Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,720   Posts: 1,670,115   Online: 820
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34

    Comparing HP5+ at ISO 400 and pushed to ISO 1600

    Hello!

    I am currently using almost exclusively Ilford HP5+ and shooting it at box speed (ISO 400) whenever I can. However, when the lighting condition require it I am pushing it to ISO 1600 (that is quite often here in Norway). I have been quite happy with the results but to find out exactly what kind of difference it makes on my images, I have had a closer look at some of my negatives (including under the microscope).

    I have written my notes as a blog post here: http://photo.fleurey.com/blog/pushin...p5-to-1600-iso

    Maybe it could be also interesting to some of you, maybe some of you have different experiences, maybe some of my assumptions are completely wrong... I any case I am happy to hear any kind of feedback you may have :-)

    Cheers,

    Franck

  2. #2
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,818
    Pushing film is controlled under-exposure and over-development. The under-exposure removes the shadow detail and the over-development increases your density range of the under-exposed images so they can print on commonly available paper.

  3. #3
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,820
    Images
    391
    This doesn't surprise me. HP5+ is a really nice, flexible film that pushes really well, from my experience.

    I normally shoot all 400 speed B&W film at 800, just because I like contrasty 'snappy' images...honestly, most quality B&W films are flexible enough to shoot at 800 with very little work. It seems to be 1600 where you see the real difference in films.
    "Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

    MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
    YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
    INSTAGRAM: colincorneau

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    291
    Blog Entries
    10
    Images
    93
    Good job. Thank you for the information and doing the work for me
    as in Forest Gump, Old film cameras are like a box of chocolate. You never know what you will get........

  5. #5
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,971
    Images
    29
    Franck, very good bit of work there.

    One thing I would be interested in seeing as an addition to your excellent work, is if you expose HP5+ at 320 ASA and develop at your standard 400 ASA time and dilution.

    I shoot Fuji Neopan 400 135 roll film at 320 but develop it as if it was shot at 400, I get great shadow detail, minimal grain and in flat lighting like what you seem to have exposed under, prints with a slight snappy edge to them.

    Using Ilford HP5+ 4x5 sheet film I expose at 320 ASA and pull the process for bright light, or run standard process for normal light, or run with a slight push process for flat light. Under the circumstances you had in the exterior 400 shots, bottom left, that is the one with the two young boys on the rocks, I feel a slight push process with normal or possibly slight lowering of your ASA to 320, may just give you a slight kick in contrast with almost no discernible image degradation.

    When I mention a slight push process, I’m talking about developing for 500 ASA, instead of 400 ASA.

    This is similar to what we used to do with slide film processing for product shooting in the 80’s. We used 100 ASA film, exposed it at 125 ASA then push processed 1/6 of a stop, to give the highlights a pleasing snap. While at the same time, keeping almost 100% of shadow detail.

    One thing I must mention, I print all of my film using an enlarger, this may be different to your final output.

    Mick.

  6. #6
    M Carter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    592
    I did a lot of testing early this year of HP5+ and also 3200. But… I built a set and lit it with constant light (kino diva-style biax fluorescents). I included highlight detail (styrofoam packing blocks with that tiny texture) and shadow detail (very dark flannel fabric pattern), a focus chart and a gray card, and left it setup with a camera stand locked down for a couple days of testing, same lens, same F stops, same distance.

    While I appreciate your tests (and half the questions on this forum should be answered with "go test it yourself", so hat's off to you for testing AND sharing), it was really helpful to have the exact image on every neg - testing with guesswork gets kind of frustrating!

    Anyway, the most interesting results I found were -

    I much preferred the shadow detail of HP5+ when shot at 320 - for me it was a better balance of detail;

    And Ilford 3200 shot at 1600 looked better than HP5 pushed to 800 - the grain at 800 sort of mushed up detail that was much crisper on the 3200.

    Overall it left me very impressed with 3200 at lower ISOs (which many people will tell you is their experience). Gone is the insane contrast so many people get. HP5 is no slouch either - testing really helped me nail down my film to those two for 90% of the time.

    (I don't have a film scanner so I haven't posted results - I did some 5x7 prints to verify what i was seeing, but not of every frame).

  7. #7
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,820
    Images
    391
    Isn't that interesting - my experience (take it for what it's worth) is that HP5+ is sharper and more detailed than the (also excellent) D3200. Vive la difference!



    Quote Originally Posted by M Carter View Post
    I did a lot of testing early this year of HP5+ and also 3200. But… I built a set and lit it with constant light (kino diva-style biax fluorescents). I included highlight detail (styrofoam packing blocks with that tiny texture) and shadow detail (very dark flannel fabric pattern), a focus chart and a gray card, and left it setup with a camera stand locked down for a couple days of testing, same lens, same F stops, same distance.

    While I appreciate your tests (and half the questions on this forum should be answered with "go test it yourself", so hat's off to you for testing AND sharing), it was really helpful to have the exact image on every neg - testing with guesswork gets kind of frustrating!

    Anyway, the most interesting results I found were -

    I much preferred the shadow detail of HP5+ when shot at 320 - for me it was a better balance of detail;

    And Ilford 3200 shot at 1600 looked better than HP5 pushed to 800 - the grain at 800 sort of mushed up detail that was much crisper on the 3200.

    Overall it left me very impressed with 3200 at lower ISOs (which many people will tell you is their experience). Gone is the insane contrast so many people get. HP5 is no slouch either - testing really helped me nail down my film to those two for 90% of the time.

    (I don't have a film scanner so I haven't posted results - I did some 5x7 prints to verify what i was seeing, but not of every frame).
    "Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

    MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
    YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
    INSTAGRAM: colincorneau

  8. #8
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    661
    Very interesiting comparision. The 1600 negatives produce better results than I thought. Thank you.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    313
    Congratulations for doing these detailed tests and sharing the results. A welcome change from the all-too frequent pseudo-information: "this is what I use and I like the results".

  10. #10
    John Bragg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Penwithick, Cornwall, U.K.
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    413
    Images
    9
    Hi Franck. Nice work and thanks for sharing your experiences. I note that you sometimes need more contrast in the iso400 shots. Perhaps develop a roll for 6 minutes and see what happens. Either that or do 11 mins in Dilution H. 1:63 ? That way your times for "Normal" and pushed shots would be the same, and only the dilution would vary.

    Regards, John.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin