Shooting TMAX 400 Pushed to 800

[braxus]

Im going to shoot an old church in downtown Vancouver in 2 weeks time. Im wanting to do some B&W. 400 speed film is required for the indoors of the church. Either shooting a roll of HP5+ at 800 ISO, but I'd rather use TMAX. Does TMAX 400 push well and what are the results? Does it get unwieldy and unpredictable when pushed? Is it difficult for development and scanning afterwards? I could also use Tri-X pushed to 800, but I want the finer grain of TMAX. Anyone?

 

[Anon Ymous]

As the datasheet says, it can handle a one stop underexposure without push processing, and you can mix nirmal and -1 exposure shots.

 

[braxus]

But what happens when you push the developing for using at 800?

 

[cerber0s]

But what happens when you push the developing for using at 800?

Use the times and developers recommended in the data sheet and you’ll be fine. TMax 400 will push to 3200 and still look ok, I doubt you’d even be able to tell the difference without doing a side by side comparison at 800.

 

[koraks]

But what happens when you push the developing for using at 800?

You get a higher gamma. I.e. the highlights end up more dense. There will be a slight difference in contrast/separation in the shadows in favor of the 'pushed' film. How meaningful it is, remains to be seen.

 

[ic-racer]

Under exposing only makes sense to me if one is already at the fastest emulsion available.

 

[grain elevator]

If you're taking photos of the church and not of people, why not use a tripod? Solves the film speed question. Church interiors tend to be really dark, even at EI 800 you'd be very limited.

 

[Anon Ymous]

But what happens when you push the developing for using at 800?

As you may already know, push processing doesn't magically turn a 400 ISO film to a 800, 1600, ... one. You only compensate for underexposure by increasing contrast and giving mid and upper values more density. Shadows will suffer, no matter what. The more you underexpose, the more desirable it is to push process, especially if you print optically, but as said, there are no miracles. A one stop underexposure doesn't require anything special actually, using a harder contrast filter will do the trick. If you are scanning, as I suspect you do, you can easily boost shadow contrast and shape the curve any way you wish.

 

[Bill Burk]

Doesn’t the data sheet say no processing change for TMY2 at 800 ?

Personally for a church where you may have dark shadows I would use a traditional grain film like Tri-X and expose carefully to place shadows on the toe.

I think the demonstration is in “Way Beyond Monochrome” of a stairwell in a church illuminated by stained glass window. The print from a film that doesn’t have a toe leaves the bench at the bottom of the stairs stark by comparison.

 

[MattKing]

If I need an EI of 800 from TMax 400 I follow the datasheet recommendations - I develop the film normally. If I need a contrast boost from the result, I do that at the printing/post-processing stage. At that stage, the long straight characteristic curve for normally developed TMax 400 gives me lots to work with in the mid-tones and highlights.
I only increase development if I need to compensate for a low contrast subject/lighting.
The lower quality penalty that one incurs as a result of increasing development - for a normal or high contrast subject - is greater than the benefit one might get from increasing development.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

TMY looks fine push processed to 800... but HP5 looks WAY better

 

[braxus]

Being the recommendations from you guys to shoot Tri-X instead of TMY, and also HP5+, I might as well just shoot HP5+ pushed to 800. Its grain is not as pronounced as Tri-X, so it works when HP5 is pushed. I'll be using 120 for that. I might shoot a roll of TMY in 35mm anyways, since I need to use up a roll of color 35mm during the same shoot. Most of my shots will be outdoors with the 120 roll. Its too noisy to use indoors during a show. Even my 35mm isnt that quiet either, but better than most film cameras.

 

[albireo]

As you may already know, push processing doesn't magically turn a 400 ISO film to a 800, 1600, ... one. You only compensate for underexposure by increasing contrast and giving mid and upper values more density. Shadows will suffer, no matter what. The more you underexpose, the more desirable it is to push process, especially if you print optically, but as said, there are no miracles. A one stop underexposure doesn't require anything special actually, using a harder contrast filter will do the trick. If you are scanning, as I suspect you do, you can easily boost shadow contrast and shape the curve any way you wish.

You can, but it won't do magic.

Just like with optical printing, underexposing and overdeveloping film will inevitably lead to a (technically) subpar scan, chiefly because the scanner sensor cannot invent detail where there is none, and renders detail very poorly where there is little, no matter how long or hard you tinker with those PS curves.

There is no free lunch even when scanning film.

 

[albireo]

Being the recommendations from you guys to shoot Tri-X instead of TMY, and also HP5+, I might as well just shoot HP5+ pushed to 800. Its grain is not as pronounced as Tri-X

The Naked Photographer has a new Tri-X vs HP5+ comparison - D76 stock developed and wet printed. Perhaps it's of interest.

 

[Anon Ymous]

You can, but it won't do magic.

Just like with optical printing, underexposing and overdeveloping film will inevitably lead to a (technically) subpar scan, chiefly because the scanner sensor cannot invent detail where there is none, and renders detail very poorly where there is little, no matter how long or hard you tinker with those PS curves.

There is no free lunch even when scanning film.

Yes, obviously you can't invent detail that doesn't exist, but if there's a faint image, then a hybrid approach will be much more effective in bringing out this detail. Anything in the toe region of the characteristic curve would require some tedious work to show nicely when printing optically, but would be far easier in a hybrid workflow. Not necessarily something that will look very nice, but something better than nothing, by squeezing out the best you can from it.

 

[Huub]

For me it would depend on a few things, like the actual light in the church in combination on what i would want to shoot in the church - is it the people and the things happening there, or is it the architecture for instance. When possible, i would shoot with a tripod or monopod, even when such would take more effort from my side and more consideration from the people around me.

Also: light inside churches can very contrasty, especially in daylight, with huge differences between the windows and the deeper shadows. Make sure to expose for these shadows and don't overdevelop the film to prevent the highlights from blowing out. Not overdeveloping of course bites with pushing a film. Consider using TMZ or Delta3200 and pulling these to 1000 iso, which is their base sensetivity anyway.

And then: consider the developer you use and choose one that gives you good shadow detail. For instance, i would rather use Microphen or XTOL then something like Rodinal in such a situation.

 

[warden]

Consider using TMZ or Delta3200 and pulling these to 1000 iso, which is their base sensetivity anyway.

Two thumbs up for that suggestion.

 

[George Collier]

It's not really the question you asked, but, as someone suggested, why not us a tripod? I've photographed many times in churches with B&W film, always with a tripod - or if you need more mobility, a monopod, or even chest pod (a small table tripod adapted to your chest.)

 

[braxus]

Im already bringing 2 tripods for doing the video work Im doing. I want to be able to walk around the church to get the stills. There is light in there, just not outdoor light.

 

[charlemagne]

I always shot 35mm and 120 TMY at 800 ISO. Developed in Tmax developer 1+4 it gave excellent results.

 

[GregY]

I always shot 35mm and 120 TMY at 800 ISO. Developed in Tmax developer 1+4 it gave excellent results.

If i may ask, what did you prefer that made you expose @ 800?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@braxus is it the old Catholic church down on Dunsmuir?

 

[Carnie Bob]

HP5 pushed to 800 then developed in Microphen is fantastic.

 

[charlemagne]

If i may ask, what did you prefer that made you expose @ 800?

I liked to have one more stop for shorter exposure times.

Also, it gave me the possibility to develop TMX and TMY together in one tank, because TMX @100 TMY @800 have about the same development times - in my experience.

 

[braxus]

@braxus is it the old Catholic church down on Dunsmuir?

If you mean the Holy Rosary Cathedral downtown, then yes. Im going to Handel's Messiah to record the event (for myself, and yes I have permission to do that). Recording video and audio, but I want to get pictures as well while there. Its a lovely church outside, but I forget how it looked inside.