High ISO or Push?

Earlier this spring I did a series of informal 'tests" with Neopan 1600 - rated at 1000-1200 in Rodinal stand development. Apart from a "standard" 60 min run, I did additional tests and added Sodium Sulphite to the Rodinal 1:100 mix (2%, 4%, 8% and 10 %) to soften the grain. Not a huge difference. I did cut the times too (45min,35 min,30min,25min). Best result was at about 35 min. and 10% Sodium Sulphite added.
I also tried the opposite, Rodinal 1:100 and constant agitation. Grain was a bit (but only a bit) more aggressive and tones held up fine.
Check Flickr on our site "Rodinal Stand development " for some samples ( about 200 in all).
 
Last edited:
Thardy said:
I like the look. How did you process?
Click to expand...


The stuff at 1600 I used Tmax developer because I had it.. The two 3200 examples were done with d76 going by the massive dev chart. The 1600 in Tmax I went by the chart and added a minute or so @ 80 F and shot at 1600 (roughly.. no meter)

only using the tmax because I mixed my d76 over a year ago and didn't want to trust it on those rolls (because I had no idea what was on them)
 
Wondering if anyone cares to suggest a high ISO developer, most likely for pushing tri-x, as I assume there's something better to use than D76 when pushing to 1600 or 3200.

I've still to EVER use Rodinal, due to not being able to find it locally
 
It will not be my first choice pushing film, especially not if an alternative high speed film is available.
My first choice in the range 800-1600 iso will be Neopan 1600.
In an enhance speed developer you will be around iso 1000-1250. If you need that iso 1600 you can push it a bit without to many quality loss.
Speed enhancing type developers:
Diafine (BKA)
Acu-1 (BKA)
DD-X (Illford)
Microphen (Ilford)
SLD (Spur)
Xtol (Kodak)

My first choice is Acu-1 (a one shot version of Acufine) or Microphen.
Here an example with my M7 + Summicron 2,0/50mm wide open with Neopan 1600 on E.I. 1600, SLD.

331126799_6c198a76cc.jpg
 
Last edited:
My favourite is HP5 in XTOL 1:1. I push my HP5 regularly to ASA 1600. I've never been a great fan of Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200 (which isn't). I find that HP5 pushed to 1600 is fine with little grain and retained highlight detail. Here's a shot of Madeleine Peyroux hot last week on HP5 pushed to 1600 on my M6TTL 135 Tele-Elmar.

Charlie
 

Attachments

  • Madeleine Peyroux small-8.jpg
    Madeleine Peyroux small-8.jpg
    91.9 KB · Views: 0
I just received some Neopan 400, and DD-X developer. So I have many different types of film and a few different developers, but I may not be able to go to the wedding. I'll see what my daughter brings back.

I'll keep playing around.

Thanks for the examples.
 
I've yet to see a shot on Neopan 1600 that doesn't have a high contrast, pushed look. It looks decidedly slower/higher contrast to me than Delta 3200 or TMZ at 1600. It is however finer grained.

Though TMZ and Delta are only ISO 1000-1250 depending on who you ask, I think TMZ at least looks quite nice shot at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1. Maybe technically a push, but it looks great - enough shadow detail and normal-ish contrast. Delta 3200 and TMZ are both designed for pushing so they have a lower contrast when shot at true ISO (or so I've been told). I shoot TMZ at 3200 sometimes when I need it, but I do think it looks better at 1600.

The big problem with people showing examples of their pushed films is that you have no idea what their metering technique is.

You could always try Tri-X in Diafine - I shot a lot of concerts with that combo at 1250 and they came out fine, but concert lighting can be so contrasty AND poor, its sometimes hard to tell if I was not giving enough exposure for the shadows.

My vote - if you can stand the grain, TMZ or Delta 3200. These two films seem to be pretty similar - some prefer one, some prefer the other, but once you find the one you like, you'll be good to go. Just go with a speed enhancing developer like XTOL or whichever Ilford dev it is (DD-X?).

Now I know these aren't identical situations, but they are similar, and my metering was probably reasonably consistent too. The shot at 3200 doesn't have much in the way of shadow detail, while my mom's shirt and hair in the 1600 shot have plenty (for me). The light was a bit less harsh in that shot though. Also, you can make out some details in the 1600 shot out the window. That's a very tough situation for any film/sensor, and to me, TMZ at 1600 does about as well as you could expect.

TMZ @ 3200:


TMZ @ 1600
 
I prefer Neopan 1600 for low light work. I think film manufacturers put R&D efforts in fast films and we must benefit... Or if you can't afford push generic film.
Below are examples of Neopan 1600 in Stoeckler two-bath developer, taken on Easter night 2007 in Russian orthodox church in Toronto.

1712.jpg


1811.jpg


3311.jpg
 
Tri-X in Diafine if you want a high-speed developer that works well with Tri-X. Tri-X is the magic film - push it to a bazillion. That said, imo, if the photons ain't there - they ain't there (depending on how (if) you look at it... pardon my arcane quantum physics "humor"). You don't need all that speed. You end up just losing mid-tones. In most "street" low light situations you will have a single light source (like a street light) but everything outside of that will be dark no matter what speed film you use or what you push it to.

1. There are 3 kinds of "low light" photography. One is you go in to a place and shoot a rock band. The stage is lit - everything else is dark, and you don't care about it anyway. For that it's more important to use a fast lens, shoot around 2.0 and 400 speed film is fine.

2. Ambient light - a room with some open windows during the day. Again - 400 speed film is fine. Actually for these situations, faster film is better because it buys you some f-stops...

3. Long shutter speed "darkness" shots of still objects shot on a tripod. - use /low/ speed film, a stop watch, and a good Gossen light meter. Nobody really does this but this truly is "low light" photography. Get the resolution and tonality benefit of low speed films for this.

IMO - fast speed is overrated, as is pushing. You lose more than you gain. It's best for /more/ light (see 2). Most "street shooters" aren't shooting low-light. You're shooting at night at a subject with some kind of light and for that (ready?) 400 speed film shot at 400 speed with a good lens, with a RF at 1/15-1/30 will usually work.

Pushing is for people who like to play with developers. Go ahead and play. I've shot in dimly lit bars with a Yashica Electro CC with 400 speed film and got the best low-light results this way with 400 speed film. 1600 speed film has its place - and I use it often but I use it more when there's /more/ light - like naturally daylight lit rooms, more to "buy stops".
 
Tim Gray said:
. . . Though TMZ and Delta are only ISO 1000-1250 depending on who you ask. . . ]
Click to expand...


Or which dev you use. Generally Microphen gives the highest true ISO, about 1000 for TMZ, 1250 for Delta 3200, 800 if you're lucky with Neopan 1600.

One big difference is that Kodak and Ilford are upfront about it but representatives of both Fuji USA and Fuji UK have tried to tell me that Neopan 1600 is genuinely ISO 1600. I may have got the wrong people but no-one who can do ISO speed tests has ever told me that Neopan 1600 is really ISO 1600.

All three are 'long toe' films, optimized for pushing, and can give excellent results at 50-100% above ISO, good results at 100-150% above ISO, and usable results at 5x to 10x ISO.

Cheers,

R.
 
Hi Nick, I think I am looking at item (2) ambient light. It will be a church wedding and I really don't know what the light levels will be. It would be great to have results like Yaron's.

Hi Roger, I do have various films and developers, (I failed to get Microphen though) so I plan on playing around with them all. But then it would only take me a few days to receive the Microphen from Adorama by mail.

I would think that Neopan 1600 rated at 1000 should be fast enough and should give good results, based on examples and testimonials. I have also wondered about pushing Neopan 400 to about 1000.

I may have to give the film to my daughter and let her play at the wedding since I may have to work on the wedding day, but this is certainly a fun topic.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
....but representatives of both Fuji USA and Fuji UK have tried to tell me that Neopan 1600 is genuinely ISO 1600.......

R.
Click to expand...

If you look at the Fujifilm pdf files relating to Neopan400 and to Neopan1600, you will see for each film a characteristic curve graph. Close inspection will reveal that based on shadow detail, the "1600" film is 2/3 of one stop faster than the 400 film. So if you accept that the 400 film is actually 400, then the "1600" film is 640.

(my conclusion was after printing one graph on transparency media and superimposing it on the paper graph of the other. Slide to match the curves at the low end, and you have the difference in sensitivity on the horizontal axis.)

Roger is right in saying that the curve shape does lend itself to some pushing, but if some shadow detail is where you're at, the Ilford and Kodak "3200" will give you more.
 
Basically Neopan 400 and 1600 are the same films, one of the reasons you can develop the films in a lot of developers for the same time.
In speed the Neopan 1600 is almost one stop faster.
The only developer which you can reach (just) over iso 1000 is with the Diafine 2 bath developer. And by turning up the C.I. a bit you can develop the film according iso 1600 with a good result.

You can do the same with Microphen and Acu-1 and then you have your own control of the C.I.
 
john_s said:
If you look at the Fujifilm pdf files relating to Neopan400 and to Neopan1600, you will see for each film a characteristic curve graph. Close inspection will reveal that based on shadow detail, the "1600" film is 2/3 of one stop faster than the 400 film. So if you accept that the 400 film is actually 400, then the "1600" film is 640.
Click to expand...

Dear John,

As I recall, they don't say which dev they used, but I suspect it's 'middle of the road' (D76/ID11, for example) which would give ISO 400. A true speed increasing dev would therefore give an easy 500, which at +2/3 stop makes 800.

The only film I know where a speed increasing dev is used to give the box ISO speed is Foma 200, which, in any given dev, is just about identical in speed to Ilford FP4 (I actually went to the trouble of plotting the curves once; although I can't do absolute speed testing, I can do comparative testing pretty well).

Again as far as I recall, the emulsion of Neopan 1600 is loaded with development accelerators, which is why the dev times are the same as for 400, but with the extra speed. Interestingly, Foma 200 also uses lots of development accelerators.

For EI 1000 I'd be happy enough with HP5 Plus in Microphen (or DD-X, which gives speeds close enough to Microphen that you won't notice the difference), developed for the Ilford time for 800 but with constant agitation and no time compensation (normally you knock off 10-15% for constant agitation instead of intermittent). Constant agitation pushes up toe speed a whisker, and you might even find you could knock half a minute off this time.

For anything more than EI 1000 I'd go straight to Delta 3200.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Tim Gray said:
...
The big problem with people showing examples of their pushed films is that you have no idea what their metering technique is....
Click to expand...

I think this is the most important thing to learn in this thread!

If people rely on their averaging meter e.g. in a concert environment where the people on stage are brightly lit and the rest of the scene is almost black, the meter will read too much of the dark scene and always overexpose.

The best way to treat such a situation would be to spot meter the people's faces (I assume those to be your main subject) and place them on zone 6. This might be a difference of 3 stops to the result of the averaged meter!

So if someone says that a Tri-X looks great at EI 1600 it might just be that they used the averaging meter and actually just overexposed in a way that would result in a proper exposure for an EI 400 film (sorry, it's confusing).

Having said that, I used to employ Delta 3200 (DD-X) at EI 3200 or EI 1600 in dark situation but recently changed to Fuji Neopan 1600 (gives a real EI 800 in Diafine) because the grain is much more pleasant.

Regards,
Philipp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom