1600 ISO Question

JeremyLangford

JeremyLangford

I'd really Leica Leica
Local time
4:32 PM
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
685
I am in a highschool film photography class, where we shoot black and white pictures and develop in HC110 developer.

I need to shoot in 1600 ISO and I am trying to decide the best way to do this.

I dont know if I should buy 1600 speed film, or buy 400 or 800 speed film and push to 1600. Or even if I should buy 3200 speed film and pull to 3200.

Is HC110 developer a good developer for pushing and pulling?

Do you have any suggestions in the brand and speed of film I should use to get the least grain in 1600 ISO pictures?
 
ask 10 photographers the same question, and you'll get 10 different answers... all of them right - for each one.

You need to experiment and decide what works for you. I think HC110 is a good developer for pushing and pulling *if* and only if, you are willing to deal with multiple concentrations, agitation methods, and timing.
 
HC-110 is not a good pushing developer. Just because the school buys it doesn't mean you can't buy and use something else, does it? Well I guess it might if the teacher won't let you...will he/she? My high school teacher bought Rodinal, and it's still a developer I use a lot. But I used to try other developers too when I was in HS, and I still use Tmax developer for Some stuff. Xtol came out when i was in college and I use it too. Tmax and Xtol are good push developers. HC-110 and Rodinal are not. That's my experience. A 1 liter pack of Xtol is like $4,and a bottle of Tmax is only $11, why not give one a try?
 
Diafine, that's the word you need to know, it's cheap, been around forever, lasts forever and has instructions printed right on the box.
Find some Diafine.
 
I would suggest not using Diafine, because it will remove some of the control which you have with a single-bath developer and, in this specific educational situation, that will reduce the benefit you get from the project.

Probably you are expected to discover (among other things) that you can't change the sensitivity of a film by extra processing time, so I would suggest using HP5/Tri-X with a more diluted mix of HC110 than you do usually - and accept that the results will be "different". For a suitable subject, the look can be attractive for many purposes. Most importantly - keep notes as you go along, for maximum learning benefit ;)

As well as your own examination of the negatives and prints, hopefully your college has a densitometer and a technician who can show you how to measure the density on your film with the modified processing, compared to a normally treated roll. The results will be interesting and you can use the knowledge to make your negatives look how you want them to in the future. It might be a good idea to look at behaviour when over-exposing and under-developing too, though that might be the next school project of course !

To save on film cost (and time) for this sort of thing, either load your own cassettes or cut a full roll in half and put it in a re-loadable cassette. You only need a dozen shots to see what happens and it means you can more easily get the whole thing done in an afternoon. It may be a good plan to find somewhere with "open shade" that you can use for test pictures in the future as well as now, in order to make the results more comparable.
 
Jeremy: since you are in a high school class I suggest you ask your instructor and then follow his / her suggestion. While their response is possibly not as good as the answers you will get here, I'm certain they will want to maintain some consistency in the class. Also, they will want to maintain that they are in control.

So just go along with your teacher. Never let on that you know more than they do. Not only will you get a better grade (no so important) but you will learn more in the final analysis (which is important)
 
MartinP said:
I would suggest not using Diafine, because it will remove some of the control which you have with a single-bath developer and, in this specific educational situation, that will reduce the benefit you get from the project.
Click to expand...
... Good point- also Diafine can lead to lax habits, like not using a thermometer or clock, since it will work anyway within a relatively broad range of temps and times, so long as it's at least three minutes. I've read of some guys not even remembering to agitate it and it still comes out ok..
Agitation, time and temperature are not things to take for granted.
Diafine is, however, a good way to consistently get to 1600 with more common 400 speed films, in case that's all you can find. (although if you find a place that stocks diafine, then they probably have some 1600 film too!)

Diafine can also make you think a working solution can last forever, most developers don't last long at all once mixed with water to make a working solution.

Once you get push processing down pat with the proper methods, diafine is there for you.. Like if you want to do some processing at home and all you own is a tank.

Or you can do what I did when I was the jr high school newspaper photographer-
lug a tripod around... Those teeny pocket ones you see in the photo section of Target are ok too- just use them on a desk or against a wall for a little support.
 
Last edited:
I think I am begging to understand developers and different films.

Its simply all personal preference. Theres no way for you guys to all agree on a good film and film speed that will give me the least grain when shooting 1600.

I sure wish it was that easy.

I basically have no idea whatsoever on what film speed I should use to shoot in 1600. Maybe I should just get a 1600 film, and not try to push or pull. But then the question is, what brand?

Im still a little scared to try pushing or pulling. It seems like purposely underexposing a negative will not give the negative enough time to expose key things in the picture. How can developing for a longer time bring in things on an underexposed negative? Ive seen pushed pictures, so I know it can be done, it just seems a little sketchy for some reason.
 
If you want to keep it simple, I've used Fuji Neopan 1600 film developed in HC 110 with good results. That is what I was shooting last night and I will develop in HC 110. Good luck and have fun.
 
Last edited:
pdx138 said:
If you want to keep it simple, I've used Fuji Neopan 1600 film developed in HC 110 with good results. That is what I was shooting last night and I will develop in HC 110. Good luck and have fun.
Click to expand...

Could you please show me the results? It would really really help to see 1600 shots with the same developer I use.
 
JeremyLangford said:
I think I am begging to understand developers and different films.

Its simply all personal preference. Theres no way for you guys to all agree on a good film and film speed that will give me the least grain when shooting 1600.

I sure wish it was that easy.
Yes and no.

Fuji, Kodak and Ilford all make products that are roughly equivalent. The bottom line is that Delta3200, Tmax3200 and Neopan ARE faster than regular films, so they DO produce better results when pushed than standard 400asa films. Over time you can to shoot all of them and pick the one that makes pictures that suit your taste.

It's a similar situation with developers. There are certain developers for slow films (Rodinal etc), there are standard developers like Kodak D76, Ilford ID11, HC-110 that work great with almost all films. Then there are speed enhancing developers like Ilford DD-X, Kodak Xtol, Diafine etc. that are designed for push processing and high speed films like the ones we have been talking about. You can develop Delta 3200 in HC-110 and you will get a negative. The difference is that if you had used Xtol, you would have wrung every last ounce of performance from the filmstock.
The difference between Xtol and DD-X is personal preference. There's a lot of gray in photography and everyone thinks they have the magic combination.

So, here's what I would do.

Get a roll of Fuji Neopan 1600 or Delta3200, rate it at 1600 and develop it in HC-110. If your teacher won't let you do that shoot what ever you are using (Tri-X?) at 1200 or 1600 and follow the instructions on the bottle of HC-110 to develop it. Thousands of photojournalists developed millions of rolls of film with that combination and made all sorts of great pictures.

Don't worry about grain, because it's not going away. Even under ideal conditions all film is grainy at 1600. The trick is to shoot a good picture that grabs the viewers attention. Succeed at that and no one will care how grainy it is. Don't get caught up in all the technical mumbo jumbo. It's important stuff, but nothing is more important than developing an eye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JeremyLangford said:
Could you please show me the results? It would really really help to see 1600 shots with the same developer I use.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't own a scanner... I keep meaning to get one for sharing online, but haven't yet.
 
Harry Lime said:
The bottom line is that Delta3200, Tmax3200 and Neopan ARE faster than regular films, so they DO produce better results when pushed than standard 400asa films.
Click to expand...

But If Im shooting in 1600, wouldnt I need to pull a 3200 speed film?

If faster films produce better results, then why do people even bother to push process other than when they have to because they dont have the right film?
 
Don't expect absolute truths. There is no "better". Some people will like Delta3200@1600, others will hate it because it's T-grain. Some will like a bit of grain @ 1600, but are fussy about their grain and only like TriX.

My personal preferences at 1600 are HP5 in DDX, or the Neopans in Diafine. Many people will not agree with me.

Get out there and try something. It's better to try something than spend endless hours debating over what's best :D
 
Jeremy: black and white films labelled as 3200 are not really 3200 speed to begin with. Most of us conclude that their true speed is somewhere around 1000 or 1250. So why are they labeled as 3200? That is the "push" speed: the speed the film can be used at, with only a reasonable loss of shodow detail.

If you choose a "3200" film, like Delta 3200, then you have an easy job when shooting it at 1600. That's because you are only pushing it by around 1/3 to 2/3 stop or so. It is a piece of cake to do that! With a slight increase in developing time and good technique, you may hardly notice the loss in shadow detail.


As to whether HC-110 is a good developer for pushing, my experience is the same as Crhis Crawford's. It's not the best choice. But in this case, you will be hardly pushing at all. HC-110 can do a one-stop push with little trouble; and you are not even trying for a whole stop; not if you use T-Max P3200 or Delta Pro 3200. So there is probably no point in your spending extra $$ for a special developer.

By the way, if you favor the shadows a little bit, when you set your exposure, you can help the shadow detail out a little bit. And if you use an older lens that is low in contrast, it will infuse the shadows with a little stray light, and that helps out a little as well.

Some well regarded developers for pushing are D-76 used full strength; Acufine; T-Max developer; and best of all, Microphen. And as mentioned above, Diafine. If pushing Tri-X or HP-5 to 1600, that's when you would need one of those.

One film you didn't ask about is the Fuji Neopan 1600. This is another case of optimistic box speed. Neopan 1600 is probably really about 800-1000. Again, it is not too hard to push it to 1600, but I think Delta 3200 is better at that speed.

So I think you should go with Delta 3200, use the school's HC-110, and by the way, hold agitation down to the minimum when pushing. Increase the time, go light on agitation.
 
Rob-F said:
Jeremy: black and white films labelled as 3200 are not really 3200 speed to begin with. Most of us conclude that their true speed is somewhere around 1000 or 1250. So why are they labeled as 3200? That is the "push" speed: the speed the film can be used at, with only a reasonable loss of shodow detail.

If you choose a "3200" film, like Delta 3200, then you have an easy job when shooting it at 1600. That's because you are only pushing it by around 1/3 to 2/3 stop or so. It is a piece of cake to do that! With a slight increase in developing time and good technique, you may hardly notice the loss in shadow detail.


As to whether HC-110 is a good developer for pushing, my experience is the same as Crhis Crawford's. It's not the best choice. But in this case, you will be hardly pushing at all. HC-110 can do a one-stop push with little trouble; and you are not even trying for a whole stop; not if you use T-Max P3200 or Delta Pro 3200. So there is probably no point in your spending extra $$ for a special developer.

By the way, if you favor the shadows a little bit, when you set your exposure, you can help the shadow detail out a little bit. And if you use an older lens that is low in contrast, it will infuse the shadows with a little stray light, and that helps out a little as well.

Some well regarded developers for pushing are D-76 used full strength; Acufine; T-Max developer; and best of all, Microphen. And as mentioned above, Diafine. If pushing Tri-X or HP-5 to 1600, that's when you would need one of those.

One film you didn't ask about is the Fuji Neopan 1600. This is another case of optimistic box speed. Neopan 1600 is probably really about 800-1000. Again, it is not too hard to push it to 1600, but I think Delta 3200 is better at that speed.

So I think you should go with Delta 3200, use the school's HC-110, and by the way, hold agitation down to the minimum when pushing. Increase the time, go light on agitation.
Click to expand...

This helped a lot. I think Im beginning to understand.

So pushing is pretty much always there with high speed films. With 1600 or 3200 films, do you just look at the film box to see what the developing times are? Is that always how you figure out the developing times? Would a roll of Delta 3200 have a developing time for shooting in 1600? Just wondering. I know I can always find them here.............

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom