What should my developing time be with iso 100 film pushed to 1600 in D76 developer?

[Treymac]

Hey guys. What are your guys's recommendations for developing HP5 film, 400iso, shot at 1600 iso? I'm using D76 as the developer.

Thanks.

 

[fschifano]

See page 3 of this document. Note that ID-11 and D-76 are the same in use, so I can't get why Ilford posted different development times for the two developers. I'd start with the times given for ID-11, and make whatever adjustments I thought necessary the next time around.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I'd recommend not doing it. But then, I'm a curmudgeon. I'm glad to see the subject line is wrong; that you are doing HP5, not a 100 iso film. That might save your neck.

If you do it, learn to simplify your lighting and your subject vision to the sparest, simplest possible forms.

There's another forum somewhere, with some really good advice from Mr. Cardwell about how and when "pushing" is useful and how to make it work. I'd recommend searching dfcardwell's recent posts. Had something to do with "pushing" HP5. You will find something you can use.

Personally, I regard "pushing" as a bit less reliable than a lottery ticket, but there are times when something like it can work. However, when it does, it isn't really "pushing". It is using the exposure controls intelligently to your best advantage. Mr. C says it all, and he doesn't even go so far as to trash the whole idea like I do. Even to the point of helping figure the way to adjust times for it.

Nobody ever believes me, and it never surprises me when they give up photography after a year or two. How could they not, doing everything possible to insure their failure?

 

[Leighgion]

The Massive Dev Chart is an excellent resource for this kind of thing. HP5 and D76 here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=D-76&mdc=Search

I've never shot HP5, but the dev times look similar to Tri-X in D76.

Contrary to bowzart's assertions, the majority of my lottery tickets have failed to yield, while virtually all of my pushed film has come out quite nicely. Even the casualties in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) hasn't made me give up photography.

I've had great results with Tri-X at 1600 in D76 1+1.

 

[Larry Bullis]

...
Contrary to bowzart's assertions, the majority of my lottery tickets have failed to yield, while virtually all of my pushed film has come out quite nicely. Even the casualties in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) hasn't made me give up photography.

Good for you.

Sometime when you take the ferry to the mainland, get in touch via PM. We can have coffee or something.

 

[Leighgion]

Sometime when you take the ferry to the mainland, get in touch via PM. We can have coffee or something.

Would this be a curmudgeonly meeting?

 

[Larry Bullis]

No doubt.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Back to the point. Actually, your Mad Science experiment is a great example of how "pushing" works (or doesn't). I think that one's point of view toward this topic depends on what one uses as a standard. In your examples (which can be seen at the link you provide above), for myself, you've destroyed just about everything that I love about the photograph. The best example for discussion of this is Hillary, the cat. The result is entirely predictable; the form of the cat is virtually destroyed because it merges into the background leaving the white markings more or less floating in space, and the form of the whole confused. Now if Hillary were all white, and the background dark, this wouldn't happen, unless, of course, she were partially shaded. Mr. Cardwell, in his post on your mad science thread, provides most of the important information that can help someone to understand the principles that apply.

If you enjoy images which obscure the content, that's fine. I don't mean to suggest that this isn't a good topic for experiment or to use deliberately for particular effect. In fact, I use it myself in circumstances in which I think it can enhance the image. I don't call it "pushing" because it is, as DF points out, "simple image control". Without looking at the subject, the lighting, etc. with an understanding of how the film responds to exposure and development, a better term for "pushing" would be "underexposure and overdevelopment" - which is exactly what it is. Used to emphasize or exaggerate forms, it can be great. Simple, evenly lit forms are a good place to start.

Avedon was a master of this kind of technique, but most people would probably not recognize that because he designed his lighting to provide a perfect opportunity for this scale expansion to be successful. The technique became invisible because it was done so well. In doing so, he was able to produce perfect white skin on his models while retaining, even emphasizing, the form. Without that kind of care, he'd have destroyed the form and concealed what he instead so beautifully revealed. I doubt that he'd have called it "pushing", but maybe he did. I won't link to a particular image because I'm not sure it's ok to do so, but if you go to the Avedon Foundation's web site (Dead Link Removed), you can find lots of examples. I think the one with the elephants, which came up on the front page for me, is a perfect example. If you look at the range of tones and exaggerated texture in the elephants' skin, you can eaily see the effects produced by the expansion of scale. But nothing was lost. He's clarified, rather than confused the image.