Which 400 speed film for an E.I of 800 -1200?greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
I am doing some testing of my own right now but I would appreciate input from others. I want to choose a 400 speed film which I can rate anywhere from 200 to 1200. At 200 to 400 I will use PMK (I like the results I get from both Tri-X and HP5+ in PMK) but for the faster E.I. I will develop using either Xtol or Microphen. Can anyone give me their ideas and/or experiences. Right now I seem to have narrowed my choice to HP5+ or TMY400. Which one of these two pushes better? Thanks for your help.
-- Jeff (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 23, 2000
IMHO - I would go with HP5+ or Tri-X not TMY400. I might also consider a developer other than the two you are thinking of using. Such as HC- 110. But as with all things related to this -testing is the only way to go. But I would test out the different combinations with an eye towards the final size of prints you intend to be making in the future. Often a film /developer combo that works well (fine grain,etc.) at 8X10 print size does not hold up well at 16/20 or 20/24. This is not an uncommon result of "pushing "film in "fine grain" developers.
-- jim megargee (email@example.com), March 24, 2000.
As I do use PMK, I would rather like to comment on using Tri-X/HP5+/TMY at 400 to 1600.
To me seems like the old emulsions TriX/HP5+ are better for pushing. I fairly often pushed Tri-X to 1600. (Even 3200 can be done)Using DD-X, which is similar to Microphen. I use Tri-X at 400 to 1600 for portraits or when ever I feel the need for a nice grain structure.(New emulsions look almost grainless at 8*10'')
What I did not like was TMY pushed 2 stops in Xtol simply grainy, too grainy for my taste (marriage picture in the church).For 400 and fine detail I use Delta 400 in Xtol 1:1.
I was not really happy with my results for HP5+ in Xtol. So maybe I should have tried Microphen.
-- Wolfram Kollig (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 24, 2000.
Jeff, In past years I have a great deal of success using Tri-x and Accufine developer. Accufine is manufactured somewhere in Chicago and ads can be found in Shutterbug as well as many other magazines. Probably on-line as well. The Accufine pushes at least one stop and can be used for more of a push. There is, also, a two-bath developer, made by the same company, called "DiaFine" which is supposed to work very well and gives low grain. Hope this helps David
-- H. David Huffman (email@example.com), April 26, 2000.
I agree that Tri-X and Acufine is a good combination. I used it for years taking shots in an old ice rink where I had to use a fairly fast shutter speed. These old negatives are as good as or better than any I have taken with other films I've tried in similar light situations, including TMax 400 and TMax developer. The grain is robust but sharp, and detail is very good. However, I did try Diafine once, and I found the look to be quite unacceptable. It had a soft mushy appearance, although the shadow density was ok.
-- john stockdale (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 28, 2001.