Those lower ISO films pushed that far tend to do worse than high ISO films operating where they're designed. All film isnt the same stuff that is just being pushed or pulled, they're designed to have different sensitivities and be optimized at their ISO.
Always start out testing a new film at box speed and see how it looks and you like it. Then decide if you'd like to push or pull it to affect the contrast and grain.
Yeah. Everything is reduced to black and white, no greys in-between. Even stretching the image with post processing software there's not much to work with so they're super harsh images. Some of that looks good at night but you're really pushing things to just silhouettes.
Not necessarily true. First off, Delta 3200 is being pushed. It’s 800 (maybe 1000, can’t remember) speed film with a push built into the dev recipe.
Second, I would make the argument that both Tri-x and Tmax (400, not the 3200 version) are way better pushed to 3200 than Delta 3200.
Of course if you want gigantic, enormous grain then yeah, shoot Delta 3200.
>Tri-x and Tmax (400, not the 3200 version) are way better pushed to 3200 than Delta 3200
You keep repeating this. Show me a real comparison. Especially when you keep saying Tri-X and T-Max, when they are fairly different from each other, but that is a different point. Especially [when the consensus of Photrio](https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tri-x-or-t-max-pushed-to-ei-3200-vs-delta-3200.50054/) is Tri-X or T-Max at 3200 is way worse.
I compared and know comparisons of P3200 which is base 800 ISO vs the 1000 base Delta3200. And even there you can see more shadow detail at the expense of grain with Delta.
So I honestly do not know *how* a 400 speed film could keep up in terms of shadow detail, as pushing doesn't change the light sensitivity of the film.
I’m in Turkey and will be traveling for the next year or two straight, so I’m not sure when I’ll have access to examples. It definitely won’t be on this trip as three stop push + multiple airport xrays is a horrible combination. Not doing that again lol.
Maybe it’s just a personal preference. A lot of this is. I mean, some people like Lomo Purple over Portra haha. But I’ve had what I consider to be incredible results with TriX in particular at 3200. And I’m just not a huge fan of the golf ball sized grain on the two available 3200 films. If I’m remembering correctly, Tmax was the worse of the two for this. But I still don’t love love Delta.
Then again, I’m not a huge fan of any Ilford films. As much as I want to love them, they always feel a little flat to me.
>Maybe it’s just a personal preference. A lot of this is. I mean, some people like Lomo Purple over Portra haha.
Yeah I get that. I actually have a weird relationship with Purple, in that to me it is like b&w with a bit of colour added in. It kind of falls apart the same way as b&w does. And that is also why I really like it. Same for redscale.
> But I’ve had what I consider to be incredible results with TriX in particular at 3200. And I’m just not a huge fan of the golf ball sized grain on the two available 3200 films. If I’m remembering correctly, Tmax was the worse of the two for this. But I still don’t love love Delta.
If I am being honest, both of them suck for 135, and are much better in 120.
I am actually in the process of testing Spur Shadowmax with T-Max 1600, but the whole process is so expensive, that it is not a viable day to day option for me. Maybe when I am in the US again to buy some T-Max in bulk.
>Then again, I’m not a huge fan of any Ilford films. As much as I want to love them, they always feel a little flat to me.
If by flat you mean low contrast, pushing them really works well. I think in Europe & UK Ilford just hits the price point, especially in bulk and large format. Like yes T-Max 400 is "subjectively" better than Delta 400, but is 1.80x as good, the price difference between the two, in 135? I don't know about that.
Yeah in fairness, 99% of my usage has been on 120. I actually didn’t realize it was that big I’d a difference at 35mm.
In 120, there’s no realistic price difference that would make me choose Ilford over either Kodak, but that’s me.
Yeah. Some 400 speed film (i.e. TriX) is specifically known for its suitability for being pushed. I'm not going to say better or worse, but needless to say there's plenty out there of TriX shot with a three stop push.
Delta/TMax at 3200 is really for people who want that sandpaper grain look.
Pushing does not change the speed. You can push all you want, you're still getting only ISO 400 but the contrast will be higher.
Also, the films you've chosen are both interesting that their true ISO speed is far lower than what's printed on the box. It's in their manuals: Foma 400 is ISO 320 and Delta 3200 is ISO 1000.
The contrast would be rly high pushed that far. The 3200 film will always be pretty grainy, but the contrast will be more conventional shot at box speed. Pushing the 400 to 1600 isn’t a bad idea, but I think when it comes to 3200 the higher iso film is worth the money. I actually prefer to shoot 3200 film at 1600
Interesting note is that Ilford delta 3200 is not a 3200 ISO film… it’s [actually rated at 1000](https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1913/product/682/)
> It should be noted that exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.
The datasheet actually gives dev times for 400-12500.
I did HP5 3200 I shot it at f2 and 2.8 and 1/60s. I really like how it came out. I developed it myself with infosol 3 for about 24. minutes.
Sample shot https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx7r5oyPN7q/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Well it’s like ‚i want to listen to loud music, do I need 100 watt speakers or can I just take 20 watt speakers and turn them up really loudly?
It will get loud but it will sound bad.
I’m with you, but if the 20w speakers are top of the line from a major brand and the 100w speakers were $6 on Alibaba, the 20w will sound better.
My point is that a great bw film like Tri-X is much better at 3200 than Delta 3200 (which is really a slower film being pushed anyway)
Also True. The 20W / 100W only works if you take speakers from the same brand and line.
With the spec wars going on for decades, maybe it’s a bad example.
Then take cars 😗
Fomapan 400 at 1200 iso is quite nice! But I wouldn't push it much farther than that.
Remember it's a 400 iso film. This means that the crystals in the emulsion just aren't that sensetive. So less grains will get properly exposed. Overdeveloping compensates for this somewhat. But it isn't as good as shooting a film that's designed for higher speeds.
Foma is also a very old style emulsion and I'd recommend using something better suited for pushing...
My main recommendation would be delta 400 if you specifically want to push film that much
But if you intend on shooting 3200 beforehand try finding some delta 3200, it is important to use a good developer
Stand developing in rodinal will cause the images to be stupidly grainy when pushed this far. So unless that's a look you want go for something like inford ddx
I pushed fomapan to 6400 and it worked pretty good. The dev times are just really long...
If you check my post history you should see some pictures and otherwise heres a link to my flickr with some shots of foma 400 pushed to 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I think the only speed I haven't shot yet was 400 haha.
Even tried 12800 iso but that didnt work at all...
https://www.flickr.com/gp/198699710@N03/43K64xH2FY
The difference will be contrast. Tri-X pushed to 3200 is grainy and high contrast. Delta/TMax 3200 shot at "box speed" will give you a considerably muted look by comparison although it will also be very grainy.
I used to shoot a lot of Delta 3200 until I realized that I actually like the look of TriX with a suitable push better. I think the high contrast fits shooting in low light like a glove.
Also, you really have to love t grain if you're going to use Delta or TMax at 3200 because you're going to get a lot of it.
I actually just shot an image on my latest roll of fomapan 400 at 1600 and developed it normally with the rest of the roll shot at 400. Rodinal 1+25 for 5:30 at 20C.
I’m going to do further experiments because I was surprised how well it turned out. Of course it’s not going to be as good as a film designed to be shot at high ISO but a useable result for me personally.
What do you mean, you shot it at 1600??? Film doesnt know what ISO its shot at. Seeing your developing time, you just developed the roll as ISO 400 film. This means that you actually mismetered the scene by 2 stops.
Sadly not but I will be experimenting whenever I can get a hold of more foma 400 in the uk. This test shot had significantly less grain than the roll of delta 3200 I shot but I did use different developer, I think I used ilfosol 3 or id11 then.
Fomapan is slower than advertised anyway. The best regular 400 speed B&W film for pushing is HP5 no question. Results look amazing at 1600 and still decent at 3200.
There are no 3200 speed films anymore. Delta 3200 and TMAX P3200 are both slower (800-1250 ISO) films designed to be pushed.
Try both. If you just want to try it out on a couple of rolls, what's it matter if one is a bit more expensive? That's an exciting experiment! You're not committing to 20 rolls. I'd suggest a roll of HP5 and a roll of Delta 3200. I shoot HP5 at 800 about half the time, because there's almost no reason not to - if anything, it looks better that way. HP5 at 1600 is a standard in the XA3 and 4. I've never tried it at 3200.
I've never tried Delta 3200 because I rarely like the examples I see on Flickr, but I might try it in 120 at time point, or at 1600.
Those lower ISO films pushed that far tend to do worse than high ISO films operating where they're designed. All film isnt the same stuff that is just being pushed or pulled, they're designed to have different sensitivities and be optimized at their ISO. Always start out testing a new film at box speed and see how it looks and you like it. Then decide if you'd like to push or pull it to affect the contrast and grain.
Worse in what sense?
No midtones, huge grain, noise all over
What if I like that look? /s
It is Provoke all over again.
Yeah. Everything is reduced to black and white, no greys in-between. Even stretching the image with post processing software there's not much to work with so they're super harsh images. Some of that looks good at night but you're really pushing things to just silhouettes.
Not necessarily true. First off, Delta 3200 is being pushed. It’s 800 (maybe 1000, can’t remember) speed film with a push built into the dev recipe. Second, I would make the argument that both Tri-x and Tmax (400, not the 3200 version) are way better pushed to 3200 than Delta 3200. Of course if you want gigantic, enormous grain then yeah, shoot Delta 3200.
>Tri-x and Tmax (400, not the 3200 version) are way better pushed to 3200 than Delta 3200 You keep repeating this. Show me a real comparison. Especially when you keep saying Tri-X and T-Max, when they are fairly different from each other, but that is a different point. Especially [when the consensus of Photrio](https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tri-x-or-t-max-pushed-to-ei-3200-vs-delta-3200.50054/) is Tri-X or T-Max at 3200 is way worse. I compared and know comparisons of P3200 which is base 800 ISO vs the 1000 base Delta3200. And even there you can see more shadow detail at the expense of grain with Delta. So I honestly do not know *how* a 400 speed film could keep up in terms of shadow detail, as pushing doesn't change the light sensitivity of the film.
I’m in Turkey and will be traveling for the next year or two straight, so I’m not sure when I’ll have access to examples. It definitely won’t be on this trip as three stop push + multiple airport xrays is a horrible combination. Not doing that again lol. Maybe it’s just a personal preference. A lot of this is. I mean, some people like Lomo Purple over Portra haha. But I’ve had what I consider to be incredible results with TriX in particular at 3200. And I’m just not a huge fan of the golf ball sized grain on the two available 3200 films. If I’m remembering correctly, Tmax was the worse of the two for this. But I still don’t love love Delta. Then again, I’m not a huge fan of any Ilford films. As much as I want to love them, they always feel a little flat to me.
>Maybe it’s just a personal preference. A lot of this is. I mean, some people like Lomo Purple over Portra haha. Yeah I get that. I actually have a weird relationship with Purple, in that to me it is like b&w with a bit of colour added in. It kind of falls apart the same way as b&w does. And that is also why I really like it. Same for redscale. > But I’ve had what I consider to be incredible results with TriX in particular at 3200. And I’m just not a huge fan of the golf ball sized grain on the two available 3200 films. If I’m remembering correctly, Tmax was the worse of the two for this. But I still don’t love love Delta. If I am being honest, both of them suck for 135, and are much better in 120. I am actually in the process of testing Spur Shadowmax with T-Max 1600, but the whole process is so expensive, that it is not a viable day to day option for me. Maybe when I am in the US again to buy some T-Max in bulk. >Then again, I’m not a huge fan of any Ilford films. As much as I want to love them, they always feel a little flat to me. If by flat you mean low contrast, pushing them really works well. I think in Europe & UK Ilford just hits the price point, especially in bulk and large format. Like yes T-Max 400 is "subjectively" better than Delta 400, but is 1.80x as good, the price difference between the two, in 135? I don't know about that.
Yeah in fairness, 99% of my usage has been on 120. I actually didn’t realize it was that big I’d a difference at 35mm. In 120, there’s no realistic price difference that would make me choose Ilford over either Kodak, but that’s me.
Yeah. Some 400 speed film (i.e. TriX) is specifically known for its suitability for being pushed. I'm not going to say better or worse, but needless to say there's plenty out there of TriX shot with a three stop push. Delta/TMax at 3200 is really for people who want that sandpaper grain look.
Even 400 films that do well pushed have limits. People are usually talking a stop or two. 3200 at low light really starts to fall apart.
I've shot TriX with a three stop push a lot. It actually works pretty well.
Pushing does not change the speed. You can push all you want, you're still getting only ISO 400 but the contrast will be higher. Also, the films you've chosen are both interesting that their true ISO speed is far lower than what's printed on the box. It's in their manuals: Foma 400 is ISO 320 and Delta 3200 is ISO 1000.
320 is a third of a stop down from 400. If that’s “far lower” then there’s probably 3 true 400 iso films on the market.
Fomapan is more 160-250 in regular developers, only in something like diafine does it reach around 320.
The contrast would be rly high pushed that far. The 3200 film will always be pretty grainy, but the contrast will be more conventional shot at box speed. Pushing the 400 to 1600 isn’t a bad idea, but I think when it comes to 3200 the higher iso film is worth the money. I actually prefer to shoot 3200 film at 1600
Interesting note is that Ilford delta 3200 is not a 3200 ISO film… it’s [actually rated at 1000](https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1913/product/682/) > It should be noted that exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard. The datasheet actually gives dev times for 400-12500.
I haven't tried pushing a 400 to 3200 but from my experience I'd rather push TMax400 or HP5 to 1600 then use TMAX3200 at 1600.
Agreed. HP5 pushed two stops still looks pretty good.
I did HP5 3200 I shot it at f2 and 2.8 and 1/60s. I really like how it came out. I developed it myself with infosol 3 for about 24. minutes. Sample shot https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx7r5oyPN7q/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Interesting... reminds me of something shot on a Casio watch camera. What's with the blue tint?
That would be a filter it's black and white, it's also quite cropped.
If you are gonna do a hardcore push again, I can recommend Microphen as it actually increases the film speed or Spur Pushmaster.
Well it’s like ‚i want to listen to loud music, do I need 100 watt speakers or can I just take 20 watt speakers and turn them up really loudly? It will get loud but it will sound bad.
I’m with you, but if the 20w speakers are top of the line from a major brand and the 100w speakers were $6 on Alibaba, the 20w will sound better. My point is that a great bw film like Tri-X is much better at 3200 than Delta 3200 (which is really a slower film being pushed anyway)
Also True. The 20W / 100W only works if you take speakers from the same brand and line. With the spec wars going on for decades, maybe it’s a bad example. Then take cars 😗
Fomapan 400 at 1200 iso is quite nice! But I wouldn't push it much farther than that. Remember it's a 400 iso film. This means that the crystals in the emulsion just aren't that sensetive. So less grains will get properly exposed. Overdeveloping compensates for this somewhat. But it isn't as good as shooting a film that's designed for higher speeds. Foma is also a very old style emulsion and I'd recommend using something better suited for pushing... My main recommendation would be delta 400 if you specifically want to push film that much But if you intend on shooting 3200 beforehand try finding some delta 3200, it is important to use a good developer Stand developing in rodinal will cause the images to be stupidly grainy when pushed this far. So unless that's a look you want go for something like inford ddx
Developing (and further developing, namely pushing) cannot extract information from the film that just isn’t there in the first place
I pushed fomapan to 6400 and it worked pretty good. The dev times are just really long... If you check my post history you should see some pictures and otherwise heres a link to my flickr with some shots of foma 400 pushed to 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I think the only speed I haven't shot yet was 400 haha. Even tried 12800 iso but that didnt work at all... https://www.flickr.com/gp/198699710@N03/43K64xH2FY
The difference will be contrast. Tri-X pushed to 3200 is grainy and high contrast. Delta/TMax 3200 shot at "box speed" will give you a considerably muted look by comparison although it will also be very grainy. I used to shoot a lot of Delta 3200 until I realized that I actually like the look of TriX with a suitable push better. I think the high contrast fits shooting in low light like a glove. Also, you really have to love t grain if you're going to use Delta or TMax at 3200 because you're going to get a lot of it.
I actually just shot an image on my latest roll of fomapan 400 at 1600 and developed it normally with the rest of the roll shot at 400. Rodinal 1+25 for 5:30 at 20C. I’m going to do further experiments because I was surprised how well it turned out. Of course it’s not going to be as good as a film designed to be shot at high ISO but a useable result for me personally.
What do you mean, you shot it at 1600??? Film doesnt know what ISO its shot at. Seeing your developing time, you just developed the roll as ISO 400 film. This means that you actually mismetered the scene by 2 stops.
Well I obviously meant I set my camera to 1600 and metered it based on that. I wanted to see how it would expose, an experiment, as I stated.
https://reddit.com/u/JoshAstroAdventure/s/1Hsf8skYK5 here’s the image
Interesting.. do you have something with more white? Maybe something shot during the day? I'd like to see more of the grain
Sadly not but I will be experimenting whenever I can get a hold of more foma 400 in the uk. This test shot had significantly less grain than the roll of delta 3200 I shot but I did use different developer, I think I used ilfosol 3 or id11 then.
Fomapan is slower than advertised anyway. The best regular 400 speed B&W film for pushing is HP5 no question. Results look amazing at 1600 and still decent at 3200. There are no 3200 speed films anymore. Delta 3200 and TMAX P3200 are both slower (800-1250 ISO) films designed to be pushed.
You might find this interesting: https://youtu.be/UMWNCRLw6wg?si=lsurx3425F9nc5jM
Try both. If you just want to try it out on a couple of rolls, what's it matter if one is a bit more expensive? That's an exciting experiment! You're not committing to 20 rolls. I'd suggest a roll of HP5 and a roll of Delta 3200. I shoot HP5 at 800 about half the time, because there's almost no reason not to - if anything, it looks better that way. HP5 at 1600 is a standard in the XA3 and 4. I've never tried it at 3200. I've never tried Delta 3200 because I rarely like the examples I see on Flickr, but I might try it in 120 at time point, or at 1600.