This weekend I shot some indoor stuff on TMZ 3200 and Delta 3200 at EI 3200 before running out of film. All I had around was HP5+ so I shot it at EI 1600, not really expecting much from it.

I developed everything in Microphen (1:1) and I was surprised to find that there really wasn't much difference in shadow detail - basically not of them had much. However the midtones/highlights were similar and the HP5+ had significantly lower grain - although it was rated one stop slower of course.

I'm going to have to do some tests for a more accurate comparision, but I'd be interested in the opinions of others on HP5+ pushed 2 or 3 stops in Microphen vs "real" (i.e. "designed to be pushed")high speed films like TMZ 3200 and Delta 3200. At what point have others found it worth switching to the higher speed, more grainy emulsions?

In my only tests so far, I'd rate HP5+ as a true 400 speed film in Microphen, Delta 3200 as maybe a 1000 speed film - based on zone I exposure giving 0.1 above b+f. I've never really compared them shot at EI 1600 or 3200.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), November 06, 2000

Answers

I've solved that quandary this way; if I can stand to lose the shadow density at EI 1600 I'll go with HP5+ and avoid the tremendous grain penalty of the faster films. If I really need the shadow detail I'll go with Delta 3200 at EI 1600 and for anything faster.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 07, 2000.

A lot of this number juggling seems to go on with so-called high speed films. Even Kodak's now defunct 10,000 ISO (Hah!) surveillance film didn't have a true speed of much more than 800 ISO.
If you look at Fuji's published curves for Neopan 400 and NP1600, where's the difference?. The toe rises at exactly the same Lux/second exposure point.
It's reckoned that it takes a minimum of 3 photons to expose an individual AgX crystal, and then there's every chance that the displaced electron will wander around and pop back into the dislocation a short time afterwards. This must set a physical limit to film speed.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), November 07, 2000.

Hello Bob,

HP5+ doesn't look too bad at 1600 does it? I used Tmax developer with TMY and HP5+ both 1600 and the grain seems the same. I always have some HP5+ in my bag and in case of emergency I even use it at 3200. For 1600 fine grain I use TMY in Emofin or Neopan 1600 in Xtol. But TMY at 1600 is about the limit, any underexposure will give you big grain. At 3200/6400 I use Delta 3200 or TMZ in Ultrafin Plus for a nice grain/skin structure.

The cheapest grain is Agfa 400 pushed to 1600! The worst grain is Forte 400 in a Catechol/NaOH 2 bath developer on a Jobo.

Regards,

Wolfram

-- Wolfram Kollig (kollig@ipfdd.de), November 07, 2000.

"At what point have others found it worth switching to the higher speed, more grainy emulsions?"

If grain's the thing when you go fast, Bob, I'd stick with HP5+. Both D3200 & TMZ are significantly worse from that perspective, even @ EI 1000. I was shocked at how restrained the grain in HP5+/HC-110 was.

If you need a less steep contrast curve at EI 3200 & 1600, go with D3200. TMZ is a great film @ EI 1000 if you want grain, but begins to suck as you push it -- by 3200 it's not very good. (It has a great "look," though.)

I'm a D3200/Rodinal user for the next year at EI 1600, after my tests, but I wanted grain.

Telling us how you meter when you're shooting in low light might be helpful, by the way. Are you exposing for the shadows or just placing what's important at Zone V or VI and letting the highs and lows fall?

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.

John - I was surprised too at the (lack of) grain in the pushed HP5+, though I was using Microphen, not HC-110 in the hope of extracting a little more true speed. I normally use HC-110 1:47 for HP5+ (and rate it at EI 200).

I was shooting under extreme contrast conditions, metering for zone V or so on the midtones and hoping for any shadow detail I could get! Too much to expect for any film really.

I don't really mind grain all that much, in fact I prefer it in some shots, but it's nice to have the option of less grain if you need it.

If there were a TRUE ISO 3200/6400 film I'd use it, no matter what the grain was, but I'm not sure there is anything faster than about ISO 1250, based on getting D=0.1 over b+f at zone I.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), November 09, 2000.

> If there were a TRUE ISO 3200/6400 film I'd use it

I would to, but unfortunately there's no such thing so far as I know.

BTW, there's a new version of Delta 400 that Ilford announced at Photokina; supposedly it "uses technology developed for Delta 3200"....whatever that really means.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 10, 2000.

One advantage of the HP5+ is that when one air-travels there is not the concern about fogged film that one has with films nominally rated at around 1,000, such as TMZ and Delta 3200.

Also, if one is not going to be able to develop until returning home after a long trip then the HP5+ has a superiority; however, here I'm assuming that HP5+ can sit around post-exposure pretty much like TX can -- and TMZ can't.

-- riverrun (osprey@bmt.net), November 19, 2000.

I'm not sure just how much of the concern about letting TMZ3200 and Delta3200 sit around is justified.

I recently developed a roll of Delta 3200 which had been sitting in a P&S for a full two years. It had seen two summers, been carried around in a car on several vacations, probably getting quite hot.

I expected a lot of background fog, but I really didn't see much. Comparing it to a roll of freash Delta 3200 which had been developed promptly the b+f might have been slightly higher but there really wasn't a significant difference and it looked just fine. I was quite surprised, given the "conventional wisdom".

I also recently discovered a roll of TMZ3200 which had hidden itself in my freezer about 10 years ago. I haven't shot it yet but I'm going to, just to see how bad it is!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), November 19, 2000.

I hadn't noticed any significant fogging of the fast films that have been sitting around exposed for a couple of months but I've noticed greatly increased graininess in some instances. Because of that I try to develop it within a few days of exposure if possible.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 19, 2000.