Question on Shooting ISO400 at ISO800

I've become quite addicted to Fuji Superia X-Tra 800 in the color

world, but can NOT get anything faster than 400 in B&W here in Taiwan.

I've read in a couple of threads that it is possible to shoot some

ISO400 film at ISO800 with no compensation in processing (I'm still

physically building my darkroom and am taking all of my film to a lab

for processing). I also have very little experience with pushing or

pulling.

 

The ISO400s I have available are Ilford XP2 Super and Delta 400. My

honest preference at ISO400 is the Delta. What would be the result of

either of these being shot at ISO800 (underexposing one stop)? Most of

what I am doing is relatively long exposre, usually no more than 1/8

second and sometimes getting down to 30 seconds. The reason I'd like

to shoot at ISO800 is for the occasion where I'd like to hand hold a

shot for te angle and use a faster shutter speed.

 

I suppose I SHOULD just try it, but figure that hearing from other

people's experices might trigger other dusty, cobwebbed regions of my

brain to start firing :-).

Delta 400 does not have a reputation of being good for pushing... XP2 is a C41 (color film) process... I suspect that the lab can push it one stop, but you are going to pay the price with empty shadows and flat prints...

 

Get a monopod, or a bean bag, or press the camera against a wall, or something, and keep the ISO at 400... Otherwise, go to a non tabular grain film, like Tri-X 400/320, etc., which will push to 800 with less of a penalty in image quality (but still a penalty to be paid for any push)..

 

Denny

Denny, thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Sounds like I'm going to have to order 100' of Tri-X from the U.S. and process it myself. Not really all that bad as I can still have the lab do the prints while waiting for the enlarger :-). This may be a good thing in the long run as a lot of the night shots I've been trying (and failing) to get really need a very fast (on the order of ISO3200) film.

If you can get a speed enhancing developer like Ilford's Microphen you'll get better results from most films "pushed" (underexposed followed by extended development). While I haven't tried Microphen on Delta 400 I've gotten good enough results from Microphen with other films to have confidence in it.

It's only a 1 stop push and, as Lex says, a developer such as Microphen would handle it with ease. I'm currently running trials with TX400 (Tri-X) and I'm inclined to think this would be a better option for pushing.

Dear Alton,

 

The new Delta 400 pushes infinitely better than the old and you may be surprised at what good results you can get in a speed-increasing developer such as Ilford Microphen or DDX or Paterson FX 50. The true ISO will probably rise to 500 or so and after that it's only a 2/3 stop push.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Thanks for all the answers :-). I'm going to pick up a developing tank, dark bag, and the chemicals (will try to get Microphen) and do my own film processing at least while waiting for the enlarger. Will try and get the local camera show down here to order me some T-Max, but they tend not to want to order film for people (they actually lose money on the film).

Keep in mind there there is a direct relationship of exposure time to film speed over a relatively narrow range of exposure. At very short speeds (less than perhaps 1/1000 second) or very long exposures (perhaps 1 second and longer) the film loses sensitivity and requires more exposure. Kodak publishes this information. You might have to give a stop otr two MORE exposure than the meter calls for at 10 seconds. Do it by opening the aperture. Increasing the time is a futile exercise of chasing your tail; the times just keep getting longer and longer!

Al! That's logic! I recognize it (use it rarely), you just answered a question that has come up a lot in the last week or two. Thank you! A lot of the indoor natural light shots I do are very long exposures and I've been adjusting time instead of aperture...of course I've been chasing my tail, that should have occurred to me :-).