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

[dkirby]

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

Yes - all at EI 3200. I've edited the original post to include that. Thanks!

 

[dcy]

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.

That is correct. I shoot 1/2 frame. As you said, it is what it is. I've made my peace with the fact that it's going to be grainy, and I do think it could look interesting. I am actually quite eager to try it; this will be a new experience for me. Very different from my typical shooting. If in the end I don't like the result, I won't do it again.

 

[dcy]

@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)

I used to think people used "TMX" for T-Max. Then I saw someone say "TMY" and that got me all confused. Now I see "TMZ". Uhmm.... I'm going to guess that

T-Max 100 ---> TMX
T-Max 400 ---> TMY
T-Max 3200 ---> TMZ

?

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:

Thank you!

I appreciate you pointing out the differences. I often struggle to see differences between different films (probably due to my inexperience) so I was very glad that I could see the differences as you were pointing them out. --- The textures of the couch pillows, the skin tones, the lack of features in the Caucasian skin, the grain, etc. I don't think I would have noticed on my own, but now a lot of the differences (esp. the grain and the tones) stand out more to me, so I think this was a good learning experience.


Oh the third photo, the wall on the left has very prominent grain. My first thought was that it's just the wall texture, like a wallpaper. But now I'm thinking that this is the actual grain of the film. Am I right? I'm really not sure.

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.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

 

[David R Williams]

Correct on the film naming, with the clarification that technically, current T-Max 400 ---> TMY2 (on the film rebate)

 

[john_s]

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.

Potassium sulfite is not easy to find where I live. I tried to get some because its high solubility enables concentrates to be made. I had not heard of a speed increase either. I'm not sure I want another rabbit hole to go down...

 

[John Wiegerink]

Potassium sulfite is not easy to find where I live. I tried to get some because its high solubility enables concentrates to be made. I had not heard of a speed increase either. I'm not sure I want another rabbit hole to go down...

I have a pretty full jar of potassium sulfite and only use it in a couple of developers that call for it or when I want my sulfite to go into solution faster. I guess it's news to both of us about a speed boost by using potassium instead of sodium sulfite. Personally, I think it's little more than hype, but I could be wrong.

 

[loccdor]

Don't forget that there are plenty of modern image stabilized lenses you can use with 35mm film. They buy you around 3 stops hand holding.

I was shooting Tri-X 400 at box speed in a cave last month with the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS lens.

 

[GregY]

Don't forget that there are plenty of modern image stabilized lenses you can use with 35mm film. They buy you around 3 stops hand holding.

I was shooting Tri-X 400 at box speed in a cave last month with the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS lens.

The OP is using the Pentax 17 a fixed lens 1/2 frame camera.

 

[MattKing]

I used to think people used "TMX" for T-Max. Then I saw someone say "TMY" and that got me all confused. Now I see "TMZ". Uhmm.... I'm going to guess that

T-Max 100 ---> TMX
T-Max 400 ---> TMY
T-Max 3200 ---> TMZ

So correct that it is actually official Kodak nomenclature (other than the update to TMY2)!

Edge Print

KODAK 100TMX

Edge Print

KODAK 400TMY-2

Edge Print

KODAK P3200TMZ

All taken from the links on this page of the relevant Kodak Alaris website: https://www.kodakprofessional.com/photographers/film/black-white
If you look at the TMZ page, you will see confirmation of the 800 ISO base speed.
But you probably should wander through the links. Where it says Tech Pub, that is a link to the most recently published datasheet.

 

[Steven Lee]

Film loves light. If there's not enough light to well-expose an ISO 400 film, you are not getting an image worth keeping. Shoot digital. Modern sensors, when used in B&W mode around ISO 3200, produce noise patterns that look remarkably similar to ISO 100 B&W films.

 

[Agulliver]

OP wants to shoot on film, suggesting he resorts to digital isn't really helpful. And there are plenty of situations where low light such that ISO400 film isn't sufficient result in great looking photos.

I echo those who encourage OP to experiment and try to make this work out with his film camera. I don't hold with the idea that it can't be done so just shoot digital. He can always shoot digital as well.

 

[cowanw]

The Green Pod -5” Bean Bag
I always bring an older style red one to medieval churches to prop up against a wall or rail. Works very well!

 

[Agulliver]

I have the red "pod" beanbag and it's occasionally proved useful. Might well be helpful in this situation. Good thinking.

 

[dkirby]

Film loves light. If there's not enough light to well-expose an ISO 400 film, you are not getting an image worth keeping. Shoot digital. Modern sensors, when used in B&W mode around ISO 3200, produce noise patterns that look remarkably similar to ISO 100 B&W films.

I simply can't disagree more with this. I have captured a lot of good images that have made people happy, that I enjoyed taking, and, frankly, that made me money, in situations where there's "not enough light to well-expose an ISO 400 film" - and plenty of others have done it better than I have. So it's not just that the OP wants to shoot film - rendering this statement unhelpful - or the fact that saying it flies in the face of the reason we're on this forum, and suppresses our collective ability to learn. "If there's not enough light to well-expose an ISO 400 film, you are not getting an image worth keeping" is a factually incorrect thing to say.

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.

Thanks for this!

RE: @dcy's question about the wall on the left side of the third frame - it's been a long time since I was in that room and I can't remember 100%, but I believe that is the grain creating that texture, or at least mostly the grain. D3200 was the only of its speed for a while, but it is very grainy. TMZ can come out grainy as well - certain exposure situations, lighting, and backgrounds can make the grain appear more pronounced. The first time I used it did not go well, to be honest. But it is definitely less grainy than D3200, and I've been very happy with the results I've been getting with it lately.

The OP is using the Pentax 17 a fixed lens 1/2 frame camera.

I find that to be great. I've often wanted to get a 17 (support new cameras), but half-frame doesn't fit my photography. Glad to hear people are using and enjoying it, and very interested to hear how this goes.

I don't know what the images will look like, but I strongly believe that there is no such thing as failure in photography. We get a result and we learn from it.

 

[Agulliver]

In the spring of this year I shot a gig on a roll of Exeter-pan 400 film pushed to 1600, which is super cheap bulk film likely to be frozen Ilford security film.....using of all things a late 50s Voigtlander rangefinder camera. I was simply a member of the audience, at the front of a small music club. I wasn't hired to take photos. I took them for my own fun, and shared them with the band. The band recorded the performance for release as a live album. Four of my photos on that film make up the front cover of the album. There are no other images on the front cover.

Incidentally I was also shooting with a 60s Yashica rangefinder that night, on Candido 800 colour film which is Kodak 500T without the remjet. Some of those photos made the inner sleeve and back cover of the same album.

I do not hold with the idea that any lighting conditions insufficient for 400 ISO film produce useless images. In fact I would disagree most strongly...and not just from many years of personal experience. I've seen many pleasing images shot on higher speed film or pushed film. There are valid practical and artistic reasons to push film or use very high ISO film over digital.

Anyway....OP wants to shoot film and there's nothing that makes this unfeasible. Using TMZ or pushing HP5 or TMY would work. And I, for one, would be interested in seeing the results.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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!

Film cannot be "pushed". There is no way to compensate for underexposure. If you need more speed, use a faster film or lens or both.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Film cannot be "pushed". There is no way to compensate for underexposure. If you need more speed, use a faster film or lens or both.

Film can certainly be pushed processed, within reason, using the right film, and developer.

 

[MattKing]

{Initially a response to a now deleted post}

I recommend spending time looking at the work of the really good concert photographers from the 1970s and 1980s - when "pushed" higher speed films were about the only available solution.
Local photographer Dee Lippingwell is someone I had a little bit of contact with: https://deelippingwell.net/limited-edition-prints/

 

[GregY]

{Initially a response to a now deleted post}

I recommend spending time looking at the work of the really good concert photographers from the 1970s and 1980s - when "pushed" higher speed films were about the only available solution.
Local photographer Dee Lippingwell is someone I had a little bit of contact with: https://deelippingwell.net/limited-edition-prints/

Matt, while you have a point about concert photography under spotlights...it's very different than the OP's situation of photographing a poorly lit interior with an f 3.5 fixed lens. I agree though that TMZ would be a good choice.

 

[dcy]

Matt, while you have a point about concert photography under spotlights...it's very different than the OP's situation of photographing a poorly lit interior with an f 3.5 fixed lens. I agree though that TMZ would be a good choice.

I suspect that Matt's comment makes more sense in the context of the now deleted post. I did not read that post, but it must have been something about the merits of pushing film.