not quite be what you wanted.

Thanks, I've already stated that I'll probably take the first recommendation and then HALF it (as in 15% more dev than recommended.

At this point it doesn't matter, I'll be shooting a model today so I'll shoot a few sheets on HP5+ if I have time and perhaps soup them for D3200 if I have the time anyway.

BTW if you do want to be "set up" for your own developing, PM me and I can give you the list for basic setup, it costs $100 and gives you everything you need. Only if you want, no pressure (unlike these guys who push their way on everyone) lol.

 

[StoneNYC]

Those that have the desire to excel at this put in the time. They do the boring stuff, delve into the science part (at least to some degree), find out what curves mean when it keeps popping up in discussions, examine their work critically, etc.
Not being willing to do the above indicates a lack of passion, and without the passion what's the point?

I have a passion for art and creation, not charts.... Think of me like Jim Morrison... He had no musical training and just made stuff up that sounded good to him... LOL

 

[Chris Lange]

I have a passion for art and creation, not charts.... Think of me like Jim Morrison... He had no musical training and just made stuff up that sounded good to him... LOL

This excuse is hackneyed and invalid. Learn the "rules" so you can bend/break them intelligently. There is a boundary in photography where eventually the "data" side of things becomes more important to those making the products than those using them.

 

[Chris Lange]

Yeah that's right you're Jim Morrison.

The thing is, you're doing the very thing you accuse others of - ie way overcomplicating it all. If you have no interest in the basics of exposure, how developers work and so on (which is ok), I really think your art would be best served by sticking to one or two films and one standard developer, at least for a while. Get a nice straight curve and then do your scanning business.

I've followed most of your threads, and I'm telling you pretty much everything you've written about, asked about etc. - it all seems like a big mess. DD-X, old Rodinal, new Rodinal, old Technidol, expired Tech Pan, TMY, Pan F, Acros, HP5, Tri-X, double-X (WTF?), everything pushed or pulled or whatever. All this and you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of a film's characteristic curve.

I don't even think the understanding of a curve is important. What is important is using the film that you've used the most of, in one or two developers for respective purposes (acufine / microphen for pushing night stuff, rodinal/d76/whatever for everything else), and learning its extremes.

Give yourself a long term homework assignment, and forget playing the role of someone who "does shoots" and "has a model coming over".

A) Pick one camera with one lens, make sure you like it because this is all you will use for the next 6 months. Something like your Mamiya 7 with the 80 is reasonable, or a 35 with a fast lens.

B) Pick a concise subject or idea you want to investigate/learn about.

C) buy 50-100 rolls of film. doesn't matter what kind, but it will be the ONLY film you use for 6 months, so make sure it's versatile. I like HP5+.

D) make proof prints as you go along, use Lightroom to keep a running collection of your best images from each roll. make good 5x7-8x10" pigment prints as you go along to see your work in physical form. Tack them up / tape them to your studio/bedroom walls and look at them every day.Shuffle them around, play with the order, LOOK at your work.

E) When you've finished shooting all your film, go through your scans/proof prints and spend a month or two editing down to the best 15-20 photographs.

F) Make 16x20" prints (lambda, darkroom, inkjet, whatever it doesn't matter as long as the quality is good) of these 15-20 images.

G) Congratulations you've completed your first portfolio series.

 

[MartinP]

A simple and direct instruction is to develop the film exactly as specified by Ilford for these conditions. Ignore any other source. This also means having all the chemicals and the tank at 20C (or 24C if chosen) throughout processing - take care with the process and it will take care of your results.

Remember that developing for a long time doesn't really change the filmspeed by several stops, it changes the contrast. As you will (probably) not be printing this roll but scanning it, and contrast is the easiest thing to change with a scanned neg, then don't worry about it. You will get some results.

The biggest variables by far are the accuracy of your metering and the accuracy of your camera. You can easily be out more than a stop by accident here, without noticing anything obviously 'imperfect' in your technique.

The D3200 development times are for different contrasts. Most people these days are probably using that film with 'soft' diffusion enlargers instead of traditional 'hard' condenser enlargers and that is why most prefer a slightly higher contrast negative. Remember developing for ages doesn't increase the filmspeed, it just changes the contrast. DDX and Microphen (and equivalents from other manufacturers of course) do gain a small amount of filmspeed and build contrast more gently because they work differently to, for example, Rodinal which actually loses a small amount of speed compared to the 'standard' D76/ID11.

 

[erikg]

Michael is right and Chris offers some very good advice. Going back to the OT I have done what you are attempting and I would follow Ilford's recommendations for DDX. I would def. NOT extend development, the extra density will be of no help. Trying to extrapolate from what some people do with Delta 3200 doesn't make any sense. Let's be realistic, you've underexposed by 3 stops in typical interior lighting? Disaster. It may be even worse if the lighting was strictly tungsten. Pick a time and pray to St. Veronica.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Think of me like Jim Morrison...

Got it, Jim.

 

[cowanw]

Pick a time and pray to St. Veronica.

I like that. Is she the actual patron saint of photography? Because she took a picture of Jesus.

 

[erikg]

I like that. Is she the actual patron saint of photography? Because she took a picture of Jesus.

Yes, and for that reason.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, and for that reason.

anthotype ? ( shroud or turin ? )

 

[cowanw]

anthotype ? ( shroud or turin ? )

Not the shroud of Turin. But the Veil of Veronica; probably a sudortype

 

[cowanw]

Which brings up the Question; St Veronica or St Betty (Elizabeth).

 

[StoneNYC]

Michael is right and Chris offers some very good advice. Going back to the OT I have done what you are attempting and I would follow Ilford's recommendations for DDX. I would def. NOT extend development, the extra density will be of no help. Trying to extrapolate from what some people do with Delta 3200 doesn't make any sense. Let's be realistic, you've underexposed by 3 stops in typical interior lighting? Disaster. It may be even worse if the lighting was strictly tungsten. Pick a time and pray to St. Veronica.

Thanks, but I'm using the film as Ilford states it can be used... as a 3200 speed film... that's per ilford...

 

[StoneNYC]

A simple and direct instruction is to develop the film exactly as specified by Ilford for these conditions. Ignore any other source. This also means having all the chemicals and the tank at 20C (or 24C if chosen) throughout processing - take care with the process and it will take care of your results.

Remember that developing for a long time doesn't really change the filmspeed by several stops, it changes the contrast. As you will (probably) not be printing this roll but scanning it, and contrast is the easiest thing to change with a scanned neg, then don't worry about it. You will get some results.

The biggest variables by far are the accuracy of your metering and the accuracy of your camera. You can easily be out more than a stop by accident here, without noticing anything obviously 'imperfect' in your technique.

The D3200 development times are for different contrasts. Most people these days are probably using that film with 'soft' diffusion enlargers instead of traditional 'hard' condenser enlargers and that is why most prefer a slightly higher contrast negative. Remember developing for ages doesn't increase the filmspeed, it just changes the contrast. DDX and Microphen (and equivalents from other manufacturers of course) do gain a small amount of filmspeed and build contrast more gently because they work differently to, for example, Rodinal which actually loses a small amount of speed compared to the 'standard' D76/ID11.

Thanks Martin, you're probably one of the few smart people here, because you said something relevant.