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

[dcy]

I normally shoot ISO 100 films because I live in a sunny part of the world and I like to shoot in beautiful sunny days. But this last weekend was the exception. I did a trip to the beautiful Carlsbad caverns, and even with an ISO 400 film my camera took several seconds to do each exposure, and tripods are not allowed in the cavern (tripping hazard). I did my best to stabilize the camera by pressing it against the hand rails, but I'm not expecting much. Thankfully, I had my digital camera with me and took some beautiful photos with it.

I want to go back to the caverns again, this time with a plan to shoot a film at 800 or even 1600 ISO. I have read in this forum that the ability to push film is one of the key things you gain when you switch from Kentmere 400 to its more expensive cousin HP5+. Separately, I've read that Tri-X and HP5+ perform similarly.

My Questions:

(1) Would you recommend that I bring HP5+ or Tri-X?
(2) Can I shoot these films at ISO 1600 or should I stay at 800?
(3) Is there anything else I should know about pushing film? My default plan is to use D-23 but I have PC-TEA and Rodinal at home too (I've read that Rodinal is bad for pushing).

There's Delta 3200, but that thing costs $18.50/roll !!!!

Thanks for the help!

 

[miha]

What ISO and exposure did your digital camera choose? I'm asking this because you said that with 400 film, the exposure was several seconds. If that was the case, pushing two stops to 1600 won't help you shoot handheld.

 

[Jan-Peter]

Hi, dcy;

I have been developing since mor than 50 years; also Kodak Tri-X and also Ilford HP-5. My impression is: The Ilford is more modern and has finer grain - particularly when beeing pushed! - You won't see 800 ASA; probably more contrast when pushing to 1600 ASA; the Tri-X always seens to show more gtrain, however, maybe also good shades. I won't push a Tri-X more than up to 800 ASA.

For developing I am still using Microdol for Kodak and ID11 or Perceptol for Ilford film.

Jan-Peter

 

[Tel]

I haven't pushed Tri-X recently so I can't comment on its performance, but I expect it works. I did shoot some HP5 a while back, pushed to 1600 for some night street shooting and I quite liked what it did. Souped in HC-110 dil. B as I recall:

111th by terry, on Flickr

Edit: This was on 127 film, so grain will likely be more pronounced if you're shooting 35mm

 

[ntenny]

I shoot HP5+ at 1600 occasionally, developing in PC-TEA (1+50, using times for Xtol 1+2). Of course the results are high-contrast, but not always as extreme as might be expected; the last batch were printable at grade 2 (of fairly low-contrast subjects). Don’t expect shadow detail, though.

I’ve experimented with both Tri-X and HP5+ at 3200, mostly using Donald Qualls’s concoction of Dektol, HC-110, ascorbic acid, and sodium carbonate. It worked surprisingly well considering, but again, high contrast and limited shadow detail. There’s no magic trick for pushing film without the characteristics of pushed film.

-NT

 

[MattKing]

Pushing film doesn't really increase the light sensitivity of film - at least not enough to matter.
Mostly it just bumps up the contrast of under-exposed film.
So what you want is a film with a long, relatively straight main section in the middle of the characteristic curve.
Plus a developer that wrests as much "speed" out of your under-exposed film as is practical.
I'd suggest one of the 800-1000 ISO films that are designed to be pushed, and therefore labelled as EI 3200 films. That means Delta 3200 or T-Max 3200. If those options are no go, T-Max 400 is quite pushable as well.
Paired with a speed enhancing developer like:
- Kodak T-Max developer: https://kodak.photosys.com/collecti...ax-developer-1000-ml-concentrate-cat-105-8718
or
- Ilford Microphen developer: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...77868_microphen_developer_1_litre_packet.html
And yes, I know none of these selections match your question's alternatives. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to consider having available some relatively special purpose tools.
The T-Max developer is very good, and works very well with films that are not named T-Max.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I'd suggest one of the 800-1000 ISO films that are designed to be pushed, and therefore labelled as EI 3200 films. That means Delta 3200 or T-Max 3200.

I second this advice.

But try it out above ground first to see if you like it - the results can be pretty grainy.

As I recall, the lighting in the cave is pretty contrasty, so keeping shadows from going jet-black and keeping highlights from getting blown-out may be tricky. This is a scenario where HDR digital may be the best solution - much as I hate to say that.

 

[Paul Howell]

As a PJ when available light was thing, I pushed hundreds of rolls of Trix, 800 to 3200. My current favorite film for pushing is Tmax 400, a one stop push is really more like a 1/2 stop in term of shadow detail loss when developed at same time as Tmax 400 at 400. To 1600 a bit more than a full stop push, some shdaow details. When pushing expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. Tmax 3200, although Kodak rates it as a 3200 film, DX coded, it is really a 1200 to 1600 ISO film, to 3200 is a one stop push, but the pubished times work pretty well. Below is shot I took in the 70s, TriX rated at 3200 and pushed in all things in Rodinal 1:25.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'd suggest one of the 800-1000 ISO films that are designed to be pushed, and therefore labelled as EI 3200 films. That means Delta 3200 or T-Max 3200. If those options are no go, T-Max 400 is quite pushable as well.

I agree. Results will be better than pushing a 400 speed film.

 

[dcy]

So what you want is a film with a long, relatively straight main section in the middle of the characteristic curve.
Plus a developer that wrests as much "speed" out of your under-exposed film as is practical.
I'd suggest one of the 800-1000 ISO films that are designed to be pushed, and therefore labelled as EI 3200 films. That means Delta 3200 or T-Max 3200. If those options are no go, T-Max 400 is quite pushable as well.
Paired with a speed enhancing developer like:
- Kodak T-Max developer: https://kodak.photosys.com/collecti...ax-developer-1000-ml-concentrate-cat-105-8718
or
- Ilford Microphen developer: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...77868_microphen_developer_1_litre_packet.html
And yes, I know none of these selections match your question's alternatives. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to consider having available some relatively special purpose tools.
The T-Max developer is very good, and works very well with films that are not named T-Max.

Certainly! I would rather find out that I'm taking the wrong approach before I do another 8-hour round trip. Worst thing I can do is ruin a long trip to save a couple of bucks. From your recommended list, T-Max 3200 is the more affordable option. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that Delta >> T-Max, I'll get T-Max.

What's the lifetime of the T-Max developer? I'd be a shame to buy something that can make 5L of working solution and then only develop 2-3 rolls. In practice I would then switch to developing all other films with the T-Max developer to make sure it doesn't go to waste.

I second this advice.
...

I agree. Results will be better than pushing a 400 speed film.

Thanks!

I do appreciate you guys steering me in the right direction.

 

[pentaxuser]

What ISO and exposure did your digital camera choose? I'm asking this because you said that with 400 film, the exposure was several seconds. If that was the case, pushing two stops to 1600 won't help you shoot handheld.

Isn't this the crucial question. If dcy is right and it took several seconds at 400 then even 3200 handheld is going to be difficult. I have seen D3200 at 6400 and the pics look very "meeh" ( new word for me )

Maybe the answer is forget film in such a scene and stick to digital, assuming as would appear to be the case that a picture with a digital camera at say 6400 or 12,800 is much better than a film camera can manage with D3200?

pentaxuser

 

[dkirby]

I shoot a fair amount of events in available light and my experience is actually that T-Max 3200 > Delta 3200 in terms of the result given. So, the lower price is just a bonus. I use Microphen for it, which has an advertised shelf life of six months, and comes in 1L amounts, which gets you 10 rolls of developing.

I have also pushed lots of Tri-X, HP5, and K400 to 1600. Even the Kentmere can give you a very usable result, and I would certainly disagree with the idea that "the ability to push film is one of the key things you gain when you switch from Kentmere 400 to its more expensive cousin HP5+." Here is an example I hope proves my point:



Kentmere 400 Pushed to 1600. Developed in D76 Stock for 20 minutes at 20C/68F.

I would also like to ask - what is the maximum aperture of your lens, and are you intending on shooting people/subjects inside the caverns, or landscapes of the caverns themselves?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Without hesitation, HP5. It's probably the best for that purpose.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and I should add that it's cheaper than Tri-X.
HP5's limit (in my opinion) is EI 1600. It's quite lovely at EI 800. I have a video somewhere on my channel...

 

[dkirby]

...and I should add that it's cheaper than Tri-X.
HP5's limit (in my opinion) is EI 1600. It's quite lovely at EI 800. I have a video somewhere on my channel...

I agree that I would not shoot any of the 400s at more than 1600. But just FYI Tri-X is currently cheaper here in the US (OP's location) than non-bulk-rolled HP5

 

[ags2mikon]

When I worked for the newspaper I took one of these with a small ball head and clamped it to the rail. I was shooting Fuji 800 color neg at the time. https://www.ebay.com/itm/136146744340?_skw=manfrotto+clamp&itmmeta=01K3241FTYYB74T4Q4MRMF4GTF&hash=item1fb2fa7414:g:7e4AAeSwzftocJH8&itmprp=enc:AQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1cmyfF1Q0QKciyzRR5D09Q2SDjCN+PyHIUrNJwjqk+7xTs7juo3i2HsfxpKz031RwoR+Lkazg3CZ5E0ozM1GcktAsS6qpTr3f/TpkPhzcwxxuiAdFH0+VjnRcIB4uhi0Bk9Xws5k+NcMqA9PokUpFfGD+cP2/yBNynNSUQ3gYe6AjfsjLGNG8ep+L9zkPsuUXZQmTdVdRj7RTTXKxIHCK021gwN1fSdS0dInDglXuRICPRtYF3qZfrYKurXutSgSOU=|tkp:Bk9SR-L9hcSYZg

 

[Paul Howell]

Certainly! I would rather find out that I'm taking the wrong approach before I do another 8-hour round trip. Worst thing I can do is ruin a long trip to save a couple of bucks. From your recommended list, T-Max 3200 is the more affordable option. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that Delta >> T-Max, I'll get T-Max.

What's the lifetime of the T-Max developer? I'd be a shame to buy something that can make 5L of working solution and then only develop 2-3 rolls. In practice I would then switch to developing all other films with the T-Max developer to make sure it doesn't go to waste.

Tmax and ILford DDX are pretty much the same developer and will last last time I had Tmax it was good a year. Not sure if there is much of price difference between the 2. But I would think about D76, as I recall you shoot 1/2 frame, Tmax 3200 in Tmax, Tmax developer are edge type develops and will not reduce the gain as much good old D96 stock. But Tmax and DDX will hold shadow details better than D76 as to 3200 Tmax 3200 is really a one stop push while with D76 it is 3 stop push.

 

[dcy]

Isn't this the crucial question. If dcy is right and it took several seconds at 400 then even 3200 handheld is going to be difficult. I have seen D3200 at 6400 and the pics look very "meeh" ( new word for me )

I wish I had thought to measure the shutter time. My impression is that it was the 2-4 second range. Some shots were much faster as there are lights inside the cavern, but most of the time it really was around 2-4s. Moving to EI 3200 would make that 0.25 - 0.5s. Hopefully, that's short enough that with some support from the handrail I can avoid motion blur.

Checking the exposure settings from the digital camera is a good idea. When I get home tonight I will look at the photos and find out what settings it chose.

Maybe the answer is forget film in such a scene and stick to digital, assuming as would appear to be the case that a picture with a digital camera at say 6400 or 12,800 is much better than a film camera can manage with D3200?

I will definitely have digital with me again next time I go to the cavern. I'm also going to bring a faster lens. This trip was a spur of the moment thing and I didn't anticipate how dark the cavern really was. The only lens I brought was an F4 lens, but I have much faster ones I can bring next time.

But I will still bring film and temper my expectations. Worst case scenario, I will have tried a new film and I'll have nice digital photos to print at home.

I shoot a fair amount of events in available light and my experience is actually that T-Max 3200 > Delta 3200 in terms of the result given. So, the lower price is just a bonus. I use Microphen for it, which has an advertised shelf life of six months, and comes in 1L amounts, which gets you 10 rolls of developing.

Thanks! T-Max 3200 + Microphen it is.

I have also pushed lots of Tri-X, HP5, and K400 to 1600. Even the Kentmere can give you a very usable result, and I would certainly disagree with the idea that "the ability to push film is one of the key things you gain when you switch from Kentmere 400 to its more expensive cousin HP5+." Here is an example I hope proves my point:



Kentmere 400 Pushed to 1600. Developed in D76 Stock for 20 minutes at 20C/68F.

That's much better than I expected. From what I've read online I had the impression that K400 was hopeless at EI 1600, but to me that photo looks perfect. I wouldn't have guessed it had been pushed at all (I'm sure that more experienced eyes than mine can tell it's been pushed, but I cannot).

I would also like to ask - what is the maximum aperture of your lens, and are you intending on shooting people/subjects inside the caverns, or landscapes of the caverns themselves?

The lens is F/3.5; I should also mention that it's a half-frame camera. I know it'll be more grainy. I've shot Kentmere 400 with it, so I know what the grain looks like. --- I have never shot T-Max or Delta.

I am intending to shoot pictures of the cavern itself, ideally with my wife in the foreground who is patient and doesn't mind standing still.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

T-Max 3200 + Microphen it is

My suggestion would have been HP5+ at 1600 in DD-X, but this will also work.

I've used HP5+ at 1600 in DD-X countless times. Here's an example, indoors, natural light from window:

 

[ChrisArslain]

Here is a recent shot of HP5 @1600 that I semi-stand (EMA) developed with A5.5+B4.5+W900 Pyrocat HD for 60 mins. And I didn't love the results of the roll. I agree Delta 3200 is the way to go. I still haven't tried DD-X, but I am going to start experimenting with pushing Double XX with DD-X. This scan has been dodged and burned in Photoshop.

 

[MattKing]

What's the lifetime of the T-Max developer? I'd be a shame to buy something that can make 5L of working solution and then only develop 2-3 rolls. In practice I would then switch to developing all other films with the T-Max developer to make sure it doesn't go to waste.

You mix it from concentrate each time you use it - it is a little like HC-110 that way.
Here is the old, Eastman Kodak originated datasheet: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j86-2017.pdf
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.
The T-Max RS version is, sadly, no longer made.

 

[dcy]

What ISO and exposure did your digital camera choose?...

Isn't this the crucial question....

I just got home and looked at the EXIF data:

The camera chose ISO 6400 at F4 with shutter speeds between 1/4 to 1/25 and a median of 1/10. It is worth mentioning that it is easy to predict which shots will be closer to 1/4 or 1/25. There are lights inside the cavern. You know what's well illuminated and what isn't. I took shots of less illuminated subjects because I knew the camera could handle it.

I don't know to what extent we can compare film ISO vs digital ISO, but they are at all comparable, I think I could get a lot of nice shots with an EI 3200 at my camera's F3.5.

 

[mshchem]

Why not just shoot digital?

 

[dcy]

Why not just shoot digital?

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.

 

[mshchem]

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.

Oh I understand . I think if you really want a challenge shoot it on Ektachrome. I remember as a kid making automatic time exposures (Pentax ES) of business neon signs on Kodachrome 64 and High-speed Ektachrome 160. Of course I had a tripod. The photos were really nice.

Good luck with your project. As mentioned HP5 is supposed to push a bit better with a wee bit less contrast. I would go with Kodak TMZ or whatever Kodak is calling their high-speed T-Max film.