1600 or 400 pushed 2 stops?

G

gravityassault

Member
Local time
6:34 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
33
Hi all,

I hope the week is taking it easy on everyone. I'm wondering if someone can educate me on some high speed black & white film.

I've got to shoot something in relatively low light and I'm not sure if I should shoot it with ISO 1600 film, or shoot it with 400 and push it two stops?

Your thoughts are most appreciated, as are of course any sample images for comparison. Thanks very much, I'm looking forward to hearing from ya'll soon.

All the best,

Chris
 
i push TMax and Tri-X to 1600 religously. developed in XTOL stock, the results are great IMO.

i find contrast and grain from Tmax 400 pushed this way to 1600 to be similar to that of Neopan 1600 / Super Presto or whatever else it's called.

edit: examples.

TMax 400 to 1600
scan-100711-0014l.jpg


scan-100704-0004.jpg


Pushed to 3200 it is usable-ish
scan-100626-0021.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris,

I've used them all, really, and with all or most developers.

Nothings as good as TMax3200 in TMax developer.

I use it at 800, 1600 and 3200 metered incident. Metered in camera that's 1600, 3200 and 6400.

If your light allows it, at 1600 in camera (what you need) the tonal range is amazing for that speed. I find its grain smaller than the grain of FujiP1600 and Ilford D3200. TMax developer gives clear sharp grain like Rodinal: beautiful. I've shot more TMax3200 this year than any other film...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Recently I've discovered that a lot of my concert shots look better on 400 film than 1600. A few times I try to kill off 400 before loading 1600 but after developing would discover that I got better results on 400. Not pushing it either. Maybe it's my developing of 1600, I don't know.

Here's one recent shot, TMax 400 through Rodinal (Nokton 1.4/40 lens):


4793462945_50e5f2c9e8_z.jpg



And a Rollei Retro 400 (probably also Rodinal):

4125294436_62006a15e5_z.jpg
 
I personally don't see justifiable benefits of buying expensive 1600 rated films. I push Tri-X, HP5, Neopan 400 to 1600 almost always.

4424362036_faf528dd22_z.jpg
 
I use Tri-X for most purposes. It pushes to 3200 very easily, even 6400. At 1600 the only cheap film is Neopan 1600, which I have never gotten good results with, and Tmax3200 is about 3-4x as expensive as tri-x. Tri-X in Rodinal is my goto.
 
The reason for buying more expensive and faster film is that a lot of times shooting at 1600 is not enough... 400 film is contrasty at 1600 (if correctly metered), and if we need 6400, just useless.

Cheers,

Juan

EDIT: I mean good negatives for real wet printing with nice tonal range. I know some people underexpose A LOT, scan any image on a negative, and take it up digitally... Then that means: "I don't know why all those fools at Kodak make 3200 film, and why all those crazy photographers use it if 400 film is good for 6400 shooting..." For quality printing, 1600 is a limit for 400 film for some of us.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but my experience has taught me to push Agfa APX ISO 400 instead of using Neopan ISO 1600. For some reason (and it must be my fault), my Neopan negatives (souped in T-Max or D-76) are too contrasty and tend to have a weird line across the frames (as in developer or fixer standing mark, dunno), while the few times I've used and pushed the APX I've gotten negs with a nice tonal range.

Besides, like Sug, I'd rather push film than buy the more expensive fast one. Sorry, Juan...
 
What's more important to you, true shadow speed or grain? If the former, go for T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200 and shoot at 800-1600. If finer grain is more important, then push a 400 speed film. Of course if you need 3200, I think the high speed films will definitely come out better. I find things start to fall apart with more than a 2 stop push, so if it's 3200, give me the high speed film. I pretty much agree with Juan on this... Who knows what people are doing post scanning.

In my experience, T-Max P3200 has about a stop and a third of true speed over Tri-X and T-Max 400. Just like it says in the tech sheet.

I personally think T-Max P3200 is an amazing film. Fast, reasonable grain, and pretty high resolution.

Re: Neopan 1600. I'd be surprised if Neopan 1600 is more than about 640 of true film speed. It might even be slower. So no wonder you get contrasty negs when shot at 1600.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
I'm no expert, but my experience has taught me to push Agfa APX ISO 400 instead of using Neopan ISO 1600. For some reason (and it must be my fault), my Neopan negatives (souped in T-Max or D-76) are too contrasty and tend to have a weird line across the frames (as in developer or fixer standing mark, dunno), while the few times I've used and pushed the APX I've gotten negs with a nice tonal range.

Besides, like Sug, I'd rather push film than buy the more expensive fast one. Sorry, Juan...
Click to expand...

Hi Francisco,

I shoot Tri-X and TMax400 at 1600 in Rodinal: They're great for that speed...

But for real low light I prefer faster modern films... NeopanP1600 isn't fast and isn't modern. It's good -to me- for flat light that after development becomes a normal range because of its very high contrast.

Delta is just the opposite extreme: if your scene is contrasty, it gives a nice rendering because it's so very flat, and was designed for getting contrast only after rough pushings...

In the middle, and maybe that's why I prefer it, is TMax3200: it allows 800-6400 shooting on different lights... A great tool.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Thanks so much!

Thanks so much!

Hi everyone!

Excellent thoughts on 400 v. 1600 film, I really appreciate everyone's thoughts! I think I'm leaning toward 400 pushed two stops. What I really want is tight grain and a bit of contrast.

Does anyone out there know what film will give me a more silvery look? I'm new to black & white and I've been told that some films give a silver tone versus a gray tone.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks again, for everyone's thoughts and photos, really great stuff!

Have a great day.

Chris
 
I've been playing with this some since getting my Leica M6 a few months ago. I've tested the following combination's:

Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600
TMAX 400 pushed to 1600
Ilford Delta 3200 at 3200
TMAX 3200 at 3200

My favorite is TMAX 3200, followed by TMAX 400 @ 1600. I did all development using Ilford DD-X for the recommended times based on the temperature at the time I developed them.

Yes, the TMAX 3200 is expensive, especially when I purchase it from my local shop, but it is worth it! Now I just need to use up the Delta 3200 I still have sitting in the drawer in the fridge. Who knows, maybe it will grow on me.
 
Add my voice to pushing 400 film...some pretty impressive results posted here.

I would add that any pushing, by necessity, loses at least some shadow detail (although choice of developer, and the sort of light you're shooting under, affects that) but as seen here, that's not too bad.

My experience has been that the light you're shooting under will affect your results more than pushing 400 or using 1600 to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom