Pushing film to 12800? Using Microphen?

[backswamp]

Please do keep posting about this. I know low light photography is the "undesirable neighborhood" for some, but there has to be a way to get *SOMETHING* that's usable. I plan to start looking at this again as soon as I get a couple of other projects out of my way.

 

I assume that you're using Delta 3200 in 135 format, not 120. Is this correct? Is you're film fresh?

 

MB

[cdzombak]

The film is 135 format. Is was fresh from B&H - I got it about a week ago and kept it in the refrigerator until I was ready to use it. I then developed it just a few hours after using it.

 

I will post scans by this afternoon.

 

I believe more dev time will fix the problem; everything on the negs looks gray, not clear as a properly developed negative should.

[backswamp]

There will be a low-light point that no matter how long it's in the developer, there is no latent image to

actually develop. I don't know where this point is, but it is there. From there I think pre or post flashing will

be required. Of course, that may be darker than you or I are trying to shoot. It's going to take some serious

experimenting.

 

As with all things in photography, there will be some trade offs in this endeavor. The skill set to be developed

is recognizing and controlling the trade offs before you push the shutter release.

 

MB

[cdzombak]

I hope to do more experimentation and learn the trade offs and skills required to make this work!

 

A note: the box for Delta 3200 recommends 13:30 for ISO 12500 in Microphen @ 24 degrees. Based on what I've

seen, even that will be underdeveloped. Next time, I'll probably try developing for ~14 minutes. I'm pretty

much shooting in the dark here (no pun intended :) with regard to times, so any input is appreciated.

 

Looking at the negatives more closely, the edge markings are properly developed. I think my problem here is more

with incorrect metering than with underdevelopment, although both are contributors. I will watch that carefully

next time.

 

I'm amazed at what the scanner (an Epson V500) was able to pull out of these negatives, considering that I'm

seeing stuff on the computer that I simply cannot see on the negs. Hopefully, these will be substantially better

if I properly expose and develop them.

 

I'd like to get this working, but unless I can get it to work substantially better than this, based on what I've

seen so far I think I'll *generally* (there will be exceptions, I'm sure) stick to pushing Delta 3200 to 6400.

 

I'll attach the best image I got from this roll once I finish scanning.

[lex_jenkins]

Chris, I'd strongly advise skipping the official recommendations. Use Microphen as straight stock solution for 20-30 minutes. This is absolutely *not* as crazy as it sounds.

 

Several years ago I mistook a roll of normally exposed T-Max 100 for underexposed Tri-X 400. Also, my initial information indicated the Tri-X had been exposed 20 years earlier and never developed. It later turned out to be TMX exposed 7 years earlier.

 

The rest of this is based on my feeble recollection, but the details have been posted elsewhere in this forum...

 

Not realizing what I actually had, I developed it in straight Microphen for 20 minutes, using the varied agitation technique I've described before. You'd think this would result in negatives so badly overdeveloped they'd be useless. Nope. The negatives turned out surprisingly well, easy to print well conventionally using my dichro head enlarger, and even reasonably easy to scan (tho' with more visible grain).

 

Delta 3200 tends to be a low contrast film. Even when exposed within its comfort zone, 1600-3200, I prefer it with more development than the official recommended times. If I expose it at 1600 I develop for around 9 minutes, the officially recommended time for 3200. If I expose at 3200, I give it around 12 minutes. The 12 minute time recommended for 6400 is too short - give it more. And for 12500, double the official recommended time.

 

Again, as I've mentioned before, be very cautious with your exposure technique. Rating a film at a certain speed or EI does not make it so. That's obvious. But avoid the trap of allowing a slop factor. If you rate it at 3200, meter it for 3200. For example, let's say the scene is EV 0. At 3200 an appropriate exposure would be f/1.4 at 1/15th second. Don't fall into the slop factor trap and tell yourself "Oh, well, it won't matter if I set the shutter speed to 1/30th to minimize motion blur." Because now the film, already at the safety margin, has been underexposed a full stop. And if you choose to expose it at 12500 and apply the same slop factor, the film will be underexposed beyond recovery. Evaluate the scene illumination carefully and expose appropriately.

[cdzombak]

Lex, thanks for the advice. I plan to try a second roll at 12800 within the next few days, and I guess I'll develop it for for ~25 minutes with the agitation you recommended. Microphen is pretty flexible, then? (And just to clarify - you recommend dumping my 320cc of used Microphen back into my 1L bottle and using the liter for 10 rolls, right?)

 

My exposure technique for this roll involved setting an N90s to aperture-priority, ISO to 6400 (the highest that camera will go) and exposure compensation to -0.7. Next time, I will probably still use aperture priority but will use spot or center-weighted metering rather than matrix.

 

Thanks very much for your help.

[lex_jenkins]

Regarding reusing Microphen, correct, I just recycle the stock solution for 10 rolls per liter. I don't bother with compensating by adding extra time with each reuse - it hasn't been necessary.

 

One shot use at 1+1 would be okay with Delta 3200 up to 1600, maybe 3200, but beyond that I think it works better as stock solution. Ditto pushing Tri-X, T-Max 400 or other films to 1600 or harder.

 

Regarding metering, let's try this as a guideline: assume you are in the same lighting as your subject. Meter off your hand, using spot or center weighted averaging, doesn't matter when the metering surface is that close and, especially, out of focus. Open up one stop from that reading. That will be appropriate for most situations where you have to work quickly in difficult lighting. Keep in mind that your open palm should be illuminated as closely as possible to the subject. For example, if you hold your palm vertically and it's shaded from the light, you'll get an entirely different reading than if the palm is extended horizontally under the light. This isn't precise, but it's been close enough for my purposes for many years in difficult situations, such as photojournalism assignments, street and documentary and event photography such as concerts and theater plays.

[cdzombak]

Thanks for the advice, Lex! I'll try another roll sometime this weekend.

 

The photos are here: . I've done a little work in Lightroom, but not much.

[backswamp]

Chris, these look pretty good for a first shot. I know you said they're extremely thin, and I too have been able to pull some unbelievable detailed stuff from thin negatives with a scanner, certainly things that I couldn't print.

 

Do keep this up, and do keep posting on it. I'm going to pick up another brick of Delta 3200 after payday, and I'll see what I can get, too.

 

I don't have any Microphen, just DD-X, Rodinal and Perceptol. I'm not sure what's the best out of that group to try. I've used the DD-X before, and that had decent results, but I was metering at 3200, not 12800.

 

MB

[david_f._stein]

I thought a traditional approach was to use a high energy developer like Acufine, maybe agitate for 10 sec, and then everything sit-15 minutes, half-hour? Try that approach.

[lex_jenkins]

Microphen is comparable to Acufine, possibly a bit better, which is why I prefer it. Tho' I like Diafine, Microphen seems to deliver just a bit better results than Acufine - a little less contrast, a little less grain, and also useful for normally exposed and developed TMX.

 

The semi-stand agitation approach can be worth trying. I've used a variation of that, and I think Chris mentioned trying that too, with extended intervals between agitation.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here when I pushed film alot long ago; I used Acufine and also old Ethol Blue a high energy developer that came in a liquid form. Ethol Blue could be mixed quickly.

[fred_hawker]

The specs on p3200TMX are that it can be pushed to 25000. Has anyone tried this and what were the results?

[lex_jenkins]

If I'm recalling correctly, Roger Hicks did a Shutterbug magazine article many years ago illustrating a 3200 film pushed to 25000. I don't recall whether it was TMZ or Delta 3200.

[robert lee]

The pictures Chris posted looks really good. Much, much better than I would have expected pushing this hard.

 

Okay, so is souping the film for 30+ minutes in stock Microphen approaching total development - where every exposed silver halide crystal has been converted to metallic silver? I think I read somewhere that HC-110 is particular good for this because it induces the least fog increase over extended development. Any experience with slower emulsions (400 ISO) emulsions?

[cdzombak]

On a semi-related note, about two weeks ago I exposed a roll of Neopan 1600 at 6400. I developed that yesterday for 12 minutes in stock Microphen and the results were good - next time I use this particular combination, I'll probably do 12.5 or 13 minutes, but I'm happy with these results.

 

Again, I had some problems with exaggerated grain in scanning some frames, but this time only because those particular frames were underexposed (bright points of light confused the N90s' metering).

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

When one has device to measure the DlogE curves one can get the actual curves with each overdevolpment scheme tried. With any developer thats tried at several different development times the greatest time has the steepest curve. The beginning "toe" region budges very little with overdevelopement compared to parts that are better/more exposed. One can expose film at any EI you want to; what matters is that it works for your application(s); and with your meter!. If the other chaps meter is off by 1 stop in low light; and yours is off the other way by a 1 stop; chap #1 shots at his EI of 25000 might be like yours at an EI 3200. Another source of error/variation is agitiation methods between folks; how fresh the film is. Fast films like TMZ or Delta 3200 degrade quicker than old tri-x since their real isos are faster; 800 to 1600 versus 400. Reall iso is measured thru a defined set of speed points; this "boxes in" the slope. Overdeveloping ie pushing voids the formal iso test since one has a steep set of DlogE curves; ie higher contrast. <BR><BR>In astro work some folks "preflash" the emulsion/plate to give it a tad of exposure; roughly about equal to the base fog of the film. Also some ancient things tried have been using gas vapors like Ammonia. For long exposures say 1/2 minute and longer many films "poop out" and gather light less with long exposures. At Harvard in the 1890's they noted that plates exposed of stars had a less pooping out of sensitivity when the long exposures were in freezing weather. Thus many films and plates when cooled work better in super cold temps; less asa/iso drop. Another old scheme is a forming gas is used to hyper the plates or films to drop the poop out factor. <BR><BR>In one local high school game awhile back I used fresh Tri-x at an EI of 1200; and some "expired this year" TMZ 3200 at an EI of 2400 and the tri-x shot were better. Acufine was used. I mention this probably alot of times just to keep track of how fresh ones films are when doing "pushing"; so one doesnt draw the wrong conclusions.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here when I jump/dabble into a the "film pushing" phase for awhile I like to use the same rolls thru my tests; ie same emulsion number, same expire date with the unused rolls at least kept in the refrigerator. The stupid mistakes I have made in the past were changing too many variables at once; buts thats how one learns too! In the 1960's I would by buy a bulk roll of 2475 recording film and place say 55 exposures in a cassette; Nikkor made some oversize reels with a finer pitch.