Fast film

ryno · 01-13-2009, 05:08 PM

I'm looking for recomendations for film in the 800 range. For B&W I'm thinking HP5 pushed 1 stop in microphen, any other ideas? For color is it better to use 800 speed, or push 400?
Thanks for any ideas, Ryan

anirbax · 01-13-2009, 08:21 PM

Colour negative films can't be pushed well, so you should use some 800 film.

Originally posted by ryno

I'm looking for recomendations for film in the 800 range. For B&W I'm thinking HP5 pushed 1 stop in microphen, any other ideas? For color is it better to use 800 speed, or push 400?
Thanks for any ideas, Ryan

k100d · 01-13-2009, 09:03 PM

i've been using PRess 800 aka Superia 800. can be bought at about $3 a roll at B&H. stuff seems great to me, not overly saturated, but from my tests the reds seem to come out a bit too strong.

ryan s · 01-13-2009, 11:08 PM

HP5+ pushed sounds like it'll fit just fine

titrisol · 01-14-2009, 01:00 AM

Pushing HP5 or TriX sounds like a good idea. Developed in Xtol or DDX it is fine.
Can you get your hands on some Neopan 1600? That one is a great film, you can shoot it as 1,000 or so

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-14-2009, 03:29 AM

Years ago, I regularly used Tri-X and shot at either 1600 or 3200 ISO.

I would put this in my KX with a 50mm F1.4 and shoot in the middle of the night at 1/30 of a second.

Peole just ignored me because they could not believe anyone would take a photo without flash. It made for some great shots.

I have posted these ones previously, scanned from the negative with a minolta Dimage II scanner.

Note to develop Tri-X in the developer (D76 if memory serves me correctly) requires about 5:50 for normal processing, but 32 minutes for ISO 3200 (at 20C)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/383094-post12.html

Ratmagiclady · 01-14-2009, 09:07 PM

I rather like Tmax P3200, actually, (nicer rated at around 2000 or so) Goes nice in its own developer, anyway. I may give D76a whirl, soon.

ryno · 01-14-2009, 09:28 PM

I ordered some fuji 800 and HP5 tonight. Thanks for the ideas.
Ryan

lithos · 01-14-2009, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Note to develop Tri-X in the developer (D76 if memory serves me correctly) requires about 5:50 for normal processing, but 32 minutes for ISO 3200 (at 20C)

They've changed the formula of Tri-X god knows how many times since then, Lowell. The ISO 3200 dev times, in straight D-76, are down to about 15 minutes at 20C.

As always, check the Tech Pubs for films. Tri-X's is F-4017.

New Tri-X's time doesn't even reach 20 mins in 1:1 D-76 at 3200!

Keep in mind that Tri-X has one stop positive latitude - you can shoot it at ISO 800 without push processing it at all.

I love pushing Tri-X to 3200...but I don't expect to get away with street shots like Lowell (people are far too aware of technology these days, and are more likely to assume you've got some fancy high-tech low-light camera.)

And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything.

Ratmagiclady · 01-15-2009, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by lithos

And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything.

Admittedly, I got a good deal on my last batch of p3200.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-15-2009, 08:28 AM

Fuji Neopan 1600 used to give way better results than T-MAX 3200.
Pushing Tri-X or T-Max 400 one or two steps is also very reasonable solutions.
You can influence the grain size by changing the temperature away from the standard recommendation, but mind you it will also change the development time, so you will have to experiment a bit.

Ratmagiclady · 01-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Fuji Neopan 1600 used to give way better results than T-MAX 3200.
Pushing Tri-X or T-Max 400 one or two steps is also very reasonable solutions.
You can influence the grain size by changing the temperature away from the standard recommendation, but mind you it will also change the development time, so you will have to experiment a bit.

I never tried the Neopan 1600, myself. I believe a friend has some, but I don't know if he's used it yet. I used to push a whole lot of stuff, though. In fact, I'd often take it to extremes.

I dont *generally* recommend going off temperature, though, generally all that does is bump contrast (not generally what I need more of) and raise grain. I figure, if you're going to do that, you probably may as well have the speed, as well. (But I'm kind of a low-light person, most of the time, as the rodentey name may imply. If I want nice grain and I can have slow film in, I like good old Plus-X. Though I've been playing with Neopan Acros here and there. (and trying to get the contrast down a notch, though it is in fact very sharp)

Come to think of it, Douglas, have you ever tried pushing Neopan 400? I've been playing with this stuff recently, and finally gotten back around to some nice results with good old D-76, full-strength. Though I haven't tried pushing it. I had this period where all I had was Tmax developer, and this copy of Rodinal I've been not-wanting to mix till I know we aren't moving away at any given month.

I'm *trying* to prevent big proliferation of films and developers at least for now. I don't do that much quantity.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-15-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

I never tried the Neopan 1600, myself. I believe a friend has some, but I don't know if he's used it yet. I used to push a whole lot of stuff, though. In fact, I'd often take it to extremes.

I dont *generally* recommend going off temperature, though, generally all that does is bump contrast (not generally what I need more of) and raise grain. I figure, if you're going to do that, you probably may as well have the speed, as well. (But I'm kind of a low-light person, most of the time, as the rodentey name may imply. If I want nice grain and I can have slow film in, I like good old Plus-X. Though I've been playing with Neopan Acros here and there. (and trying to get the contrast down a notch, though it is in fact very sharp)

Come to think of it, Douglas, have you ever tried pushing Neopan 400? I've been playing with this stuff recently, and finally gotten back around to some nice results with good old D-76, full-strength. Though I haven't tried pushing it. I had this period where all I had was Tmax developer, and this copy of Rodinal I've been not-wanting to mix till I know we aren't moving away at any given month.

I'm *trying* to prevent big proliferation of films and developers at least for now. I don't do that much quantity.

I'm trying to dig into my memories, and should probably go get the negative-files in the storage room where there is of course notes for each film. You see, I almost grow up in a dark room since my dad taught me how to develop my own films when I was six. Sure I didn't do it on my onw until a bit later. Then I kept on doing it year after year...did military service as photographer...decided not to go pro...but stayed on a relatively advanced amateur level...headed a camera club...built my own dark room in my first appartment...got married...and somewhere were the kids came my dark room gear was stuffed away in some boxes. Last time we moved I had to throw away a load of way to old chemicals. Then came digital age. I sometimes shot some colornegatives as a complement, no black and white.

But then I got a decent negative scanner, thinking I should scan lots of old negatives and slides (still has a mountain of Kodack carousel slide magazines in a wardrobe), and last summer I could not resist puting a BW in my super-A again and of course I couldn't stop. Its not as bad as it used to be, probably had FSA (Film Shooting Addiction

) back then, but it's approaching a point where I need to find my old gear to develope films, since it has become so costly to develop BW. That should not be so hard to get running again in the washing room.

Anyway: as far as my memory serves me, I used to push Neopan 400 up to 1600. Above that it didn't work very well. I think I managed to get the grain down by lowering the temperature, and I believe I used D76. But if you have patience with me I can dig up my notes during the weekend.
As far as I remember, I generally had the impression that Neopan had less contrast but more detailed grey scale than T-max. So I picked film according to the conditions. Does that makes sence to you, does it fit your experience?
I used to shoot both T-max 100, 400, Tri-x, occasionally Plus-x, all loaded form these large 30 m rolls you could buy and load yourself. Fuji Neopan was another matter, because my parents happened to have a neighbour who was salesman for Fuji Film

...so I could afford buying them pre-loaded so to say.
I did use some Neopan 1600 and was more hapy with the results than the T-max 3200. But often it worked just as well to press the 400 ASA films to 1600. Done many concerts with that.
Must get started scanning some of my old favorit shots in BW.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-16-2009, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by lithos

They've changed the formula of Tri-X god knows how many times since then, Lowell. The ISO 3200 dev times, in straight D-76, are down to about 15 minutes at 20C.

As always, check the Tech Pubs for films. Tri-X's is F-4017.

New Tri-X's time doesn't even reach 20 mins in 1:1 D-76 at 3200!

Keep in mind that Tri-X has one stop positive latitude - you can shoot it at ISO 800 without push processing it at all.

I love pushing Tri-X to 3200...but I don't expect to get away with street shots like Lowell (people are far too aware of technology these days, and are more likely to assume you've got some fancy high-tech low-light camera.)

And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything.

I don't disagree

I did these shots in 1985.

Ratmagiclady · 01-16-2009, 12:29 PM

Cool, Douglass.

As far as I remember, I generally had the impression that Neopan had less contrast but more detailed grey scale than T-max.

You may just have that the other way around, actually. I could *get* some contrast out of Tmax, but it always seemed a bit flatter, with the exception of that P3200 stuff. I think they may have changed the Tmax 400 since I last had any, though.

The Neopan, in general, I've found pretty constrasty, but overall good stuff. I had been about to go back to HP5, nonetheless, until I tried the Neopan 400 in D-76: this looks promising. I'm looking forward to getting these under the enlarger, actually. (Right now it's a little cold for the wet side of my darkrooom,

)

01-13-2009, 05:08 PM	#1
ryno Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 220	Fast film I'm looking for recomendations for film in the 800 range. For B&W I'm thinking HP5 pushed 1 stop in microphen, any other ideas? For color is it better to use 800 speed, or push 400? Thanks for any ideas, Ryan

01-15-2009, 02:26 PM	#12
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Fuji Neopan 1600 used to give way better results than T-MAX 3200. Pushing Tri-X or T-Max 400 one or two steps is also very reasonable solutions. You can influence the grain size by changing the temperature away from the standard recommendation, but mind you it will also change the development time, so you will have to experiment a bit. I never tried the Neopan 1600, myself. I believe a friend has some, but I don't know if he's used it yet. I used to push a whole lot of stuff, though. In fact, I'd often take it to extremes. I dont generally recommend going off temperature, though, generally all that does is bump contrast (not generally what I need more of) and raise grain. I figure, if you're going to do that, you probably may as well have the speed, as well. (But I'm kind of a low-light person, most of the time, as the rodentey name may imply. If I want nice grain and I can have slow film in, I like good old Plus-X. Though I've been playing with Neopan Acros here and there. (and trying to get the contrast down a notch, though it is in fact very sharp) Come to think of it, Douglas, have you ever tried pushing Neopan 400? I've been playing with this stuff recently, and finally gotten back around to some nice results with good old D-76, full-strength. Though I haven't tried pushing it. I had this period where all I had was Tmax developer, and this copy of Rodinal I've been not-wanting to mix till I know we aren't moving away at any given month. I'm trying to prevent big proliferation of films and developers at least for now. I don't do that much quantity. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 01-15-2009 at 02:35 PM.

01-15-2009, 04:04 PM	#13
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady I never tried the Neopan 1600, myself. I believe a friend has some, but I don't know if he's used it yet. I used to push a whole lot of stuff, though. In fact, I'd often take it to extremes. I dont generally recommend going off temperature, though, generally all that does is bump contrast (not generally what I need more of) and raise grain. I figure, if you're going to do that, you probably may as well have the speed, as well. (But I'm kind of a low-light person, most of the time, as the rodentey name may imply. If I want nice grain and I can have slow film in, I like good old Plus-X. Though I've been playing with Neopan Acros here and there. (and trying to get the contrast down a notch, though it is in fact very sharp) Come to think of it, Douglas, have you ever tried pushing Neopan 400? I've been playing with this stuff recently, and finally gotten back around to some nice results with good old D-76, full-strength. Though I haven't tried pushing it. I had this period where all I had was Tmax developer, and this copy of Rodinal I've been not-wanting to mix till I know we aren't moving away at any given month. I'm trying to prevent big proliferation of films and developers at least for now. I don't do that much quantity. I'm trying to dig into my memories, and should probably go get the negative-files in the storage room where there is of course notes for each film. You see, I almost grow up in a dark room since my dad taught me how to develop my own films when I was six. Sure I didn't do it on my onw until a bit later. Then I kept on doing it year after year...did military service as photographer...decided not to go pro...but stayed on a relatively advanced amateur level...headed a camera club...built my own dark room in my first appartment...got married...and somewhere were the kids came my dark room gear was stuffed away in some boxes. Last time we moved I had to throw away a load of way to old chemicals. Then came digital age. I sometimes shot some colornegatives as a complement, no black and white. But then I got a decent negative scanner, thinking I should scan lots of old negatives and slides (still has a mountain of Kodack carousel slide magazines in a wardrobe), and last summer I could not resist puting a BW in my super-A again and of course I couldn't stop. Its not as bad as it used to be, probably had FSA (Film Shooting Addiction) back then, but it's approaching a point where I need to find my old gear to develope films, since it has become so costly to develop BW. That should not be so hard to get running again in the washing room. Anyway: as far as my memory serves me, I used to push Neopan 400 up to 1600. Above that it didn't work very well. I think I managed to get the grain down by lowering the temperature, and I believe I used D76. But if you have patience with me I can dig up my notes during the weekend. As far as I remember, I generally had the impression that Neopan had less contrast but more detailed grey scale than T-max. So I picked film according to the conditions. Does that makes sence to you, does it fit your experience? I used to shoot both T-max 100, 400, Tri-x, occasionally Plus-x, all loaded form these large 30 m rolls you could buy and load yourself. Fuji Neopan was another matter, because my parents happened to have a neighbour who was salesman for Fuji Film ...so I could afford buying them pre-loaded so to say. I did use some Neopan 1600 and was more hapy with the results than the T-max 3200. But often it worked just as well to press the 400 ASA films to 1600. Done many concerts with that. Must get started scanning some of my old favorit shots in BW.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
120 fast film?	lbenac	Pentax Medium Format	21	08-11-2010 05:30 PM
What's a FAST (used to be fast) film lens	neverbnnba	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	07-03-2010 05:42 PM
Recommend a fast color print film?	Mister Pita	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	07-03-2010 04:59 PM
What is "Fast" about the fast Fifties...	jess	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-04-2009 05:18 PM
A Fast Fifty Is Really A Fast 75mm	drewdlephone	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	182	12-08-2008 10:38 AM

01-13-2009, 08:21 PM	#2
anirbax Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Bangalore, KA, India Photos: Gallery Posts: 30	Colour negative films can't be pushed well, so you should use some 800 film. Originally posted by ryno I'm looking for recomendations for film in the 800 range. For B&W I'm thinking HP5 pushed 1 stop in microphen, any other ideas? For color is it better to use 800 speed, or push 400? Thanks for any ideas, Ryan

01-13-2009, 09:03 PM	#3
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	i've been using PRess 800 aka Superia 800. can be bought at about $3 a roll at B&H. stuff seems great to me, not overly saturated, but from my tests the reds seem to come out a bit too strong.

01-13-2009, 11:08 PM	#4
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	HP5+ pushed sounds like it'll fit just fine

01-14-2009, 01:00 AM	#5
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,853	Pushing HP5 or TriX sounds like a good idea. Developed in Xtol or DDX it is fine. Can you get your hands on some Neopan 1600? That one is a great film, you can shoot it as 1,000 or so

01-14-2009, 03:29 AM	#6
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Years ago, I regularly used Tri-X and shot at either 1600 or 3200 ISO. I would put this in my KX with a 50mm F1.4 and shoot in the middle of the night at 1/30 of a second. Peole just ignored me because they could not believe anyone would take a photo without flash. It made for some great shots. I have posted these ones previously, scanned from the negative with a minolta Dimage II scanner. Note to develop Tri-X in the developer (D76 if memory serves me correctly) requires about 5:50 for normal processing, but 32 minutes for ISO 3200 (at 20C) https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/383094-post12.html

01-14-2009, 09:07 PM	#7
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I rather like Tmax P3200, actually, (nicer rated at around 2000 or so) Goes nice in its own developer, anyway. I may give D76a whirl, soon.

01-14-2009, 09:28 PM	#8
ryno Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 220 Original Poster	I ordered some fuji 800 and HP5 tonight. Thanks for the ideas. Ryan

01-14-2009, 09:47 PM	#9
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Note to develop Tri-X in the developer (D76 if memory serves me correctly) requires about 5:50 for normal processing, but 32 minutes for ISO 3200 (at 20C) They've changed the formula of Tri-X god knows how many times since then, Lowell. The ISO 3200 dev times, in straight D-76, are down to about 15 minutes at 20C. As always, check the Tech Pubs for films. Tri-X's is F-4017. New Tri-X's time doesn't even reach 20 mins in 1:1 D-76 at 3200! Keep in mind that Tri-X has one stop positive latitude - you can shoot it at ISO 800 without push processing it at all. I love pushing Tri-X to 3200...but I don't expect to get away with street shots like Lowell (people are far too aware of technology these days, and are more likely to assume you've got some fancy high-tech low-light camera.) And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything.

01-15-2009, 07:58 AM	#10
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by lithos And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything. Admittedly, I got a good deal on my last batch of p3200.

01-15-2009, 08:28 AM	#11
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Fuji Neopan 1600 used to give way better results than T-MAX 3200. Pushing Tri-X or T-Max 400 one or two steps is also very reasonable solutions. You can influence the grain size by changing the temperature away from the standard recommendation, but mind you it will also change the development time, so you will have to experiment a bit.

01-16-2009, 07:36 AM	#14
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by lithos They've changed the formula of Tri-X god knows how many times since then, Lowell. The ISO 3200 dev times, in straight D-76, are down to about 15 minutes at 20C. As always, check the Tech Pubs for films. Tri-X's is F-4017. New Tri-X's time doesn't even reach 20 mins in 1:1 D-76 at 3200! Keep in mind that Tri-X has one stop positive latitude - you can shoot it at ISO 800 without push processing it at all. I love pushing Tri-X to 3200...but I don't expect to get away with street shots like Lowell (people are far too aware of technology these days, and are more likely to assume you've got some fancy high-tech low-light camera.) And remember, for every roll of Ilford Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 you buy, you could've bought two rolls of Tri-X, and get similar results. I don't find the grain too intrusive; I've found my shots on Tri-X @ 3200 look less grainy than some others on Neopan 1600 or TMAX. But that depends on your scanner and dev, more than anything. I don't disagree I did these shots in 1985.

01-16-2009, 12:29 PM	#15
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Cool, Douglass. As far as I remember, I generally had the impression that Neopan had less contrast but more detailed grey scale than T-max. You may just have that the other way around, actually. I could get some contrast out of Tmax, but it always seemed a bit flatter, with the exception of that P3200 stuff. I think they may have changed the Tmax 400 since I last had any, though. The Neopan, in general, I've found pretty constrasty, but overall good stuff. I had been about to go back to HP5, nonetheless, until I tried the Neopan 400 in D-76: this looks promising. I'm looking forward to getting these under the enlarger, actually. (Right now it's a little cold for the wet side of my darkrooom, )