Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > Photography in general

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 8th December 2012, 05:29 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,795
Default Uprating HP5 vs Ilford 3200 film

Okay guys, one of my projects on my Uni course is to photograph 'a day' in a Jewish Care home. This HAS to be done with film, for which I have chosen B/W, as I can then do my own printing.

The end product will be an exhibition of prints, up to about 12 x 16.

I have used Ilford 3200 as well as TMAX 3200 years ago and currently use HP5 regularly. BUT, I am wondering about the differences between UPRATING HP5, using either Ilford Ilfosol 3(which Ilford only really recommends for uprating up to ISO 800, although other boards say you can go higher), OR using Ilford Ilfotec LC29, rating the film at 3200, which Ilford DO recommend and I have some of.

Now, I have a large quantity of HP5 35mm film already, but no 3200, so would have to buy that in.

So, has anyone any recent experience of either of the above two scenarios please?

The pictures I intend to take will be in rooms with large windows on one side of the room only, but give quite a bit of natural light. I DONOT want to use flash unless absolutely necessary!

I will be using a Pentax MZ5N with a variety of lens, of which I have recently added a 50mm F1.7 lens. This would help dramatically but I will want to close it down to get some depth of field with some of the shots.

Ins, outs and any suggestions are all very welcome please.

Many thanks,

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8th December 2012, 05:49 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

I have had good results pushing HP5+ to 1600 and developing in Microphen. I had the impression that you could go to 3200 or beyond with this combo. I wouldn't use Ilfosol 3 for this task. I think it's aimed more at normal development of medium speed films. I haven't used your other choice. If I'm doing this sort of thing, I look at the Massive Development Chart for usable speeds and times. Good luck with the project. I'm sure you'll get some good images. Alex
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 8th December 2012, 05:53 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

To back up the posts you will get Terry, try a FADU search. TopOxforddoc if I recall has tried both and prefers HP5+ uprated. Not sure whether he uprates all the way to EI3200 but his shots at I think EI 1600, look pretty good and match what I have managed with D 3200 at 1600.

I use Xtol and have used DDX in the past but have no knowledge of LC29 or the new Ilfosol.

If you can get away with EI1600 and it sounds as if you might with the light conditions you describe and given it is a one-off, I'd doubt if buying D3200 will improve things greatly.

Only if you have to go to EI3200 or even beyond will D3200 start to show advantages, I suspect.

Best of success with the project

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 8th December 2012, 06:30 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

I think that it really depends on what speed you want. If 800 is enough then use HP5 cos its only a 1 stop push. A 2 stop push to 1600 and you will get a steep curve on the neg so if the subject is normal contrast you may well end up with highish contrast negs. But if subject is low contrast then all will be well(ish).

Anymore than 1600 and you will definitely get high contrast negs.

On the other hand delta 3200 is a low contrast film designed for pushing to 3200 using microphen and giving normal contrast negs as a result. But all depends on subject contrast.

So choice really comes down to knowing what lighting and contrast levels will be and working from there. Sounds like there should be plenty of light for 800 to work fine if you don't close down. Infact a fast 35 or 28 lens might be better since it will give you the DOF without having to close down too much.

Just my opinion. YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 8th December 2012, 08:12 PM
les dix les dix is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 262
Default

When I was learning the basics of Black and White photography the thing I kept reading time and time again was NEVER to push film if you wanted good quality negatives. Being obedient to the likes of Barry Thornton and John Blakemore I have never tried to do this so I cannot say whether this advice was perhaps too fussy and the experience of other posters seems to suggest that you can get away it.

However, have a read of this....no punches pulled!

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...d-disease.html

Les
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 8th December 2012, 08:16 PM
Stocky Stocky is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 276
Default

Can you arrange a test run there or in a similar location? Although one must be prepared for the conditions to vary if relying on daylight.

Another vote for Microphen or DDX. It's good in Xtol too.

Whatever you do don't rely on Delta3200 without a trial: its actual speed is around 1200 but as mentioned above its contrast is tailored to be pushed. Don't just set the meter at 3200 and expect anything like normal results.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 8th December 2012, 09:09 PM
Paulographic Paulographic is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mid Pennines
Posts: 835
Default

I've never pushed HP5. I did try long ago with HP4 and found it unsatisfactory compared to Tri-X. I did low light performance and live music pictures. HP5 may be better than the old HP4 I don't know but if you have a stock of it in then do a test roll.
When I pushed film in the past I shot a test roll at whatever hand held low shutter speed/wide aperture I dared and clip tested in ID11/D76 until I got the negatives I wanted. In the end I was doing 30 minutes at 1:1 but that was older films.The pictures were contrasty and theatrical which was suited to the subject.
I've used Delta 3200 at box speed in neat ID11 with good results.
Considering the subject matter you will be shooting I would aim for as near possible pictorially normal results, even tones etc. Shooting some test film would be advised.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 8th December 2012, 10:10 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stocky View Post
Can you arrange a test run there or in a similar location? Although one must be prepared for the conditions to vary if relying on daylight.

Another vote for Microphen or DDX. It's good in Xtol too.

Whatever you do don't rely on Delta3200 without a trial: its actual speed is around 1200 but as mentioned above its contrast is tailored to be pushed. Don't just set the meter at 3200 and expect anything like normal results.
I've repeatedly said it before but the word never seems to spread.

The ISO speed of delta 3200 is 1000. BUT, and its a big BUT you must understand that the ISO speed of Ilford films is calculated using stock ID11 as the developer. Change to any other developer and redo the ISO test and you will get a different ISO speed. That means you can forget about the 1000 ISO speed on the box unless you are using stock ID11 as your developer.

If you did the ISO test with Microphen then you would get an ISO speed of 3200 which is why its called 3200. It was designed to be devloped in microphen. I have fully tested this and yes I get a full 3200 speed with a perfectly normal contrast neative in full daylight.
What is normal? Well black to white is an 8 stop range with the mid point being the metered point with 4 stops either side of metered point. That can't be said for any other film I know of at that speed.

There is only one downside and that is grain. On 35mm Delta 3200 and Microphen stock is grainy and there is nothing you can do about that at that film speed except use the MF version which improves matters.

However if you use delta 3200 at 1600 speed then DD-X or Xtol come into play and grain is reduced. Or you could use it at 1000 and dev in ID11 as per ilfords ISO findings. But at 1000 speed you might just as well use HP5 which you already have. So it really does depend on what speed you actually need to use before deciding which film to use.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 8th December 2012, 11:10 PM
marty marty is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 340
Default

Hi there.
I usually push HP5+ when the low light condition dictates so. In this case my brew's preference goes to Microphen stock, I usually get a good mid-tone and high-lights that usually are not blown. Regarding shadow detail it depends largely on the type and intensity of the luminous sources, I might get from total blackness to a fair amount that can be brought out with careful printing. I also used HC-110 dil H, but I cannot make a definitive comment on this since it would need more refining on the development time. I haven't much experience with ISO 3200 films, apart a couple of T-MAXes. The main reason for me to push HP5 is simple: I don't usually know what I will shoot and HP5 gives me more flexibility and unexposed stock ages quite well as opposite to T-MAX 3200 (and I suppose Delta 3200 too) which are known to age (and fog) quite fast. I had that problem and fortunately I was able to get some decent prints nonetheless but I prefer to play on the safe side... I'm not saying I'm against to ISO 3200 films, just they don't fit my current photography style.

Cheers, M.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 9th December 2012, 12:51 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,795
Default

Thanks for the quick replies guys. They have given me things to think over.

I didn't mention that I have a little while to do the project, as it will require a few visits, so testing a film or two is not out of the question.

I'm at the place of shooting next Wednesday morning for a couple of hours, so I will take a few shots on a 35mm HP5 film that I have loaded and want to finish. I will also take along my Fuji GA645zi with a roll or two of Ilford's 3200 film that I have. I will process these in Ilfotec LC29 (which Ilford recommends) of which again I have a bottle of. I'll take in from there and see if another developer may be required.

Just taking a reading in my living room, which has similar lighting conditions, albeit my windows are a little smaller, I do get relatively good readings for ISO 400. But I will try both films above, to see what the results are when printed up as 12 x 16's.

I will keep you all up to date and appreciate any other comments in the meantime.

Thanks again guys.

Terry S
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hp5, ilfosol 3, iso 3200, lc29, uprating
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak discontinues its 3200 film Mike O'Pray Monochrome Film 8 4th October 2012 12:13 PM
Expired Tmax P3200 (TMZ 3200) - a case for the dustbin? TimoS Monochrome Film 3 8th February 2010 04:10 PM
Ilford Delta 3200 Argentum Monochrome Film 6 11th March 2009 12:01 AM
Ilford Delta 3200 and Prescysol or Exactol Lux Argentum Monochrome Film 2 1st October 2008 06:34 PM
Ilford Delta 3200 in pmk Argentum Monochrome Film 0 28th September 2008 03:36 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.