Pullibng 400 ISO film to 50 ISO, will it work?

[bstrickler]

I am doing 35mm B&W photography, and I am using Ilford HP5 Plus 400 ISO B&W film. I live in Tucson, where its very bright during the day (Its bright enough to get 1/250, and sometimes 1/500 @F11). I don't currently have any 50 ISO b&w film, so I was wondering: Can you pull the 400 ISO Ilford HP5 Plus film to 50, or will I just end up throwing out a roll of film, because it cant be pulled down to 50 ISO?

If nobody knows, I'll just test that later.

I havent checked google yet, because I am currently on my cellphone, so I apologize, if the answer is on google.

~Brian

[UnknownVT]

I am doing 35mm B&W photography, and I am using Ilford HP5 Plus 400 ISO B&W film. I live in Tucson, where its very bright during the day (Its bright enough to get 1/250, and sometimes 1/500 @F11). I don't currently have any 50 ISO b&w film, so I was wondering: Can you pull the 400 ISO Ilford HP5 Plus film to 50, or will I just end up throwing out a roll of film, because it cant be pulled down to 50 ISO?

Ilford themselves on their pdf HP5 Plus fact sheet give times for pulling to ISO250 only.

On first blush pulling to ISO50 seems a bit drastic (the development times might be too short).

However many b&w shooters actually rate their films at one-stop slower
ie: ISO400 would be ISO200 - and that's their normal shooting -
so rating at ISO100 and pull process would seem to be OK.

When you're back on a computer take a look at this thread and the post by throughthelens1125 about 1/3 the way down the page.

Another alternative is just to use neutral density filters, if they are on hand.

[blasterman]

So happens I've set up a couple commercial B&W darkrooms. However, been about 10 years since I've answered a question like this

Conventional B&W films, especially highly dynamic ones like HP5 can be pushed/pulled to extreme degrees. Matter of fact, you actually want to over-expose / pull a stop under high contrast conditions to get better shadow and highlight detail. Zone system 101; Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights.

ISO 50 is certainly possible, but will result in extremely flat, low contrast negs. Developer time being 1/3-1/4 standard process time.

Also, if you aren't doing your own processing everything is out the window. Matter of fact, if you aren't doing your own processing you shouldn't be using conventional B&W film - period. If you just want B&W prints you should just use 100 speed print film and tell the lab to print greyscale prints. 95% of commercial labs can do this because they are all digital.

[Tom_123]

Another (and IMHO maybe better) option would be to get yourself some neutral density filter.
I guess that they aren’t used much these days so you may find them for a good price
at the bay or in shops for used equipment.

BTW, nice to see some people still shooting with B&W film.

Regards Thomas

[blasterman]

It's cool their shooting it. Not cool if they're shooting it and having it commercially processed.

[Burgess]

Yep !


I souped a LOT of Plus-X and Tri-X and FP-4 in my younger days.


Kodak D-76 (1:1) was my favorite developer.


Still remember the "magical excitement" of the Darkroom.



_

[bstrickler]

Ilford themselves on their pdf HP5 Plus fact sheet give times for pulling to ISO250 only.

I have a cheat sheet explaining how to push/pull the HP5 Plus. I can toss a copy on the net if you like.

On first blush pulling to ISO50 seems a bit drastic (the development times might be too short).

That's what I'm afraid of. Maybe when I get some extra time between assignments, I'll play with the 50 speed, and see if it works. Worst case, its $3 down the drain, and a lesson learned.


[QUOTE=UnknownVT;3111459]
However many b&w shooters actually rate their films at one-stop slower
ie: ISO400 would be ISO200 - and that's their normal shooting -
so rating at ISO100 and pull process would seem to be OK.

When you're back on a computer take a look at this thread and the post by throughthelens1125 about 1/3 the way down the page.

Another alternative is just to use neutral density filters, if they are on hand.

I'll check that link out, and see if I can get my hands on the filters.

So happens I've set up a couple commercial B&W darkrooms. However, been about 10 years since I've answered a question like this

Okay

Conventional B&W films, especially highly dynamic ones like HP5 can be pushed/pulled to extreme degrees. Matter of fact, you actually want to over-expose / pull a stop under high contrast conditions to get better shadow and highlight detail. Zone system 101; Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights.

ISO 50 is certainly possible, but will result in extremely flat, low contrast negs. Developer time being 1/3-1/4 standard process time.

I guess I'll go on a hunt for some 50, or 25 ISO, then, and take the "easy" way out.

Also, if you aren't doing your own processing everything is out the window. Matter of fact, if you aren't doing your own processing you shouldn't be using conventional B&W film - period. If you just want B&W prints you should just use 100 speed print film and tell the lab to print greyscale prints. 95% of commercial labs can do this because they are all digital.

I'm doing all the processing (from film to paper). I take pride in doing as much work as I can myself. I'm taking photography classes, so I have the facilities for everything I need (minus filters and the like)

It's cool their shooting it. Not cool if they're shooting it and having it commercially processed.

Some people don't have the money and/or space for all the equipment, so they don't really have any other choice. Plus, if they're doing it as a hobby, or in their spare time, it makes sense to get it commercially done.



I'll take your guys' word on dropping the speed down 1 notch, too.

Is there any specific red filters, or ND filters you guys recommend for a student with a low budget?

~Brian

[bstrickler]

If you guys were wondering what all equipment I am using, here it is:

Canon AE-1 Program
Canon 50mm lens
Focal MC Auto Zoom 28-80mm lens (takes 62mm filters)
Focal MC Auto Zoom 80-200mm lens (52mm filters)
Focal MC Auto 28mm lens (52mm filters)
Focal MC 2X Converter lens

Filters:
HOYA 62mm Skylight (1B) Filter
HOYA 52mm Diffuser
ROLEV M.G. 52mm Skylight
If you can give me more details on what the filters do, please do! (other than the diffuser, of course)

(all bought for $75)


I found a craigslist listing for another AE-1 with 2 lenses, and a " ZOOM 6300 lens" for $100. I've emailed the person already, in hopes that they still have the camera and lens, because it looks to be a 400mm lens (its like 3x taller than the camera)

I figure it can't hurt to have an extra camera, and a nice telephoto (up to 800mm equivalent, with the 2x converter)

I was looking on the internet earlier for a 400mm lens for my camera, and most started at $300+ Talk about a hell of a deal for the camera!

~Brian

[blasterman]

Plus, if they're doing it as a hobby, or in their spare time, it makes sense to get it commercially done.

No, it doesn't, and I'll explain why. This question pops up from time to time, and I'm surprised how hostile some anti-digital people can be, but given I've set up commercial lines I feel qualified to to debunk it. You should be given course credit for reading this

Conventional B&W films were at their peak about the early 90's when there was a revival in the B&W aethestic. This was also before film scanners were really hitting the mainstream, so commercial shooters couldn't just shoot color slide films and desaturate (cheat). If you wanted B&W film 'look', you had to shoot B&W film (or rely on a really good pre-press guy).

At this this chemical film processing was pretty much at it's apex in terms of technology. Digital was still a concept, so all of Fuji and Kodak's R&D went into film/paper technology.

Even so, conventional B&W processing 'sucked' to high heaven because there really is no standard when it comes to processing B&W film. E-6 and C-41 however are fixed standards. Commercial labs wants to use cheap, bulk chemicals with uber_replenishment and want to use a machine to process film. Read any fine art book on film processing and you'll be properly lectured that the *only* way to properly process B&W film is by hand with a good developer like D-76 or HC-110. D-76 being awesome for Tri-X while HC-110 is astounding for ILford films.

Commercial labs use sucky, high volume systems to process B&W film, and that was 15years ago. God knows what they're using now, but I doubt it's some guy in the back using helical hand rotation with a stainless tanks and intermittent agitation cycles to maximize shadow detail.

So in short, there is no option with conventional B&W film. If you shoot it, process it yourself. The film lines I set up were a custom hybrid I designed using a mix of machine and vertical hand rotation. Our printer did everything by hand and would hand tweak every print with dichro enlarger to get the best contrast. Side bar, but IMHO condensor enlargers and contrast filters should have been banned the second the color dichro enlarger was invented because the later is 1000x superior for printing B&W. Anyways, Kodak regional reps loved it and were constantly stopping by our labs and getting ideas. Then digital hit - lab closed.

To be blunt, I've never quite bought into the 'B&W aethestic myth' because it's takes forever to get good enough with conventional B&W films and paper to really start making prints with enough rich graduation to be satisfying. It's also really tough with 35mm because your average dSLR will smoke 35mm B&W once you learn how to desaturate and tweak curves properly.

However, if you have a knack for it, use good papers and have a good eye for tone and are patient you can make pretty darn good prints on fiber based papers that are tough to replicate with digital printers.

Other advice is to stick with classic films like HP5, Tri-X (with reservations) and use Ilford FP4 over Plus-X or Tmax. The reason is that Kodak has castrated their remaining B&W films to lower production costs and hence they all have the sterile 'Tmax' look to them. Ilford HP5 and FP4 have remained pretty much unchanged over the years, and most people want to shoot B&W film because they want a classic look.

Actually, now that I think about it, FP4 pulled a stop to EI 50 (reduce processing by 1/3 the time) would be your best option. Tmax 100 has better grain, but it lacks the depth of FP4. You can always get your film mail order from B&H - good people to buy film from.

[RGB_LED]

Wow, some good information here.... and it's making me take a trip down memory lane. I shot with Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5, FP4 and all of the T-Max films. I used to pull-process but only by a stop at most... More often than not, I would push-process Tri-X to EI 1600 or T-Max 3200 to EI 6400. D76 1:1 was a favourite but towards the end of my darkroom days, I found HC110 to be a lot easier to use (especially since I used to mix the D76 powder and it was painful).

It does seem a little excessive to pull HP5 all the way to EI 50... Is FP4 still made? Or, how about just simply using T-Max 100? Tom_123's suggestion about using neutral density filters might be an easier solution.

As an aside... bstrickler, that's a great deal for all that... I have a Canon New F1 with 3 prime lenses (35mm F2, 85mm F1.8, 200mm f2.8) that I still get the itch to use now and again...

Zone system 101; Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights.

Wow! I have forgotten about that one! I think I'll have to pull out my copies of the The Camera, The Negative and The Print and go over them again...