Smokey Jazz Bar Showdown HP5 vs 3200

[CraigK]

Hi All,

Well I will be shooting in one of my favorite Jazz haunts next week which, by the way, is not so smokey anymore due to a province wide ban on indoor smoking (best thing since sliced bread)...

Anyway I've been shooting mainly Delta 3200 in 120 with my mamiya 7 but this week I will be taking an ancient Leica llla to the club with me. I have used HP5 in the past and had good results pushing it to 1600. Typically I shoot Delta 3200 @ 1600 or 3200.

Isn't this a bit redundant? I've not done side by side tests yet but in your vast experience oh wise APUGer's (APUG-ites? APUG-onians?) what are the pros and cons of pushing HP5 vs. pulling (or not) Delta 3200?

Any favorite film/dev. combo's/ recipes for either?

May the Jazz be with you!

 

[Dr.Kollig]

The real speed of Delta 3200 is about 1000-1250, so 1600 in X-tol is fine and one of my favourite combinations - unless I go for grain and dig out some Tmax 3200.
I used Delta 400 at 1600 in Xtol and found shadow density rather low - but grain might be finer than 3200 Delta at 1600.
HP5+ @ 1600 in Tmax developer gave better shadows than Delta 400, but coarser grain. Pushing 400 speed films safricifes shadow detail, but saves money.

What lens are you using, an old Summar or Summitar? Wide open you will get soft creamy results which work better with fine grain.
The later Summicrons will give a higher contrast and might prefer more sharpness.

Also what is the subject, a face might be better rendered with grain and contrast, a complete scene requires highest resolution...

Summary: Use 3200 Delta exposed around 1000-1600, my developer of choice would be Xtol/Mytol. These negatives will print with ease.

Wolfram

 

[fhovie]

My choice would be to push TRI-X or TMX to 1600. TMX will give finer grain and TRI-X will have better shadows. Either way the developer would be XTOL 1:1. The results are almost as good as they are at 400. I do it all the time. HP5 will push real well also but the grain is very different. Shadows will be ok - but not as good as TRI-X. The TRI-X will appear sharper and the HP5 will appear smoother.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suspect fhovie means TMY instead of TMX -- TMY is T-Max 400, and can be pushed to 1600 (more or less) by doubling development time and/or diluting and increasing development accordingly. TMX is T-Max 100, and pushing it four stops is probably effectively impossible (or if it were possible, would result in images that look like they were shot on lith film).

FWIW, I'd be most inclined to use Tri-X for the shoot you're talking about -- two stops of push, to 1600, is no big deal for Tri-X (in fact, if you develop in Diafine, that's the normal EI of the film). And it's not out of the question to push Tri-X to EI 3200 in a number of developers such as Microphen, or (with a thorough water wash between cycles to prevent carrying Bath B back into Bath A) via a second cycle in Diafine.

 

[fhovie]

I suspect fhovie means TMY instead of TMX -- TMY is T-Max 400,

thanks for the correction.

 

[rbarker]

Don't forget to factor in that the lenses on the Leica will likely be 1 to 4 stops faster than those on the Mamiya 7.

 

[Dial911]

I like HP5+ pushed to 3200 in Rodinal. This shot is from my Leica MP with 50 mm f/1.4 and printed on Agfa MCC paper.

Dennis Rotterheim

 

[Seele]

I have done my fair share of stage photography and have discovered, the hard way, what the main issue is: overall contrast and local contrast.

At first sight, stage photography appears to be a very high contrast subject, deep shadows and intense highlights. However, it is a low-contrast subject, or rather, two low contrast subjects cramped into the same negative. As stage lighting and photographic lighting techniques are totally different, you have to consider both the illuminated areas (lit faces, for instance) and the shadow areas are two low contrast subjects, each with its own limited luminance range, but yet positioned to the point of being right there at the extremes of the H&D curve even if a compromise exposure is decided upon.

Further compounding the issue is that, while we are hoping to get high film speeds by basically over-developing the under-exposed film, overall contrast might shoot up to the point that the highlights might get blocked up while the shadow densities still cannot build up sufficiently due to the lack of exposure. After all, the "pushing" of film does not appreciably alter the real film speed as measures at the toe of the H&D curve, but rather an equivalent midtone, which, in this case, is sadly lacking.

After much trials and false starts, I have come to use a standardized combination: an inherently fast film, yet one with low base-fog, and give it a speed-increasing compensating development. My combination is Fuji Neopan 1600, rated at 1600 (preferably 800 if possible), exposed for shadow and developed in Tetenal Emofin. Full shadow exposure along with two-bath development brings out extra density and local contrast, but it two-bath development also minimizes the chance for th highlights from blocking up. The resultant negatives invatiably prints easily on standard grade paper with no need for holding back the highlights at all; straight prints all the way.

As usual, YMMV.