Would you recommend Tri-X or HP5+ for pushing? (and other questions about pushing film)

MattKing said:

The STORAGE section in that datasheet reads as follows:
You can store working-strength solution in a full, tightly closed bottle for six months, in a half-filled bottle for two months, or in a covered tank for one month. You can store the concentrate for up to two years.
I expect the behavior is similar to the old Kodak PolyMax-T print developer, which gave me those sorts of storage results.
A lot of things have happened with Kodak photo chemistry since 2017, but my understanding is that PSI manufactured Kodak branded products are designed to work like their fore-runners.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much!

I've just placed the order for a few rolls of T-Max 3200 and a bottle of T-Max developer. I will have no difficulty using the entire bottle long before it expires. Since the working solution is meant to be used one-shot, I will just keep it as a concentrate and only grab what I need for each development session.

Thanks for the help.

Note the warning that T-Max developer is not recommended for sheet film. As I understand it, sheet film in T-Max developer was prone to issues with dichroic fog.
The replenishable T-Max RS version did not exhibit that, but it is no longer being made.

I have long preferred "available light photography" rather than using lights or flash. And as you're visiting a tourist attraction, that's probably a given anyway.

I've pushed HP5, Tri-X and Kentmere 400 all to 1600 and 3200. Yes, you will end up with high contrast negatives and lose some shadow detail but you'll get results. For the last 6 years I've done a *lot* of photography on film at a jazz club. Usually 1600 or 3200, pushing B&W film of which ever type I can afford at the time. Before that I used to enjoy night shots when on my travels or simply on holiday.

Remember you have another option, TMAX 3200 and Delta 3200. Honestly, for this purpose I'd say that Tri-X and HP5+ are pretty interchangeable. I'd take TMAX 3200 over Delta 3200 all other factors being equal. I've been using Kentmere 400 recently and have found it handles pushing much better than I expected.

Whether two stops is enough to bring your exposures to a point where you can hand hold or steady the camera against something is another factor. I can reliably hand hold down to 1/8 second, and sometimes slower. I recently shot a 30 second exposure under moonlight resting a camera against a rock on a beach and it's only just detectable that there's a little shake. YMMV on those factors but giving yourself two or three extra stops can make a big difference. Especially when you're trying not to get in people's way.

My current developer of choice for pushing is Microphen stock.

MattKing said:

Note the warning that T-Max developer is not recommended for sheet film. As I understand it, sheet film in T-Max developer was prone to issues with dichroic fog.
The replenishable T-Max RS version did not exhibit that, but it is no longer being made.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the warning.

dcy said:

Film is a hobby.

I will definitely have my digital camera with me (as I did last time) and will rely on it to make sure I have nice photos from my trip.

I cannot say I have ever had a good technical reason to shoot film; I just enjoy the process. My film camera cannot remotely approach the capabilities of my mirrorless camera. I cannot decide if I like the challenge or I'm just a masochist.

Click to expand...

Shooting in cave with strong artificial spot light you should be able to shoot at ISO 3200 with a high enough shutter speed to prevent shake. But remember that Tmax 3200 is really a 1600 speed film, at 3200 it is a one stop push and you will get a loss of shadow detail, not it will matter much with the strong spot lights.

Is it permitted to use a tripod in the cave?

Paul Howell said:

. But remember that Tmax 3200 is really a 1600 speed film, at 3200 it is a one stop push

Click to expand...

I have always understood that Tmax 3200 is a 1000 speed film like D3200 is said to be

pentaxuser

Most folks who have done denistomer studies have posted it to range from 1200 to 1600, my own ring around found it be 1600 when I used Rodinal 1:25, so it might a bit faster then D3200. As it is DX coded at 3200 Kodak intended it used as a push.

snusmumriken said:

Is it permitted to use a tripod in the cave?

Click to expand...

Not permitted due to tripping hazard. They also ban bipods and monopods, and they're thinking of adding selfie sticks to the list. Apparently people don't pay attention to which way they're swinging their selfie sticks.

There are handrails, so I can brace myself to minimize movement.

Paul Howell said:

Most folks who have done denistomer studies have posted it to range from 1200 to 1600, my own ring around found it be 1600 when I used Rodinal 1:25, so it might a bit faster then D3200. As it is DX coded at 3200 Kodak intended it used as a push.

Click to expand...

D3200 == Delta 3200 ?

Agulliver said:

I have long preferred "available light photography" rather than using lights or flash. And as you're visiting a tourist attraction, that's probably a given anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Flash is permitted but I don't like the look of flash. It hides the background and just looks unnatural and boring.

Agulliver said:

Remember you have another option, TMAX 3200 and Delta 3200. Honestly, for this purpose I'd say that Tri-X and HP5+ are pretty interchangeable. I'd take TMAX 3200 over Delta 3200 all other factors being equal. I've been using Kentmere 400 recently and have found it handles pushing much better than I expected.

Click to expand...

I was impressed by @dkirby 's post #12 with with K400 pushed to 1600.

I ended up ordering T-Max 3200. I look forward to trying it out. Can you tell me what makes you prefer T-Max 3200 over Delta 3200? I found this side-by-side comparison. T-Max seems to have more contrast. Sometimes that makes the photo look better (IMO), and sometimes not. From that limited sample, I preferred T-Max more often than not, but I cannot articulate why... Uhmm... often the details seem more clearly defined with T-Max.

Agulliver said:

YMMV on those factors but giving yourself two or three extra stops can make a big difference. Especially when you're trying not to get in people's way.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Agulliver said:

My current developer of choice for pushing is Microphen stock.

Click to expand...

I tried and failed to find a comparison between Microphen and T-Max developer. Have you tried them both? Can you compare them? I got the T-Max one, mainly because it seemed to have a better value for money.

My favorite pushing combination used to be Tri-X at 1250 in ethol UFG. Going all the way to 1600 did not help things. If I know I will need to shoot at 1600, I will use T-MAX 3200. I like it's tight and sharp grain pattern and I prefer it to Delta 3200. I agree that T-MAX 3200 is more contrasty than Delta 3200. For the T-MAX 3200 I use undiluted Microphen. Other phenidone based developers like T-MAX and F76+ also work well. The Microphen powder lasts a long time and the mixed up developer has a good shelf life if stored properly. What about PC-TEA? I found it to be a speed losing developer. Tri-X would look good at 200 but negatives were thin at 400 even with extended development. When I first used Microphen with HP-5 (maybe HP-4) many years ago, the recommended EI for the film was 650.

dcy said:

D3200 == Delta 3200 ?d

Click to expand...

Yep. I have shot a few rolls over the years, ILford does make it in 120, and there was a period when Kodak when Tmax 3200 of the market. I found Delta 3200 to have more gain and though it did not hold the shadows as well as Tmax 3200.

Anchell and Troop formerly favored Tri-X for pushing but now claim that HP5 and DDX are the best for extreme pushing, i.e., more than two stops. Their views about Tri-X may be related to their controversial aversion to T-grain films. Their disdain for T-grain films may also be why they didn't mention Delta 3200 or Kodak P3200, which would seem obvious choices.

Their rationale for DDX was interesting. They claim that its use of potassium sulfite instead of sodium sulfite promoted better film speed. This seems to be a speculation at this point, but one that might be worth investigation.

HP5 E.I. 3200 w/ DDX

Way before there was Delta 3200 or T-MAX 3200, I remember using 2475 and 2484. These were extremely grainy films. I remember trying to keep the 2475 negatives flat. The base was very strong and hard to tear. These films had a different character that pushed Tri-x...

dcy said:

I tried and failed to find a comparison between Microphen and T-Max developer. Have you tried them both? Can you compare them? I got the T-Max one, mainly because it seemed to have a better value for money.

Click to expand...

I haven't tried T-MAX developer in recent years and when I did, I wasn't pushing film so I can't offer an opinion on which would be better in this case.

I do agree with those who observe that Delta 3200 tends to result in grainier, softer images than T-MAX 3200. I tend to use Delta simply because it's a *lot* cheaper in the UK (and also comes in 120 flavour) but I'd actually recommend TMZ.

Another option to consider:
If you have a modern camera that can use lenses with image stabilisation, that can give 2-3 stops of extra exposure without the increased grain and contrast and loss of shadow detail.

One of my favorite lenses for the Nikon F100 is the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8 (and the 35). I find them sharper and more pleasing than the Nikon lenses, and the stabilisation and good close focus are nice extra features.

dokko said:

Another option to consider:
If you have a modern camera that can use lenses with image stabilisation, that can give 2-3 stops of extra exposure without the increased grain and contrast and loss of shadow detail.

Click to expand...

My digital camera has 5.5 stops of image stabilization when used with an unstabilized lens (i.e. just IBIS). With a stabilized lens (which I do not own), it can goe higher. In contrast, my film camera has no image stabilization of any kind, nor is it even an interchangeable lens camera.

I love my digital camera, but in a way, it's too powerful. When I started shooting film I decided that I wanted a more casual, laid-back experience. I didn't want to duplicate what I have in digital.

Based on the metering settings the digital camera came up with, look like even P3200/D3200 handheld won't cut it to get good results if the aim is to get "normal" sharp images of fixed subjects.

With a SLR any shutter speed below 1/125 is asking for motion blur and even then you have to be steady. Regardless of the camera I wouldn't recommend to go slower than 1/60 without a tripod (for static photograhy purpose and barring any artistic aim involving motion blur, obviously).

Personally I'd give up and just enjoy the view, but if I were set on trying I'd shoot only one roll to limit the financial side of the disappointment.

Another thing to consider, is do you visualised theses compositions with big grain ? because you'll get much bigger grain with P3200/D3200 than your usual ISO 100 films, even with the best fine-grain developpers.

bluechromis said:

Anchell and Troop formerly favored Tri-X for pushing but now claim that HP5 and DDX are the best for extreme pushing, i.e., more than two stops. Their views about Tri-X may be related to their controversial aversion to T-grain films. Their disdain for T-grain films may also be why they didn't mention Delta 3200 or Kodak P3200, which would seem obvious choices.

Their rationale for DDX was interesting. They claim that its use of potassium sulfite instead of sodium sulfite promoted better film speed. This seems to be a speculation at this point, but one that might be worth investigation.

Click to expand...

Wow, I never heard the claim for a speed increase using potassium sulfite. I guess I'm throwing out my stash of sodium sulfite and will starting using potassium sulfite for all my homemade developers.

npl said:

Another thing to consider, is do you visualised theses compositions with big grain ? because you'll get much bigger grain with P3200/D3200 than your usual ISO 100 films, even with the best fine-grain developpers.

Click to expand...

As I recall OP is using a 1/2 frame, Tmax 3200 and an aucance developer grain will be rather pronounced. It is what it is and so I would go with it, try and use the gain for visual impact and mood.

Paul Howell said:

I found Delta 3200 to have more gain and though it did not hold the shadows as well as Tmax 3200.

Click to expand...

@dcy you asked "what makes [people] prefer t-max 3200 to delta 3200." Paul Howell's quote above matches exactly with my experience. T-Max 3200 (often called "TMZ" which I'll use going forward since it's shorter) definitely has finer grain than D3200. The other main difference is that TMZ despite having higher overall base contrast compared to D3200 also delivers better tonality than D3200. I'm afraid that I don't have a good pair of photos to compare directly, but here are a couple of examples that might be able to show what I'm talking about:


This first one is TMZ. Note especially the couch pillows in the lower right corner of the frame. D3200 would in my experience not be able to render as many grey textures to either the lighter pillow or the darker one. The wall also would've been rendered a much more uniform grey in D3200, I believe.

Here's another one:


I'm confident in saying that there is no way D3200 would've rendered the subject's skin tones as well as TMZ did in this photograph. In fact, here's someone with a similar skin tone on D3200:


Although the lighting is not quite apples-to-apples, I find the difference between these two results to be representative of my experience using these films more widely.

Here's another example of D3200, Caucasian skin tone:


I find I'm almost losing information in his face to overexposure while simultaneously not getting as good textures in the shadows.

All of these shots are on the same lens - Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI-S. All of them are developed in Microphen (stock). All were exposed at EI 3200 and developed per recommended times - 12 minutes for TMZ, 9 minutes for D3200, always at 20C/68F.

I also find that TMZ is sharper, or at least appears sharper - that may be a result of the snappier contrast and smaller grain. I have less technical expertise than others on this forum do, so they may be able to explain such things better than I can.

All of these images have been post-processed, and I do adjust contrast and exposure whether that's via an enlarger for prints or in these cases on a computer with scans. But, if D3200 were capable of giving me the tones that TMZ is capable of giving me, I would not by any means remove them. I do not do anything on a computer that cannot be done with a negative in a darkroom.

Finally, since others have suggested shooting digital or foregoing the exercise altogether - I want to say @dcy that I very much think you should go through with it on film. It sounds like a great opportunity to get an introduction to high-speed films and to learn about push processing, and it sounds like a lot of fun to boot. There are reasons we shoot film, and seeking a guaranteed digital result, or being afraid of failure, are not among them.

I will say, if you're thinking of pursuing available/low-light photography more extensively, a faster lens will be very helpful.

@dkirby nice examples, thanks for sharing! Were these shot at EI 3200?

Kodak markets Tmax 400 as the sharpest film on the market, while Tmax 100 finest grain and best resolution. I think Tmax 3200 has the same number of lines per mm as Trix, just a memory as the new 2018 data sheet does not list resloution, but grain in more pronounced. Looking at the data sheet, with Tmax developer and Extol Kodak recommends highest ISO at 2500, while with D76 and HC110 3200 and 6400. I just pulled out my Kodak Professional Black and White Film guide 1990 list resolution as ranging from 40mm for low contrast to 125mm for high contrast. So, if OP wants to shoot as 3200 then D76 stock, accroding to Kodak.

Great examples.