Which film for all-round use and pushing to 1600? (hp5 or delta400)

[Lachlan Young]

Delta 400 underwent a significant revision about 20 years ago - which seems to have slipped by people who probably haven't used it in the intervening - part of which was to improve its latitude to underexposure.

@Lachlan Young, That's interesting to hear. I used this film in the mid to late 90's, and haven't touched it until a few years ago. I just ran a push test (out of curiosity) the other day. First glance of the negatives, they look very similar to the HP5 negs I shot along with it.

The summary I recall was to the effect that Delta 400 Professional was sharper, had better underexposure latitude, better image quality when developed to higher G-Bar/ average gradients and was able to use a wider array of developers (presumably less sensitive to people being intent on using non-solvent developers with it) compared to Delta 400.

It’s not better than TMax 400. I’ll almost swear to that.
And HP5 pushes better than Delta 400. Delta 400 is good, but to me it is an also ran version of TMY.

I've found that Delta 400 has a better spectral sensitivity for what I need than 400TMY-II.

Delta 400 and Tmax 400 both aim to improve on the HP5+/ 400TX/ 4142 Super-XX nexus in slightly divergent ways. Demanding that there be a 'winner' is pointless.

 

[MattKing]

Uh oh... am I in trouble? PM me. I'm at home taking it easy today. No darkroom work...

I was off with the pinhole camera today photographing some of my favorite trees, so I just saw this.
Of course you aren't in trouble - that was me wearing my "lets talk about what pushing really does" hat.
I'll start a new Conversation about this tomorrow, but radiant has already covered some of the more important parts already in his/her post.

 

[McDiesel]

DD-X's point is to effectively improve on ID-11/ D-76 & Microphen types of fine-grain developers.

I will never use DD-X and "fine grain" in the same sentence. In my experience it adds a bit more shadow detail compared to ID-11, but loses to it in everything else, particularly on grain quality. The worst developer I've ever used, even Microphen was more honest: yes it also worsens grain, but it's 3x cheaper and its speed boost is more noticeable.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I will never use DD-X and "fine grain" in the same sentence. In my experience it adds a bit more shadow detail compared to ID-11, but loses to it in everything else, particularly on grain quality. The worst developer I've ever used, even Microphen was more honest: yes it also worsens grain, but it's 3x cheaper and its speed boost is more noticeable.

Process control (i.e. safe margin for error) & effective scanner MTF (not nominal 'resolution') are often bigger issues than any nominal qualities of particular developers. That said, improving on D-76/ ID-11 was a not insignificant absorber of research effort at Kodak/ Ilford (and the others too, I suspect) for several decades - mainly because a meaningful improvement in the speed/ granularity/ sharpness triangle didn't necessarily provide a better image in double-blind testing. Despite the hectares of nonsense written in books, magazines & on the internet about D-76's supposed 'failings' it has proved to be very challenging to truly better across the board. Xtol/XT-3 are probably the closest to achieving that. The problem with PQ (and PA) developers is that you can significantly improve sharpness vs Metol only, let alone MQ - but that you get more prominent visual granularity - etc, etc.

 

[pentaxuser]

I assume Andrews tree branch scene was about 3 stops in luminance range. If you underexpose by 6 stops your Zone V is at Zone -I .. I mean all your exposure should be below Zone I. Which would mean you would get nothing on film.

You should have done contrast/tonality adjustment for the ISO 200 to match any of those other exposures. HP5 "overexposed" by 1 stop is not lost at all - if you compensate the contrast loss in development then you have a good negative with good shadow details if needed.

I have a feeling I may not have understood what you mean in your quote. Looking at the 25,600 shot there still seems some detail in the grass(Zone V) at the base of the tree trunk as well as some detail in some of the thin branches that are growing on the trunk so what has Andrew done that resulted in the detail in the 25,600 shot where there should have been none?

Maybe the second paragraph contains the explanation but I confess to not being able to follow what you mean. Andrew in his reply seems to understand what you meant so I invite his comment as well to help me understand

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[radiant]

I have a feeling I may not have understood what you mean in your quote. Looking at the 25,600 shot there still seems some detail in the grass(Zone V) at the base of the tree trunk as well as some detail in some of the thin branches that are growing on the trunk so what has Andrew done that resulted in the detail in the 25,600 shot where there should have been none?

Maybe the second paragraph contains the explanation but I confess to not being able to follow what you mean. Andrew in his reply seems to understand what you meant so I invite his comment as well to help me understand

I think you understood correctly. I'm a bit puzzled why there is anything on film with 25600 EI when having such low subject luminance range.

The second paragraph is related just to EI 200 case. I'm just defending overexposuring a tiny bit there.

 

[grain elevator]

I'm a bit puzzled why there is anything on film with 25600 EI when having such low subject luminance range.

The model you introduce in post 14 about how the zones move around when pushing is very useful and it's accurate for the straight line portion, but it neglects the toe, which explains that something is recorded even where we'd usually, when not pushing, not look for information.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think you understood correctly. I'm a bit puzzled why there is anything on film with 25600 EI when having such low subject luminance range.

The second paragraph is related just to EI 200 case. I'm just defending overexposuring a tiny bit there.

Well what seems incredible on the zone system rationale is that in fact even on the 12,800 setting there also should have not been anything either as that gets the zone V to zone II where based on AA's definition of that zone is one of barely any texture

One of my difficulties with the AA's definition is how vague the distinction between Z I and Z II is in terms of how the man-in-the-street sees a clear difference between these two zones

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I think you understood correctly. I'm a bit puzzled why there is anything on film with 25600 EI when having such low subject luminance range.

It probably relates to how Andrew metered the scene and "standardized" the display of results.

 

[radiant]

You are correct, maybe using Zone system as reference is too coarse for this comparison.

Maybe this way: the toe / cutoff is probably at about -2.8 logE while mid-gray (for ISO 400) is at -1.7 so that is still 5 stops down from mid-gray.

 

[Agulliver]

I shoot quite a lot of HP5+ at 1600 and faster, often at gigs in a dim jazz club. I love the way it turns out. I find that it captures the look that photographers got in the 60s and 70s. I've tried Delta 400 and I find the images are too "clean" for my liking. However if OP wants a modern looking image, this may well be the way to go. I use ID-11 stock or Microphen stock.

Bottom line is either will work, YMMV regarding which you prefer but Delta 400 sounds like a possible match for the OP's requirement.

 

[Agulliver]

A few examples of what I typically do with HP5+ every weekend. Note I don't edit much so I'm not meticulously matching contrast, highlights etc. These would all have been shot at 1600 or 2000, processed in ID-11 stock using inversions and a bit of swirling. Yashica Minister III camera from the early to mid 1960s, if that's important. Also I saved these from my facebook albums as I am posting from a location where I don't have access to the originals.

 

[radiant]

@Agulliver that first shot is awesome!

I've also tried to find that "old" very graphic look from modern films and pushing HP5 has been most promising way - but not even close. I think HP5 pushed is very modern looking film any way used.

 

[pentaxuser]

It probably relates to how Andrew metered the scene and "standardized" the display of results.

Matt, could you explain to a relative tyro such as me what that means in as simple terms as possible what that means for the apparent contradiction between what Andrew did and got a neg with detail where radiant expects there to be nothing.

Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Matt, could you explain to a relative tyro such as me what that means in as simple terms as possible what that means for the apparent contradiction between what Andrew did and got a neg with detail where radiant expects there to be nothing.

Thanks

He metered the scene and then elected to place the shadows up fairly high on the film's characteristic curve - near where the mid-tones usually find themselves. That is partially related to his use of EI 200 as his "normal".
So when he started reducing the exposure, those shadows had lots of room to go down the curve before they lost detail.
The scene has a relatively low Subject Luminance Range ("SLR"). As a result, there was still room for the highlights to render well even with the shadows being placed so high. Then, as the exposure is decreased, and the development is correspondingly increased, those highlights still have a little room to continue moving up the curve, without losing detail.
Finally, when displaying the results, he kept the high mid-tones at relatively the same tone, so the differences don't appear glaringly obvious, because it is those high mid-tones that we tend to notice most.
The response would have been very different if Andrew was photographing a scene and lighting conditions like the ones shown in Agulliver's examples.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, I use the zone system. I probably should have been more clear. I did talk about zone system and how/why I placed shadows and where the highlights fell...but decided to cut it. My experience in the past on this site is that some people get a bit hostile toward the ZS... almost like how some are towards people who do stand development...
So... the deepest shadows in the tree were placed on zone III. The brightest branches fell on VII. I like my highlights on VIII, but decided to leave it on VII. Any sky poking through was seven stops brighter than the shadow. I left it be as I didn't want to factor that in to my push times. I used Xtol-R with pushed times from MDC...except for the EI 200. That was my time. The dev times beyond 6400 were interpolated from a curve that I drew up. I tested them, and tweaked a bit before I did the push test. All the reproduced images are scans of the negatives. I matched the bark and let the shadows fall wherever.
The pathway shot was under quite normal lighting. The lighting was diffused. I only went to box speed. Exposure was based on the tree debris, placed on zone IV. The facade fell on zone VIII. I matched the pathway tones to each other for the scanned negs. I probably should have shot another sheet at EI 1600 or even 3200.
Last one was in my tool shed to see how the film behaved in low lighting...probably the main reason why most people would push film. Exposure was based on the plastic shovel...zone III. Scans matched to an area on the particle board that was about middle gray.

I'm planning to do a push with Delta 400. This time I will be handholding my RB. I would like to make prints...keeping in mind that I mainly do alt work with digi negs...

Back to teaching now... my students are very needy...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He metered the scene and then elected to place the shadows up fairly high on the film's characteristic curve - near where the mid-tones usually find themselves. That is partially related to his use of EI 200 as his "normal".
So when he started reducing the exposure, those shadows had lots of room to go down the curve before they lost detail.
The scene has a relatively low Subject Luminance Range ("SLR"). As a result, there was still room for the highlights to render well even with the shadows being placed so high. Then, as the exposure is decreased, and the development is correspondingly increased, those highlights still have a little room to continue moving up the curve, without losing detail.
Finally, when displaying the results, he kept the high mid-tones at relatively the same tone, so the differences don't appear glaringly obvious, because it is those high mid-tones that we tend to notice most.
The response would have been very different if Andrew was photographing a scene and lighting conditions like the ones shown in Agulliver's examples.

No, I didn't place the shadows high up on the curve. I placed them on zone III... for all exposures. High on the curve for me would have been zone IV or V.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, I didn't place the shadows high up on the curve. I placed them on zone III... for all exposures. High on the curve for me would have been zone IV or V.

Under any conditions I place shadows in Zone III or Zone IV, and very rarely in Zone II. Zone II shadow details work for me, but I have not found useful overall.

 

[McDiesel]

It was interesting to observe everyone's thoughts on Delta 400. Looks like the folks who prefer the more modern and "clean" look will opt for T-Max 400 instead, but those who prefer a grittier / retro appearance stick with HP5+. The poor Delta 400 lands somewhere in the middle unable to please any group.

 

[pentaxuser]

No, I didn't place the shadows high up on the curve. I placed them on zone III... for all exposures. High on the curve for me would have been zone IV or V.

Thanks Matt and more especially Andrew for his clarification as to where he placed his shadows. From what I understand zone III is where most people place them and where it is normally recommended. So am I right in assuming that in effect "nothing special" as in out of the ordinary was done and yet Andrew retained an amazing amount of detail until about 12,800 which radiant's zone theory suggests that where I saw some detail all I should have seen was featureless black

Maybe grain elevator's explanation covers it as follows: "The model you introduce in post 14 about how the zones move around when pushing is very useful and it's accurate for the straight line portion, but it neglects the toe, which explains that something is recorded even where we'd usually, when not pushing, not look for information."

All we have is scans but presumably if something is recorded on the negative then in the darkroom we can show it on the print?

When using what is a massive push process at 25,600 I'd have expected the highlights which I presume were at least zone VII on the 400 shot to have been blown at the times needed for 25,600 and yet they do not seem to be?

As you will see I am still having difficulties reconciling what I see with in the pics with what I think I should see according to the zone system

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

It was interesting to observe everyone's thoughts on Delta 400. Looks like the folks who prefer the more modern and "clean" look will opt for T-Max 400 instead, but those who prefer a grittier / retro appearance stick with HP5+. The poor Delta 400 lands somewhere in the middle unable to please any group.

I think the main problem with Delta 400 for me is that it’s really just not as fast as it’s competitors. It doesn’t quite compare with TMY or D3200 or HP5.

They all have their own look, but so does any film. In the end you chose a film that suits the situation you’ll shoot in, with look being a secondary interest.
A 400 film on a sunny day where don’t want to shoot stopped all the way down is not ideal. ND filters is a hassle.
Same with slow film, when flash is impossible or unwanted.

Lachlans mention of extended red sensitivity of D400 is interesting though. Something I haven’t really noticed before.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just came back from testing Delta 400 to see if it is a worthy candidate for "the push". My back is killing me from carrying the RB67 around my neck for a few hours... but I had a lot of fun. I wanted to shoot with my Rolleiflex, but more practical with the RB, with its interchangeable magazines. I will do an outing with it eventually, though... I've come to love that square frame!
I should make it clear that I'm doing all this push testing to see if I can make it work with my choice of subject matter, under various lighting conditions. I guess I'm leaning more toward pushing for its creative effects, more than anything else...
I'll post the video here when I've finished editing it... got to develop the film.. but before that, I have to print a pinhole I shot with the 14x17 the other day...
Cheers!

 

[MattKing]

No, I didn't place the shadows high up on the curve. I placed them on zone III... for all exposures. High on the curve for me would have been zone IV or V.

I think the issue is probably related to what ended up being "shadows" in the subject.
With the low SLR, the shadows in this scene ended up being high up in the curve, even if they were placed on Zone III. They were always going to be close to the highlights in this scene.

 

[MattKing]

When using what is a massive push process at 25,600 I'd have expected the highlights which I presume were at least zone VII on the 400 shot to have been blown at the times needed for 25,600 and yet they do not seem to be?

With this subject, I'd be surprised if the highlights reached Zone VII with "normal" development.
It is probably important to remember that Andrew aims his negatives toward alternative processes like kallitype, even if he often is using a digital intermediary now.
As I said to him off thread, this would be so much easier to discuss in real life, rather than through the internet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just came back from testing Delta 400 to see if it is a worthy candidate for "the push". My back is killing me from carrying the RB67 around my neck for a few hours... but I had a lot of fun. I wanted to shoot with my Rolleiflex, but more practical with the RB, with its interchangeable magazines. I will do an outing with it eventually, though... I've come to love that square frame!
I should make it clear that I'm doing all this push testing to see if I can make it work with my choice of subject matter, under various lighting conditions. I guess I'm leaning more toward pushing for its creative effects, more than anything else...
I'll post the video here when I've finished editing it... got to develop the film.. but before that, I have to print a pinhole I shot with the 14x17 the other day...
Cheers!

If you trade the RB in for a Hasselblad, your back will thank you and you could stop wearing a truss.