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

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

If I could afford one, I'd buy one. I should have bought one ten years ago when they were going for cheap... oh well. My Rolleiflex will do for now.

 

[Ulophot]

I chose Delta 3200 at 1600 for ballet photography (see m FLickr Ballet album; scanned from prints) long ago, after testing it against HP5, which was my standard photojournalism film. The Delta had a clear edge in speed and, with carefully agitated development in Microphen for a neg that generally kept extended highlights in check, I found the grain nearly comparable at that rating. Either way, you won't escape grain in a significant enlargement, but no fast-film pushing does. Delta is more expensive, of course, and Microphen has gone up, too; there may be better alternatives.

 

[MattKing]

Andrew looks better with an RB67:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew looks better with an RB67:
View attachment 303962

We have to do that again!

 

[MattKing]

We have to do that again!

I agree. Maybe next time I won't be sweating so much and won't miss focus of you in the trees!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I agree. Maybe next time I won't be sweating so much and won't miss focus of you in the trees!

I should get out your way. What is there to photograph of there?

 

[MattKing]

We best stop disrupting this thread.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Thanks Matt. So in a low SLR( low brightness range as in overcast conditions?) the curve is not as long as presumably the zones stop at say VI or VII and in a shorter curve what limited zones there are will be compressed i.e. closer together. It sounds as if you are saying that zones move on the curve depending on the Subject Brightness Range. So does that mean that the meter's registration of zone III will vary with SBR and that zone III moves?

I must admit I had always assumed that on the curve each zone due to its standard of brightness always occupied the same space in length i.e. zone III is always zone III on a meter whether it is zone III in a scene with 9 zones or 6 zones. The curve is simply shorter because there is no zone VIII or IX there but the curve simply stops sooner rather than it compressing the space between say zone III and zone VI or zone VII?

Or have I got some of this right and some wrong or is my reasoning above all wrong?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

I'm currently shooting my Pentax w/ HP5 at EI 800 and 1600, and all the advice I read said it should be no problem, the film actually seems to do quite well in it, assuming you have plenty of light. Delta 400 would not be my film of choice for what you're doing. I tried shooting Tri-X at EI 800 and 1600 for the first time, and they came of the soup yesterday looking great using F76+ at 1:8 for 8 min.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt. So in a low SLR( low brightness range as in overcast conditions?) the curve is not as long as presumably the zones stop at say VI or VII and in a shorter curve what limited zones there are will be compressed i.e. closer together. It sounds as if you are saying that zones move on the curve depending on the Subject Brightness Range. So does that mean that the meter's registration of zone III will vary with SBR and that zone III moves?

I must admit I had always assumed that on the curve each zone due to its standard of brightness always occupied the same space in length i.e. zone III is always zone III on a meter whether it is zone III in a scene with 9 zones or 6 zones. The curve is simply shorter because there is no zone VIII or IX there but the curve simply stops sooner rather than it compressing the space between say zone III and zone VI or zone VII?

Or have I got some of this right and some wrong or is my reasoning above all wrong?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No.
For a particular film and development, the film and development curve is the curve, no matter what the subject is.
The only thing that changes is the subject.
This subject has relevant elements with a range of luminances that, when normally exposed on to normally developed film that is read with a densitometer, will give readings that mostly only correspond with a short segment of the much longer (at either end) film and developer curve.
You could place that little mini-curve in a range of locations on the bigger curve - by decreasing or increasing exposure (without change of development) and you would still get a similarly usable image. The only difference being that you would have to give the different negatives different exposures at the printing stage.
Andrew could have done a test of under-exposure and over-exposure latitude with that subject and without changing development, and that test would also have revealed lots of different usable results.
Instead though, he added to the latitude test by adding a test of another variable - the development. He tested a combination of decreased exposure and increased development - commonly known as "pushing" - which is extremely similar to a test of expansion (and a bit of contraction).
Remember that by starting at an EI of 200 he was already adding a full extra stop of exposure to his tests.
If Andrew had used a subject with a wider range of luminances, there would most likely have been more observable detail in both darker and lighter parts of the subject. As a result, there would have been more of an observable loss of detail in at least the shadows as the exposure was reduced.
His tests would have led to entirely different results if he had photographed a subject with a wide SLR - such as his excellent Pallisade Ranch:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/pallisade-ranch.64159/

 

[Alexander Starbuck]

THANK YOU all for your inputs, I really appreciate it!

Just to keep you posted: I just ordered a bottle of DD-X and a bulk roll of Delta 400 and this is how I plan to roll for a while. After I'm done with that, I'll get a bulk roll of HP5 and do another round of shooting and "testing". I think there is no replacement for your own experience and putting some rolls through the cameras, in your conditions, with your subjects.

Will try and report on the outcomes

Cheers all!

 

[snusmumriken]

Have a look at what Ilford itself says about the 2 films here:https://www.ilfordphoto.com/hp5-vs-delta-professional-400/

They appear to rate both equally in terms of pushing ability

pentaxuser

I don't understand how - according to Ilford on that link - Delta 400 can be more fussy about exposure than HP5+ (i.e. less latitude) and have a similar (actually wider) range of viable ISO ratings? As far as I understand, extended development doesn't compensate for under-exposed shadows, or at least only very slightly. If the latent image isn't there, no amount of development will bring it out. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[MattKing]

Pushing doesn't help you (much) with the shadows. It helps you with the lower mid-tones and mid-tones, by boosting their contrast.
Whether or not a film is good for pushing really depends on how the highlights respond to over-development. A "pushable" film is one that allows you to retain better highlight detail when development is increased.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The best that I have seen seems to indicate that extending development increases the contrast and does not increase the speed.

 

[McDiesel]

I don't understand how - according to Ilford on that link - Delta 400 can be more fussy about exposure than HP5+ (i.e. less latitude) and have a similar (actually wider) range of viable ISO ratings?

Part of it is a manufacturer's unwillingness to use a negative language, ever. That's why even Foma says that Fomapan 400 is "fine grained" and Ilford says that DD-X is a "fine grain" developer. They just refuse to plainly state what their products suck at, which makes it challenging to compare two lists composed of positives

Delta 400, unlike HP5+, is gentler with the highlights by compressing them a bit, so the shoulder is more pronounced so it handles overexposure slightly "better", although plenty of people would prefer the more honest curve of the HP5+ that's why they listed its range as 200-3200. At least that's my guess.

In terms of lower tolerance of Delta 400 to developers and exposure technique, my (limited) experience suggests that it loses its "finer and more regular" grain advantage vs HP5+ if exposure is off. You get a workable negative, but it won't be as fine grained. Some of my Delta 400 negatives are actually coarser than HP5+! I suspect that's due to over-exposure.

The practicality of their suggested ISO ranges, of course, depends on numerous factors. I never managed to produce an acceptable image with either film above ISO 800, I use Delta 3200 when I need speed. The examples of successful pushing of HP5+ frequently shared online are cheating a little: they almost always rely on inherent high contrast of a scene and contain a well-lit subject surrounded by under-exposed / lost shadows which works quite well. In fact I would argue that such examples are actually exposed at box speed, if you admit that the exposure was based on a small well-lit portion of a scene. Try pushing any of them to ISO 1600 with a low-contrast subject without a standout bright object in a scene and you'll see the limits of pushing.

In the end, I think that Delta 400 is strictly speaking a better film but it's more expensive and less predictable with how grain would appear. I would agree with those who recommend T-Max 400 for grain haters.

 

[snusmumriken]

Pushing doesn't help you (much) with the shadows. It helps you with the lower mid-tones and mid-tones, by boosting their contrast.
Whether or not a film is good for pushing really depends on how the highlights respond to over-development. A "pushable" film is one that allows you to retain better highlight detail when development is increased.

OK, so in a pushable film, is it more desirable to have a long straight-line portion in the curve so that lighter tones are clearly separated, or one that reaches a shoulder relatively early, so that lighter tones are easily printed? Is there general agreement among 'pushers' as to which is more desirable?

The examples of successful pushing of HP5+ frequently shared online are cheating a little: they almost always rely on inherent high contrast of a scene and contain a well-lit subject surrounded by under-exposed / lost shadows which works quite well. In fact I would argue that such examples are actually exposed at box speed, if you admit that the exposure was based on a small well-lit portion of a scene. Try pushing any of them to ISO 1600 with a low-contrast subject without a standout bright object in a scene and you'll see the limits of pushing.

You have eloquently expressed exactly what has been bothering me for a while. Presumably this doesn't only apply to HP5+, though?

 

[McDiesel]

@snusmumriken It does apply to HP5+ but this film actually does get faster than ISO 400 in some developers, notably in DD-X in Microphen, which (in my view) means that you are pushing it less because you're starting above 400.

 

[MattKing]

Is there general agreement among 'pushers' as to which is more desirable?

Probably not.
All of this is complicated by the fact that people tend to under-expose and then push development in a couple of very different situations.
They do this in concert or performance venues, where the Subject Luminance Range ("SLR") is already extremely large.
And they do this on dull, dim November days, when the SLR is really narrow.
A Push development in the latter case can be quite successful, because it serves essentially to expand the tonal range.
In the former case though, the highlights are really hard to use if you push, and the highlights are where the interest is.

 

[flavio81]

The best that I have seen seems to indicate that extending development increases the contrast and does not increase the speed.

Indeed. But this is useful: it makes the negative easier to scan and/or easier to print.
EDIT; On the other hand, a film like HP5 has many layers of different speeds. I GUESS the highest-speed layer is what gives the film's "long toe" and when you're pushing, you're taking advantage of that long toe, you're placing the long toe, which is normally lower-contrast and intended for the darkest shadows, on the middle of your curve (your mid-tones), and the increased development raises th contrast of that toe. Thus the contrast looks acceptable, and you get no shadow detail (because there's no longer any "toe")

On the other hand, as mentioned, some developers do give increased shadow detail ("speed") and are good for pushing, like Microphen, DD-X, maybe Xtol (haven't tried).

Replying to the original post, i used to use HP5 at 1600 (in medium format) with great success, so much, that I consider HP5 a "1600 speed" film. My lab used to process this on Microphen and it worked wonderfully. Right now i am shooting some HP5 at 1600 and will develop in straight D76, we'll see how it goes.

A low contrast subject + HP5@1600 = winning combination.

But really, any B&W film can be pushed... I think a good starting point is if the film renders at a lowish contrast at its box speed.

I've also pushed some Acros 100@400 using D76 lately, but haven't scanned (nor printed) the results yet. We'll see.

 

[Sirius Glass]

On the other hand, as mentioned, some developers do give increased shadow detail ("speed") and are good for pushing, like Microphen, DD-X, maybe Xtol (haven't tried).

I use XTOL and replenished XTOL but I have not noticed slight speed boost.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Delta 400 and HP5 are both excellent push films. I really liked them both at 800. I would not go beyond 1600 for either of them, especially if some shadow detail is wanted. HP5 has been my go to conventional film for many years now, but boy oh boy, I've come to love Delta 400! Have to shoot more!

 

[Chris Coppola]

I did a test for hp5 @1600 specifically for concert photography. So we are in dark light with high contrast stage lights. I tested DDX, hc110, and as a pure crazy attempt I did FX2 stand developed because I read that glycin MIGHT have stand development potential. The DDX and hc110 blocked highlights and I didn’t like the grain. The fx2 stand was easily the best for what I was looking for. Decent shadow detail for 2 stop push, decent grain, and easily the best tonal scale. Im not a fan of stand developing, but it worked very well in that environment.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I did a test for hp5 @1600 specifically for concert photography. So we are in dark light with high contrast stage lights. I tested DDX, hc110, and as a pure crazy attempt I did FX2 stand developed because I read that glycin MIGHT have stand development potential. The DDX and hc110 blocked highlights and I didn’t like the grain. The fx2 stand was easily the best for what I was looking for. Decent shadow detail for 2 stop push, decent grain, and easily the best tonal scale. Im not a fan of stand developing, but it worked very well in that environment.

Those look pretty darn good for what I imagine the light to be. I have no problem with stand developement at all. That is if you can prevent uneven developement. I have done PanF and the older Fuji Acros in Rodinal 1+100 @ 1hr and both those films came out great. I had problems with HP5+ and FP4+ when I tied it again. I got uneven developement. This was with 120 film. Maybe 35mm would have been OK with HP5+ and FP4+? I should try it with Delta 400 and see how that works.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you Andrew, Matt and everyone, for an interesting thread. By the way, Andrew's photograph posted by Matt is superb. Beautiful light and wonderful execution!
Back to the thread: as Helge pointed, at least with HP5+ (and I've found exactly the same) EIs in the range 400-800, depending on developers, are tonally safe ways of using this film, while going to EI1600 suddenly implies a different situation, one where tonality and grain/resolving power suffer clearly, and, apart, one where high contrast scenes are not possible with clean shadows anymore.
I'd like to add just one more small detail after Andrew's and Matt's excellent exposure and development of the subject :

Last month I decided to do a very simple test after seeing for years something I had not understood, explored or metered with precision.
Often, I have got a frame here and there that seemed (was) underexposed, even though I metered it (them) carefully with my handheld meter. After some thinking and years, I discovered it usually happened in a type of light that's not really low, but lowish, so as a pre-test I included -some months ago- a few frames in a couple of rolls I had in two cameras, one for common outdoors light, and another one for EI1600 low light pushing, both loaded with HP5+. I don't push high contrast events, by the way, only soft low light.
I used first, for that pre-test, a home scene (yard, all zones objects, gray card, white) that goes from good light to low light through the afternoon. I did those two exposures in lowish light. The interesting fact is, while the pushed roll scene was well exposed, the same scene in the good light roll was underexposed: surprising.
Then I did it a second time (the real test) and it happened exactly the same way.
After starting to understand, I remembered another case I have seen: very few times, a scene from a pushed roll came out too dense, and I had never understood why.
Here's what happens:
When I did the (second) test, first I exposed the scene when there was good light: at EI400 f/8 1/125, and then for the next shots I waited for the moments of the day when the right exposure was 1/60 f/8, 1/60 f/5.6, 1/60 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8, 1/60 f/2 and 1/60 f/1.4.
Density was the same in the first frames and up to f/2.8, while it was a bit lower at f/2, and even lower, a whole stop, at f/1.4. That, in the outdoors camera.
In the 1600 push camera, most frames were too dense, except the ones with wider f-stops...
Conclusion:
It seems to me, film is made for a certain range of photons. Below that, it starts to react differently, and that's why 2 or 3 stops below common overcast light things are fine yet, but below that, we get some underexposure.
On the other hand, when I calibrate for a 1600 push, I use low light for that, not good outdoors light, so, if I include in my 1600 push roll a scene with light that's not low, it becomes denser than the correct frames done in low light.
Then I tried to find if someone had talked about it: I found an old comment by the late Roger Hicks in which he said for low light he used to give frames more exposure, and he called that the fudge factor.
So I memorized, at 400, for normal development, 1/60 f/2.8 is OK, but f/2 requires opening half a stop, and f/1.4 one stop.
And if I ever need to include a good outdoors overcast light scene in a 1600 push roll again, I'll give it a stop less light.
Hope this helps.
Happy weekend everyone.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What about Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak's 3200 ISO film?