400 vs 1600

[Ariston]

How is an ISO 1600 film different from a 400 film pushed to 1600? Both seem to have a lot of grain. Are the emulsions different somehow, or are they simply re-packaged and labeled for push processing?

 

[Bill Burk]

They are different Thomas Bertilsson once used both and you can see his results in the galleries.

I believe his conclusion was that you can get better results from the faster film pushed a little (because they are not really 3200) than the slower film pushed more.

So use the film that is closest to the speed you need.

 

[bdial]

The ISO 1600 film should give more shadow detail than the pushed 400 speed film. ISO 400 film is still 400 speed regardless of the extended processing.

 

[Paul Howell]

I test shot Tmax 3200 at 1000, 1200, 1600 and 3200 and compared with TriX pushed, to 800, 1200, and 1600 in DDX. At 1000, 1600 the Tmax 3200 good shadows, moderate grain, the TriX at 800 still had some shadow details, and better grain, by 1600 no shadow detail and the Tmax 3200shot at 1600 had better grain. As I did not push Tri X out to 3200 no way to compare, but the Tmax 3200 lost shadow detail and grain was increasing. I think pushing Tmax 400 will do better than TriX to 1600, but is a still a push while Tmax 3200 seems to be at it's best at 1600. I know that some push Tmax 3200 out 6400 as a 2 stop push, but have seen prints to determine if I would go that far.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Are you asking theoretically?
Because, practically, 400 @1600 cost something reasonable if in bulk.
I use hp5 and K400 @1600.
But I print, not scan. Grain talk usually comes from scanners

 

[Patrick Robert James]

To simplify, the larger grain size of the faster film is more sensitive to light.

If I remember correctly back when I shot a lot of fast film TMax 3200 was really more like a 1000 speed film, and Delta 3200 was more around 1250. I don't know what they would really be now. Been a long time.

As has already been mentioned, the shadow detail will be better with the faster film at any given speed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How is an ISO 1600 film different from a 400 film pushed to 1600? Both seem to have a lot of grain. Are the emulsions different somehow, or are they simply re-packaged and labeled for push processing?

different!

 

[radiant]

Tmax 400 @ 1600 is better than Tri-X @ 1600 ? This is new info for me. I've been in a believe that Tmax 400 doesn't give decent results when pushed. Last winter I pushed HP5 to 1600 (I don't like it at 400) and I liked it pushed. Really similar to Tri-X pushed, but I think Tri-X maintains shadows a bit better than HP5 when both pushed to 1600. Not a big difference and maybe more opinion. HP5 is cheaper too and it's so shallow differnece that I'm probably still going to buy HP5 for pushing.

I need to choose a 1600 pushable film for the winter (buying a batch) so really interested hearing your experiences!

 

[MattKing]

A push development doesn't (materially) increase the light sensitivity of a negative film.
What it does is increase the contrast.
If you under-expose a film by two stops (expose a 400 ISO film to the amount of light that a 1600 ISO film is designed for), and then give it a two stop push development, your shadows will remain without detail, but the darker midtones and midtones will improve in appearance, because their contrast will have been increased.
The two stop push development will also increase the contrast in the highlights, which may cause them to appear less detailed and more harsh.
As we tend to be most attuned to the qualities of midtones and highlights, pushing a film can cause a distinct decrease in the quality of the appearance of the results.
If your subject is low in contrast, an increase in development can be helpful, but it doesn't do a lot to improve the situation when there isn't enough light.
The EI3200 films are, essentially, 1000 ISO films that are lower in overall contrast, and therefore respond more favourably to a push development.

 

[radiant]

A push development doesn't (materially) increase the light sensitivity of a negative film.
What it does is increase the contrast.
If you under-expose a film by two stops (expose a 400 ISO film to the amount of light that a 1600 ISO film is designed for), and then give it a two stop push development, your shadows will remain without detail, but the darker midtones and midtones will improve in appearance, because their contrast will have been increased.

This is great insight.

Can this put in as that the midtones and highlights have got "enough" light for film to separate those. However - of course - those are "located" in wrong place on the log scale. The dark parts are basically just black and when you overdevelop (push) the film you move the midtones and highlight to "correct" place. At the same time the dark area of the film doesn't contain anything?

 

[Ariston]

I've tried to find the photos by Thomas Bertilsson mentioned above, but can't (although I found his gallery). I'd like to see pushed 400 and 1600 film side by side so I can see with my eyes the difference. Charts and theoretical talk don't really paint a picture for me. Although I understand the statement that there will be more shadow detail, I'd like to see just how much with my eyes.

Are you asking theoretically?
Because, practically, 400 @1600 cost something reasonable if in bulk.
I use hp5 and K400 @1600.
But I print, not scan. Grain talk usually comes from scanners

I agree. I used to use HP5, and now use Ultrafine, which is $39 for a 100-foot roll!

 

[removed account4]

hi ariston
not sure if you saw this thread
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/experiences-with-delta-3200.146679/page-3

you might push some of your native 400 speed to 1600 or 3200 and process it to see if you like it that way
as with everything different people describe the same exact things in different ways. there's a whole slew
( well maybe 1 or 2 ) different developers that will increase the virtual speed of film without increasing too much of the
grain and dropping shadows out too much ( or so they say ). 1600 from 400 is only 1 stop for the most part ( at least with tmy )
seeing kodak says if you shoot it at 800 develop it like you would at 400.

 

[Ariston]

To simplify, the larger grain size of the faster film is more sensitive to light.

If I remember correctly back when I shot a lot of fast film TMax 3200 was really more like a 1000 speed film, and Delta 3200 was more around 1250. I don't know what they would really be now. Been a long time.

As has already been mentioned, the shadow detail will be better with the faster film at any given speed.

Patrick, I just read a comment of yours on the thread John suggested above. You said, for low light, to simply open up the lens and shoot the slowest speed you can hand hold. That is brilliant advice, and I don't know why I never thought of that. I've always gotten good results indoors, but was always checking my metering, which was cumbersome.

hi ariston
not sure if you saw this thread
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/experiences-with-delta-3200.146679/page-3

you might push some of your native 400 speed to 1600 or 3200 and process it to see if you like it that way
as with everything different people describe the same exact things in different ways. there's a whole slew
( well maybe 1 or 2 ) different developers that will increase the virtual speed of film without increasing too much of the
grain and dropping shadows out too much ( or so they say ). 1600 from 400 is only 1 stop for the most part ( at least with tmy )
seeing kodak says if you shoot it at 800 develop it like you would at 400.

I have film developed at 400 and pushed to 1600 that I can compare. I've never yet bought native 1600 or 3200 film to try. I guess I should. Thanks for linking to that thread. That was helpful.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tmax 400 @ 1600 is better than Tri-X @ 1600 ? This is new info for me. I've been in a believe that Tmax 400 doesn't give decent results when pushed. Last winter I pushed HP5 to 1600 (I don't like it at 400) and I liked it pushed. Really similar to Tri-X pushed, but I think Tri-X maintains shadows a bit better than HP5 when both pushed to 1600. Not a big difference and maybe more opinion. HP5 is cheaper too and it's so shallow differnece that I'm probably still going to buy HP5 for pushing.

I need to choose a 1600 pushable film for the winter (buying a batch) so really interested hearing your experiences!

That is because Tmax is a tabular film and Tri-X is traditional grain film. Tabular film as smaller grain.

 

[Bill Burk]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/experiences-with-delta-3200.146679/#post-1919494

Post #47 he shows a portrait taken on 120 size, so it may not be a fair comparison to 35mm

 

[radiant]

That is because Tmax is a tabular film and Tri-X is traditional grain film. Tabular film as smaller grain.

Does grain affect to how film can handle shardow area exposure? I think Tri-X grain pushed 1600 is not that bad at all. Of course more visible. However I'm only interested in the contrast/shadow detail behavior when pushing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does grain affect to how film can handle shardow area exposure? I think Tri-X grain pushed 1600 is not that bad at all. Of course more visible. However I'm only interested in the contrast/shadow detail behavior when pushing.

TMax has a longer and straighter curve than Tri-X and TMax has better reciprocity characteristics than Tri-X. However I still prefer the traditional grain that Tri-X has. To answer your question: both films can handle contrast and shadow at box speed, but I do not know how either perform when pushed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

From Kodak Pub O-3:

"ARE THERE OTHER USES FOR PUSH PROCESSING?

Yes. Oddly enough, pushing can offer an advantage in a number of well-lit situations. For example, consider an outdoor tennis match at midday. You can easily shoot a 400-speed film at 1/500 second to stop action or usf/16 for good depth of field. But you might prefer to use a 100-speed film, pretend it is 400, and then push-process. Push processing increases film graininess, but a 100-speed film pushed to 400 is not as grainy as a true 400-speed film exposed and processed normally. This technique sacrifices some shadow detail, but in many sports situations, such as tennis, golf, swimming, etc., shadow detail is not terribly important to the image. In situations like this, you can end up with better overall image quality by underexposing and push-processing a slower film than by making the more natural choice of a faster film.

HOW SERIOUS ARE LOSS OF SHADOW DETAIL AND INCREASED GRAIN?

It all depends on your requirements for image quality. Many purists would not even consider these techniques because of the associated grain and shadow degradation. Yet to say “never” to push processing is to deny yourself many photo opportunities.The more you underexpose, the harder you must push the process, and the more grain and shadow detail suffer. How far is too far? You’ll need to experiment with various degrees of underexposure and pushing to learn your aesthetic limits, realizing these change with the situation. Few people would pass up a once-in-a-lifetime photo opportunity because it requires push processing and some degree of image degradation.

BUT CAN YOU QUANTIFY THE PENALTIES?

Roughly, think of it this way: A one-stop push—exposing a 100-speed film at 200, or a 400-speed film at 800—will be difficult for most people to detect if it is done well. A two-stop push, such as 400-speed film exposed at 1600, is clearly detectable, in both lost shadow detail and increased graininess of the print. Three stops is generally the upper limit.Many sports photographers have used a three-stop push for years. They rate KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film at 3200 and push-process. The grain is genuinely gritty and the loss of shadow detail is substantial, but again, it beats having no newspaper coverage of an important event.

DOES ALL THIS MEAN THAT BLACK-AND-WHITE FILM HAS NO FIRM SPEED VALUE?

Absolutely not. Any film has one, and only one, ISO speed. This value is determined with a particular developer under very rigid conditions. However, this developer and the special conditions are not available to the average photographer.The speed of a film in the real world is a function of many choices made in processing the film: the developer, the developer dilution, development time, developer temperature, and agitation. Kodak lists Exposure Index (EI) values for its films, and these values are different for different developers. For example, PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 Film has an EI value of 400 when developed in fresh KODAK PROFESSIONAL Developer D-76, but it has an EI value of 200 when developed in full-strength KODAK MICRODOL-X Developer. (These EI values are based on normal development for negatives intended to print on grade 2 paper in a diffusion enlarger.) With longer development times, such as those used in push processing, EI values actually do increase, but only slightly. Underexpose a film by two stops and give it a two-stop push, and the real film speed will typically increase by perhaps a half stop. This means that the film is really underexposed by only 1 1⁄2stops, not two stops. But it is underexposed.The intrinsic speed of a film is largely set at the time of manufacture. You can trade much of this speed for other features (like finer grain with MICRODOL-X Developer) or simply lose it in a poorly maintained developer. However, increasing speed significantly is extremely difficult

ARE SOME FILM/DEVELOPER COMBINATIONS BETTER THAN OTHERS FOR PUSH PROCESSING?

Yes.We’ve already mentioned the option of intentionally choosing a slower film, and the fact that many people push even turbo-charged materials like PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 Film. In practice, though, the films most often pushed are 400-speed films. The choice of which 400-speed film is an important consideration.A few years ago, Kodak did an interesting survey. We purchased black-and-white 400-speed films manufactured by Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, and Fuji. All the films received very precise sensitometric step-tablet exposures. We then mailed them to 119 pro labs all around the world for processing. When the films came back, we determined the exact exposure needed to produce a density of 0.10 above base plus fog, the ISO speed point.For any one of the films, we saw a variety of speed numbers that reflected the processes of the various labs. But the film that most consistently provided the best speeds was PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 Film. The advantage ranged from modest to substantial, depending on the comparison, but in a world where fractions of a stop matter, this film offered a clear advantage.A variety of so-called “push developers” is available. These developers are specially formulated to extract the maximum photographic speed from black-and-white films. A distinguishing characteristic of such developers is that they tend to produce very grainy results. KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer and T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher are exceptions. They are the “push” variety, but they don’t exact a significant penalty in film graininess. Both offer maximum film speed, but with grain that is just slightly more noticeable than that produced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL Developer D-76."

Emphasis are mine

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/o3-2002_02.pdf

Interesting about the real speed actually increasing a little bit with time in the developer. And Kodak's claim that Tmax has the best speed. Ilford also makes a similar claim about Delta.

Does anyone do 1600 tmax in tmax dev?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Patrick, I just read a comment of yours on the thread John suggested above. You said, for low light, to simply open up the lens and shoot the slowest speed you can hand hold. That is brilliant advice, and I don't know why I never thought of that. I've always gotten good results indoors, but was always checking my metering, which was cumbersome.

I have my moments...