Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-24-2011, 12:08 PM   #1
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Ilford 3200 pushed to 12500

So I notice on the dev chart in Ilford 3200 it gives push information to 12,500. Has anyone done it? I was thinking 75% of the recommended time in straight D76 and 50% of the time in saturated borax. Stand development. I am using the 120 if anyone is interested.

I am shooting it tonight and will develop tomorrow.... I will post results...

03-26-2011, 02:47 PM   #2
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by icywarm Quote
So I notice on the dev chart in Ilford 3200 it gives push information to 12,500. Has anyone done it? I was thinking 75% of the recommended time in straight D76 and 50% of the time in saturated borax. Stand development. I am using the 120 if anyone is interested.

I am shooting it tonight and will develop tomorrow.... I will post results...
I am shooting this film in 120 tonight as well, but I will keep it to 3200. I will be developing in DD-X, which has not yet arrived.
03-26-2011, 03:08 PM   #3
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster
I was happy working with it... I am hoping to scan it tomorrow... interesting stuff... post how it works with DD-X... I know Ilford is just happy to get developer but I have been wanting to try something besides D-76 for a while now...
03-26-2011, 06:46 PM   #4
Veteran Member
PGillin's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southern Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 343
I'd be interested to see this as well!
I'm partial to a 55mm 1.4 and push-processed Kentmere at night, but this is a good 3 stops faster than I've ever gone. If it looks decent I'll have to keep some Ilford on hand....

Please share!

03-27-2011, 03:23 AM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
Best bet? Expose for ISO 12,500, soup in Diafine, see what happens.
03-28-2011, 06:03 AM   #6
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
Best bet? Expose for ISO 12,500, soup in Diafine, see what happens.
The newest T-Grain developers such as DD-X and T-Max are reputed to be similar to Acufine. I'm looking forward to seeing how DD-X works.
03-30-2011, 08:50 PM   #7
Pentaxian
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,573
12,500 wow - I'm looking forward to seeing what you get!
04-03-2011, 08:47 PM   #8
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster
Taken in a dark garage at work with only two 60 watt bulbs lighting the space... I didn't have my light meter with me but I bracketed 5 stops... This was the 5th and the only 'good' exposure... I took some handheld in the office just eye balling exposure and got nothing worth sharing... my meter shows up this week I hope and I will try again...

Developed for 13 mins in D-76 of questionable strength and 8 mins of Borax, the borax part was stand dev and regular agitation for the D-76. The logic being that if there was any detail in a shadow the borax would pull it out, but not burn out the highlights... as you can see with the second image. You can see 'detail' of stuff from the roof across the street in full sunlight and just just make out the face in the shadow... which was light badly with fluorescent tubes...





Yes there is bad dust... I will scan the next set better... this was just to see if I could even do this... I would be interested to see those other images in the DDX.

04-03-2011, 09:00 PM   #9
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster


Here is an untouched crop of just the hand... I missed the focus on the face, thus I found it on the hand...

f/2.8 1/250 ISO 12,500

And a quick was in LR3, no detail, full noise and playing with the tones for my screen...



So to me they are usable... not the quickie ones... those I messed up on... but with proper exposure and good developement it makes usable images... with the next roll with the lightmeter and compairables for my KX we will see if there really is a push to 12,500...

(PS usable to me maybe different... I don't often produce technically perfect images... rather I like to play)


Formapan 100 pushed two stops and developed with D-76/Borax.

Last edited by icywarm; 04-03-2011 at 09:16 PM.
04-03-2011, 09:08 PM   #10
Pentaxian
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,573
I really think exposure is critical when you are shooting such a high sensitivity - probably old news to you anyway.
But to me, the mannikin shot looks OK. In my opinion the grain is not too bad at all. Depending on the subject, I think it would be fine without trying to reduce the grain in digital PP.
04-03-2011, 09:25 PM   #11
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by goddo31 Quote
I really think exposure is critical when you are shooting such a high sensitivity - probably old news to you anyway.
But to me, the mannikin shot looks OK. In my opinion the grain is not too bad at all. Depending on the subject, I think it would be fine without trying to reduce the grain in digital PP.
Yes it is amazing... one stop less and the image is completely useless... and the DR seems chopped to me... but I think I need to get back to film basics and exposure for the shadows and let the highlights work themselves out...
04-03-2011, 10:52 PM   #12
Pentaxian
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,573
Yep, I have noticed the same thing in my experimenting, which has only been Tri-X @ 1600 in Tmax dev at this stage. Underexpose it by one stop and it looks like crap. Get the exposure pretty close on and it's definately usable. The higher the sensitivity the higher the contrast and the lower the overall range, rather similar to digital.

I think we can be spoilt by the modern digital cameras and their apparent low noise images. But film grain is always going to look better :P
04-03-2011, 11:21 PM   #13
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by goddo31 Quote
Get the exposure pretty close on and it's definately usable. The higher the sensitivity the higher the contrast and the lower the overall range, rather similar to digital.
Yes but I am not sure I was actually hitting 12,500 ISO...

I figure there was about 80 lux in the room, which should have me at 2.8 & 1/250

which according to my exposure cheat sheet would have needed ISO 6400...

But I will not know for sure until I get my light meter... than this gets a whole lot more science like!
04-05-2011, 06:36 AM   #14
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by goddo31 Quote
I really think exposure is critical when you are shooting such a high sensitivity - probably old news to you anyway.
But to me, the mannikin shot looks OK. In my opinion the grain is not too bad at all. Depending on the subject, I think it would be fine without trying to reduce the grain in digital PP.
So true with any push. I was looking at some shots from the holidays on Tri-X @ 1600. Shots with medium tones were great. However, there were some nasty, grainy indoor shots with no shadow detail. It occured to me that my MX metering had been influenced by lots of white walls in the room and lights on the tree. This error was probably well within the latitude of the film at ISO 400, but let's say artistically rendered at ISO 1600. Snow had the same effect, as can be seen from my post on the "Show us your grain" thread.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
film, ilford, photography, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 645 + Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600 = awesomeness dugrant153 Pentax Medium Format 26 04-11-2011 03:54 PM
Question about Ilford 3200 and "push process" Todd Adamson Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 5 03-28-2011 06:00 AM
Ilford Delta 3200 - shoot at 800-1600, develop at 1600? dugrant153 Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 15 11-08-2010 02:27 AM
Can infrared film be pushed? SuperAkuma Pentax Film SLR Discussion 2 04-22-2009 05:14 PM
Ilford HP5+: round 2, pushed to 1600. CSoars Pentax Film SLR Discussion 21 02-24-2009 09:20 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top