Provia 400X pushed to ISO 1600

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by Matus Kalisky, Aug 17, 2010.

  1. Matus Kalisky

    Matus Kalisky Member

    Messages:
    610
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    Location:
    Aalen, Germa
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hello,

    I know there has been some discussion on this topic and I have also seen some successful examples of Provia 400X pushed to ISO 1600.

    I have just got one roll of 400X I have exposed with a Mamiya 6 under different conditions. Most of the photos look underexposed. Even worse - there seem to be no true black in the slides. The slides also look rather flat. I will examine them into more details with a loupe on light table once I get home. But the first impression is not that great.

    I will scan some of these, but probably will not manage before Friday (I leave for vacation and would like to used pushed 400X there ...)

    So - I am wondering what is your experience. Do you expose the 400X and ISO 1600 and have it developed +2N or you expose it at somewhat lower ISO while keeping the development at +2N ?

    How do you proceed when you want to push only to ISO 800?

    Caveat I: The Mamiya 6 is rather new to me. But being aware of possible underexposure resulting of how the metering behaves I did for most occasions two exposures (one "direct" metering and one avoiding highlights in the viewfinder that did not belong to image like lamps or bright sky). At the same time I have exposed one Provia 100F and one Velvia 100 films with the same metering technique in in most cases only the "second" exposure is correct.

    Caveat II: the lab I am using does always a great job (they do only slides) so I do not suspect any problems there.
     
  2. Erik Petersson

    Erik Petersson Subscriber

    Messages:
    683
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Stockholm, S
    Shooter:
    35mm
  3. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,948
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Someone on flickr sat it in a dev tank with nothing but mercury vapour for 2 days pre-developing, post-exposure, and apparently seems to get more developable shadow detail.
     
  4. Josh Harmon

    Josh Harmon Member

    Messages:
    79
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Isnt that just film hyper-sensitization?
     
  5. hrst

    hrst Member

    Messages:
    1,300
    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Push processing reduces DMAX. This is not a problem for those who print or scan, but for projection this can be a major drawback, because film is usually pushed when speed is needed in dark night shots, and that's when DMAX is crucial for pictures to look good.
     
  6. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,948
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I dont really know sorry.
     
  7. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,570
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Whatever it is, I sure wouldn't want even traces of (non contained) mercury vapor around my home ...
     
  8. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,948
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I cant remember his source, but break a cheap thermometer and sticking it in the bottom of a plastic hand dev tank and sealing it up does the trick, then putting the film in once the reel is loaded etc.
     
  9. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, there has already been some great advice in this thread so far, so I don't think I can add anything...
     
  10. thuggins

    thuggins Member

    Messages:
    431
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I've pushed the original formulation of Provia 400 two stops, and had it developed with a two stop push. The results were very good. The shots were taken both in daylight and very dim artificial light (actually, formations in a cavern). As I recall, Fuji's spec sheet states that 400X can be pushed to 1600. If you are having problems it is probably not the film.
     
  11. TWoK

    TWoK Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  12. TWoK

    TWoK Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  13. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sounds like total BS to me.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,948
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Sorry, don't post things like that, that would lead others to believe it is when you have no evidence to say so.
     
  16. ntenny

    ntenny Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The use of mercury vapour for hypersensitisation is quite well known in the astrophotography world---I guess the only question would be whether a pool of mercury at room temperature outgasses enough to do much good. I don't see any special reason to write the claim off as "total BS".

    -NT
     
  17. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    TWok, great pictures! Japan is a trip, ne...

    Mercury hypersensitisation is surely not BS. As for outgassing at room temp, IDK, but Daguerre's method used a candle to heat a tin of mercury. But if it's liquid at room temp, it stands to reason that some might vaporize.
     
  18. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    +1

    Some really great shots with lovely grain.
     
  19. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh by no means do I not believe in mercury sensitization. It was merely in reference to breaking a thermometer and letting the film sit next to the mercury as a way to do it.

    What's next? Gold from urine?
     
  20. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,948
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yeah dont say that. You are calling a person a liar. But you have no evidence.

    I have several cheap mercury thermometers, I've accidentally broken some before, it's enough to fill a room quickly. Putting it in an enclosed container with film will have the film sitting in mercury vapour.
     
  21. Alvaro Gomez

    Alvaro Gomez Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I will post an example that came up really nice later
     
  22. olleorama

    olleorama Member

    Messages:
    526
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Seriously people, mercury vapour for the sake of developing film? I'd rather go digital! Mercury is nasty stuff. Specially considering it's potential benefit in this case.
     
  23. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Looking forward to it Alvaro.
     
  24. JSebrof

    JSebrof Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm also looking forward to it, but in the meantime I found this video that shows the mercury evaporating at room temperature. It does say the beaker has been warmed by hands though.
     
  25. Klainmeister

    Klainmeister Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Mercury does indeed vaporize at room temperature. Check out this health and safety vid: http://www.mwsi.com/new/videos/Mercury.mpg

    The ultraviolet light is needed to visually see it, since the vapor is to...ummm...'thin' to see with the naked eye (don't know a better term).

    I surely wouldn't do this since exposure to mercury is so incredibly damaging to the human nervous system. That said, film speed increases can be done with ammonia or peroxide since all you're trying to do is super-saturate the film emulsion with oxygen to help speed up the halide reactions. There's an old astrophotography book somewhere on my shelf that speaks of doing this when the old BW emulsions were still very slow and they needed the increase.
     
  26. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    This thread isn't really about mercury sensitization, that was just a tangent. It's just about pushing Provia 400 to 1600. I would bet that Alvaro here did nothing with mercury.