MNossi
Hello!
I’d like to take black-and-white photos indoors with very little light. A tripod or flash isn’t an option.
Which film (HP5?) would you recommend (one that’s good for pushing)? Which developer should I use, and how should I develop it?
I’d like to be able to produce 18x24 prints with acceptable grain.
Thanks for your advice and opinions!
Mario
Junkom
I’ve done a lot of low-light photography; unfortunately, Neopan 1600 isn’t available anymore. I used to shoot it at ISO 1000 and then develop it properly in D76, for example – brilliant!
?
Personally, I’ve used a lot of Kodak Tri-X 400; you can push it to 1000 or even 1600, then I’d use either X-Tol 1:1 or Rodinal 1:100 to 1:200
?
Annoyingly long development times, but a very usable result, in my opinion.
?
But I’m sure a few film geeks will pop up here and completely confuse you with the craziest suggestions. Good luck and best regards
Morte
Tri-X in A49 or Rodinal. You can definitely push it to 1600.
€
I once pushed Kentmere 400 to 3200 with Rodinal. I was amazed by the result; the grain really stayed within reasonable limits.
Bonderer
TriX in Spürsinn HCD II with a starter is my developer of choice here; I use it at 1600 ISO and I’m happy with it, though I’ve also used it at 3200 ISO for a concert shoot with good results.
The new Sam Classic also works well with TriX, though.
I also develop TriX in Rodinal at 1600 ISO for a friend, but he wants a lot of grain and strong contrasts. Too much grain for my taste.
TriX or HP5? It’s difficult; everyone has their own preferences. Mostly TriX, but sometimes HP5 too – both films have their strengths and weaknesses.
The biggest problem will be deciding what to try in the end. My advice is to simply expose one or two full rolls at 1600 and perform development on half or third rolls using different developers and dilutions to see what suits you best. That way, the important shots will turn out exactly as you’d imagined.
ThomasPauly
In my experience, Tri-X-Pan can be developed to a perfectly usable 1000 ASA in Emofin or Diafine. The gradient remains normal despite the increase in sensitivity – with excellent shadow detail and no blown-out highlights, which is probably also due to the specific action of two-stage development. The grain is fine, as is typical for this class of film, and remains unobtrusive even in 30x40 enlargements. Overall, perfectly suitable for everyday use.
€
In addition, Delta 3200, although the ‘box speed’ is probably a marketing exaggeration. I’ve had quite good results during exposure, using 1600 ISO, and then developing it in Perceptol (which does tend to reduce sensitivity), though using the time specified for 3200 ISO. The grain is still quite pronounced despite the fine-grain developer, whereas the sharpness is remarkably high. Even in D-76/ID-11, the film does not seem to deliver more than 1600 ISO speed. In my opinion, 3200 ISO films are only to be recommended if you absolutely need the speed or wish to use grain as a creative tool.
€
tepe
Photux
Personally, I haven’t had much success pushing film with Rodinal (or developing anything with a higher ISO rating at all). Others manage it, but for some reason I don’t.
However, my classic standard combination of Tri-X and D76 handles 800 ISO without any significant loss of quality, and even 1600 ISO is still perfectly usable. Sure, there are better films and developers for this sort of thing, but buying them wouldn’t be worth it given my volume of work. Kentmere 400 strikes me as having even less grain and might be even better suited to pushing. I haven’t tried it yet, though.
It goes without saying, really, but the choice of lenses is just as important. In low light, I wouldn’t start below f/2; one of my favourite lenses is a 50mm f/1.4.
piu58
> Personally, I haven’t had good results using Rodinal for pushing (or for developing anything with a higher ISO rating at all)
?
Rodinal is poorly suited for pushing. When overdeveloped (which is essentially what pushing is), many films tend to show banding and coarse grain.
?
For high-speed films, on the other hand, it is well suited – provided you develop carefully and accept that, compared to phenidone-based developers, you lose about half a stop of speed. In return, you get wonderful sharpness, almost unrivalled.
?
> Delta 3200, although the ‘box speed’ is probably a marketing exaggeration
?
That is well known. When measured properly, it comes out at around 1000 ASA.
Ulf-Benno
Dear MNossi, dear photography enthusiasts,
?
I’d also like to share my experiences on this topic, as I’ve been fascinated by ‘available light’ photography ever since I was a teenager. As a schoolboy, I didn’t have a flash, and later on I only used one for colour photography. What makes black-and-white images in low light so special is the exceptionally good – indeed, almost moving – rendering of the lighting atmosphere. With today’s cameras and films, you can really take wonderful pictures by the light of a single candle or in any pub. Thirty years ago, I was still struggling with dark viewfinders and cameras that shook on their own. Even the first AF cameras weren’t any better; they couldn’t find the focus point or had to be illuminated themselves. Now you can even work with zoom lenses (wide-angle + 1/8 sec). However, manual focusing at f/1.4 is still the best.
In my opinion, the film I’d recommend for this is Neopan 400, ideally developed with Microphen. You just need to follow the instructions and you’ll get almost unrealistically good shots at ISO 3200. At times, you wouldn’t believe it was actually quite dark here. The shots are very good; even the shadows don’t get too dark. The grain is undeniable but moderate. This combination is very robust. Even significant exposure and development errors do not result in a total loss. The developer has a very long shelf life; even after months and several batches, you can still give it a go. For every roll of film, I initially extended the development time by 5 minutes and later by 10 minutes (500ml) and never had a development failure.
Unfortunately, the film has been out of stock for a long time and is now quite expensive. The developer is also no longer available in the 2.5-litre pack. So I tried ATM 49. It works almost as well. The shadows are darker, but the granularity is slightly lower. Fuji doesn’t specify the development time, so I simply extended the time for ID11 by 20% and achieved good results. The film only turned out badly once; the developer wasn’t fresh enough.
The only alternative to Neopan is HP5+. The results here are almost as good. Slightly more grain and less shadow detail are hardly noticeable. But you mustn’t overdevelop it, and fresh developer is always essential.
There is another alternative, though my experience with it has been mixed: the Delta 400 in ATM49. The development time is comparable to Neopan. Of the three films I tried, one was dreadful, one was mediocre (like underexposed Orwo) and the third was excellent, surpassing anything I’d seen before. Super fine grain, harmonious contrasts, excellent shadows, and the negatives with overexposure could also be copied well. As I said, at ISO 3200! which Ilford doesn’t recommend at all. I suspect that you must only use fresh film and fresh developer. So next time I’ll do a test development first.
?
I’ve had bad experiences with other 35mm products like Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200; the contrasts were simply too flat, the images looked like nothing. Besides, these films age quickly.
Tri-X and APX 400 only reach ISO 1600, and all the others (ORWO, Foma and Forte) only ISO 1000. The only one I didn’t bother trying further was Tmax. The first roll was well-defined but lacked punch.
?
Temperature and agitation during development also have a major influence. Normally, you want to reduce fog, but here the fog is actually beneficial for shadow detail. So high temperatures and long development times in diluted developers can certainly be useful. At the moment, I’m experimenting with heavily diluted developers.
An initial success looked like this: I developed the Neopan in 240 ml of water + 60 ml of Microphen stock solution for 2 hours at 23 to 26 °C. The gentle agitation was provided by the foot spa set to the lowest setting.
The result was almost better than with the stock solution. A lovely fog and exposure latitude, and slightly coarse-grained. ISO 4200 would probably have been possible too.
I’ll be in touch again when I have further results.
There is another ideal camera for this purpose: the very old Exa with a light well. You place it on the table and can focus from a greater distance (discreetly 15 cm above the light well); a quiet click and the perfect shot is possible. Exposure metering and film changes are, of course, the weak points here.
?
Good luck! Ulf -Benno
Morte
I’ve decided to include a few sample photos after all. People here tend to throw around figures and measurement data, but the only thing that really counts is the visible results.
€
The first image is a Tri-X 400 shot at 3200 ASA. It was developed in a lab; unfortunately, I can’t remember which one, but the developer was definitely either A49 (FOTOIMPEX) or Kodak D76 (Jet Foto).
In the picture: JD McPherson
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
€
I took the next two pictures on Rollei RPX 400, which, according to various sources, is or was (about two years ago) identical to Kentmere 400. The speed was 3200 ISO. As I used Rodinal (Adonal) for everything back then, I also developed this film using the classic formula. However, it was summer and very warm, so I used a development time of 27 minutes at 22°C. This time would therefore need to be extended if using a cooler developer. The Rodinal mixing ratio was 1+50. No stand development!
€
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
€
It should be noted regarding all the images that these are scans of the negatives. The grain is already accentuated by the scanning process alone; the effect is further amplified by the sharpening required to correct scanner-induced out-of-focus conditions and by the reduction in file size. Prints made from the same negatives would therefore likely show visibly less grain.
michael-kielgmxnet
During my last holiday, I took quite a few photos of church interiors. I used Kodak Tmax 400, had an exposure of 800 ISO and developed it in Atomal 1+1.
I deliberately didn’t extend the development time – in other words, I didn’t push it. The resulting negatives are a tiny bit lighter than usual but have sufficient shadow detail. The highlights are very nicely balanced.
I suspect that a similar result can be achieved with other balanced developers (Xtol, D76 etc.). For me, it was important to see that a modern film like the Tmax 400 can easily cope with underexposure by one stop without any significant drawbacks.
TR
the overexposed negatives
?
I’m sure you mean underexposure.
?
You can effectively increase a film’s actual speed for shadows through subliminal pre-exposure.
In my test with the APX 100, I found a gain of just under one stop (i.e. actual gain / not merely tonal adjustment). Normally, this method is used to perform an underexposure on a high-contrast subject, thereby gaining better control over the highlights – whilst at the same time (due to the subliminal pre-exposure) ensuring the shadows remain well-defined. Of course, you can also do this with a subject that isn’t high-contrast – you don’t quite gain a full stop (with APX 100).
I’d be interested to see how this technique works with a 400-speed film, e.g. Tri-X, and whether even more can be achieved through stronger pre-exposure with a slight fog. I don’t have time to test it at the moment.
For subliminal (i.e. just before fog) pre-exposure, you need a camera with a patent double-exposure function and, in each case, a brighter surface that is as texture-free and evenly lit as possible. Naturally, such conditions are not available in dark rooms. Therefore, before setting off to take photographs, you could briefly pre-expose the entire roll of film in a completely dark room.
StefanT
I used to push my film occasionally and always had good results with Microphen, whether using Tri-X or HP5+. My most recent attempts were with HP5+ at 1600 ASA in A49. I didn’t really like the developer for normal use, but in my opinion it’s quite suitable for pushing. I’ll try to attach two photos, which are positive scans from a simple flatbed scanner.
?
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
?
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
