PDA

View Full Version : Pushing Ilford Delta 100 4x5



HaydenKlein
25-Sep-2016, 18:32
Hello? I was interested in knowing if anyone had messed with pushing d100 to 200, 400, or even more? In 4x5, though it really doesn't make a difference, right?

Thank you!

Leigh
25-Sep-2016, 18:34
Film speed is film speed.
It's all cut from the same web on the coating machine regardless of final size.

If you want 400, use Ilford Delta 400.

- Leigh

David Karp
25-Sep-2016, 18:49
If you want 400, use Ilford Delta 400.

They discontinued 4x5 Delta 400 long ago - before it was reformulated. If you want to stay with Ilford, you would have to go to HP5+.

Leigh
25-Sep-2016, 18:52
They discontinued 4x5 Delta 400 long ago - before it was reformulated.
OK. I don't use any Delta films; just remember seeing it in a list of films.

Sorry for the confusion.

- Leigh

HaydenKlein
25-Sep-2016, 18:56
Thank you for your comment, guys,

But has anyone tried pushing d100 up? If it produces nice results I'd want to give it a try.

Thanks!

Doremus Scudder
26-Sep-2016, 02:39
Thank you for your comment, guys,

But has anyone tried pushing d100 up? If it produces nice results I'd want to give it a try.

Thanks!

What results are you after? Extending development of film increases the contrast range on the negative. People extend development times for film for a couple of reasons, both of which involve increasing contrast. The first is simply to compensate for a low-contrast subject. Full exposure is given and development extended so that the density range on the negative is more contrasty and easier to print with a full range of tones. The other reason is "pushing."

"Pushing," as commonly understood, is over-developing film that has been underexposed (either intentionally as in low-light situations or because the photographer likes the "look" of underexposed and overdeveloped negatives) so that it is easier to print with a full range of tones. Underexposing the film results in lost shadow detail. blacks are featureless and have a "solid," graphic quality. Many like this, many don't.

If you want to try that look, then by all means experiment with it. Keep in mind, however, that lost shadow detail due to underexposure can't be recovered. If you are trying to compensate for low light or a too-slow shutter speed and want that shadow detail, switch to a faster film.

As for Delta 100: I've never tried it, but any film will "push." Just add 20% or so to your development time as a starting point.


Best,

Doremus

Bruce Watson
26-Sep-2016, 05:15
I was interested in knowing if anyone had messed with pushing d100 to 200, 400, or even more? In 4x5, though it really doesn't make a difference, right?

Pushing is a myth. The sensitivity of the film is set at manufacturing; pushing can not change it. "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" still holds.

If you shorten your exposure, you decrease the number of photons making their way to your film. If you don't have enough photons to create a latent image in the film's emulsion, there's nothing for the developer to develop no matter how long you leave the film in the developer. So the first thing that happens when you "push" is you fail to capture shadow detail.

If you increase development time to try to compensate (a little) for the lack of exposure, you increase highlight density. The helpful part of this is you spread the remaining tonality from the exposure out across a greater density range. The unhelpful part of this is that the greater density is made from more silver grains, so the grain clumps get larger, resulting in both more Callier Effect and increased graininess. So the second thing that happens is that you degrade the image that you did capture, and in the bargain you made it more difficult to print (or scan).

That said, this applies to any film you choose to push, so it also applies to Delta 100. If you've obtained results you've deemed successful pushing other films, there's no reason you can't get similar results pushing Delta 100. T-grained films are a little more sensitive to both exposure and development, so you might want to experiment a little to find the combination of exposure and development that will give you the effect you want.

aflc
26-Sep-2016, 06:50
I've used a few hundred sheets of delta 100 but never "pushed" it. I use Tmax 400 when I need more film speed.

Having said that there might be a developer deemed more "energetic" that could help you obtain a little more film speed above 100 ISO.
I've seen some interesting results from others with particular film+developer combinations.

I've stuck mainly to delta + pyrocat which yelds a standard 100 e.i. in my experience.

jnantz
26-Sep-2016, 06:59
Hello? I was interested in knowing if anyone had messed with pushing d100 to 200, 400, or even more? In 4x5, though it really doesn't make a difference, right?

Thank you!

hi hadenklein

i have done similar things with other films, but not d100. you might do a test with a few sheets ...
make a "test strip" out of your film in camera by making a base exposure at 3 or 2 stops below box speed
and then block off the lens with a card and make additional exposures ...
do this a few times and then process each sheet a little differently. some say to extend development by 30% each stop
so look at your developer and add 30% more development for 1 sheet, then 60% for another and 90% for the other
or whatever ... and make a contact print or scan them and see what you did, and if you like it or not.
some say tab grain films are grainless, its not hard to get them to behave differently than intended ...
you can over expose doing the same test ... i regularly overexpose tmx/tmy by 3 sometimes 4 stops and process it
to get different results.

good luck with your experiments !
john

Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 08:46
Delta 100 and 400 has so-so shadow differentiation even at box speed, which seems unrealistically fast to begin with. So you're really not "pushing" anything. You're just lopping off all your lower zones and then overdeveloping to try to salvage what might be left over of the midtones and highlights. Pushing is really a term related to lab development of color film anyway. Unlike TMax films, which have a steep toe and will render bold graphic blacks with underexposure and overdevelopment, Delta tends to just give you blaah mud down there, due to its especially long toe. Been there, done that.

IanG
26-Sep-2016, 09:18
I've been using Delta 100 for about 8-9 years now, I get box speed and superb shadow detaol and separation, just as good as I got with APX100 and Tmax100 (at half the speed of Delta 100 & APX100) in the past.

For more speed I use Delta 400 in 120 and HP5 in sheet film. I have push processed 5x4 HP5 to 3200 in Pyrocat HD out of necessity rather than choice and had far better results than I expected, I was shooting a moving object at 1/50 and f5.5, so pushing was the only option, I might go a stop over HP5's box speed in future depending on the subject matter and whether I needed shadow detail.

Ian

Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 13:45
It's relative. Try working with a true straight-line film in a more serious developer, then go back to Delta in a high contrast situation. I suspect what you call "superb" I'd call awful.

Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 13:47
Sorry, just noticed I mistook your typo, "detaol" for dektol, not "detail". I make plenty of typos myself.

IanG
26-Sep-2016, 13:58
It's relative. Try working with a true straight-line film in a more serious developer, then go back to Delta in a high contrast situation. I suspect what you call "superb" I'd call awful.

What I call awful is what you call superb, lets get it right. You hide from posting any images and really can't be taken seriously.

The truth is even most high contrast (normal) films can be controlled well it you take minor effort, I use the word normal to include Foma, but Tech Pan was outside that :D

Ian

bob carnie
26-Sep-2016, 14:07
OP should describe what he/she expects or wishes, terminology is quite different for many people.


for example.

For lith printing I like a very distinct negative .

400 speed film rated at 1600 then developed with HC110 - I call this a push process as I have deliberately underexposed but tried to compensate with development.

This type of negative is what I am looking for, maybe lacking in shadow detail but retains highlight.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Sep-2016, 14:08
What Doremus Scudder wrote. Read it at least twice.
.

Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 14:39
Basic sensitometry tells it all. Long-toe films are designed for optimal upper mid to highlight reproduction, not for ideal shadow separation. And Delta films are
conspicuously long-toe, though not to the extent of old Plus-X Pan. Delta 3200 is a bit different, and more medium toe like HP5. Posted images tell damn little about such things, but mainly about the inherent limitations of casual scanning and the qualitative limitations of the web itself. Otherwise, everything you need to
know if there on the published curves.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Sep-2016, 14:45
Drew, I hope to be alive after you pass away if your work is made available to the public. For now your work is invisible. All we have are your words, and you know the value of words in this paradigm: nothing.
.

Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 16:08
The web is less than words. You want to me get involved with a venue which is capable of proving anything, and therefore nothing? I learned some time back that
the web is best at misrepresenting such things. When I have nothing better to do, I might selectively employ it once again. Thousands of people had their chance and did respond. Nice web images and nice prints aren't synonymous. But you do even need that. Like I said, the published film curves tell it all. And all of this was common sense to previous generations of pros. Plus-X was marketed mainly for controlled lighting studio use, esp high-key portraiture, and hence was engineered as an "all-toe" film (a bit of marketing hyperbole, but descriptive nonetheless). Super-XX was a true straight line film capable of resolving a very long range of contrast gradation. Tri-X had intermediate characteristics. Now there is a whole new generation of popular films: Delta with a relatively long toe, TMax films with relatively long straight characteristic curves, things like FP4 and Acros more in the middle. Nothing new here. Just the basics. Yeah, you can do all kinds of dev tweaks to many individual films do other tricks, but at a penalty. I've worked with nearly all the films out there, and plotted quite a few myself.
There's a reason they're not all the same.

jnantz
26-Sep-2016, 16:57
Drew, I hope to be alive after you pass away if your work is made available to the public. For now your work is invisible. All we have are your words, and you know the value of words in this paradigm: nothing.
.

jac , sherman and mr peabody did their job ...

Eric Woodbury
26-Sep-2016, 17:06
The Massive Development Chart indicates up to 800ASA. Have fun. --ew--

HaydenKlein
26-Sep-2016, 17:13
Thank you all for your comments!

One had mentioned for me to describe the kind of quality I was going for, I'm really not going for anything special. I just have a few more sheets and wanted to see if it could handle being pushed to 400 for example for easier use in the studio.

Thanks!

LabRat
26-Sep-2016, 17:14
You might like it or not... Mainly, it will produce a slightly different "look", and slightly different apparent sharpness (harder, fine grain looks different)... Every push/pull stop will have a slightly different look, so to match a series look, one would have to settle for one... Speed for LF will not matter much, as a tripod will be used, and pushing will "push" the highlight region, but the threshold is the box speed, so for max shadow detail, you still have to shoot box speed, go no real gain unless you like the look (or going for an "effect")...

Ilford has tech sheets for pushing their films on their site...

Steve K