No way will I let that OCD develop. ;-)
Originally Posted by GJA
Couldn't be any closer to the truth. The only way to determine what works is to try it. Some people have excellent luck with things others have crap luck with.
I think on because this is such an individual scenario, you will gain more from experimentation than from reading these forums.
As far as pushing film goes, if you're not a print sniffer or grainless angel type, then almost anything goes. I've pushed APX400 to 6400 and gotten results (albeit heavily grainy and contrasty, but still a photograph).
People are going to tell you that such and such thing won't happen or be impossible, etc. - when in reality they really mean "sub-optimal to iffy results." No amount of pushing can create shadow detail that barely hit the emulsion, but one can end up with mid-tones and highlights still intact. The key is that the mid-tones and highlights convey to the eye and mind what the shadows might have looked like - so their absence doesn't necessarily mean the frame is junked. It's why contrasty pushed film still works without looking overly artificial.
The beauty of this is that even though APX is actually not one of the best choices for pushing (at least from *my* results in comparison with other emulsions like Neopan), it still produces usable results. This doesn't mean go out and push PanF50 by 8 stops. It just means that there is a broad spectrum of what's "acceptable" to most people and experimenting always teaches us something valuable.
If there was only one emulsion I had to carry around I would carry Neopan 1600 for it's awesome versatility. But it'd also be a hard choice against 400TX as it's another incredibly versatile film but more in-line with Neopan 400 in terms of sharpness.
1600PR is stellar day and night:
Guys, I love photography as much as the next guy, but I personally don't walk around with a tripod and an incident meter. I'm usually more concerned with the moment rather than sharpness, f/22 night shots, or pictorially perfect images. This is no Tmax 100 or zone system photography. It's just photography.
We all know that familiar quote, in reference to choice of black and white vs color: "Sometimes color just gets in the way." Well sometimes the same thing goes for pushed film and general low-light shots: Sometimes shadows just get in the way. High shadow detail isn't always necessary. Neither are grainless images.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
A VERY Simple Home Brew
Grain is largely a function of the film and the developer.
For any one film the more active the developer the
greater the grain.
D-23 is a Home Brew with only two components, It is
only moderately active. I use it VERY dilute, 1:7. At that
dilution I believe it delivers great compensation. It will
pull all the shadow detail you've recorded with out
blowing the highlights.
A starting point: A 120 roll, 500ml solution volume,
a few inversions at start then 2 or 3 at 2 or 3
minute intervals, 16 to 20 minutes. Dan
Originally Posted by clayne
Nice stuff to prove the point.
Tri-X developed in XTOL 1:1 is somewhat less grainy vs development in D-76. Suggest enlarging with a diffused light source and avoiding overdevelopment. That said, a monopod and FP4 rated up to 200 may work.
Low and Slow
Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen
Do you develop FP4 rated at 200 in XTOL 1:1? Would it make sense to try HC-110?
Are there any advantages, for any developer, in developing at lower temps for longer times in lower concentrations of developer? In terms of grain, contrast, etc.?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)