Here is your "one stop shop" for push processing discussion. For those that don't know what push processing is, it's when you increase film speed via development. This is usually done by developing your film for longer than normal. Please feel free to use this thread to discuss film, developers, techniques, etc.

Here is the discussion that "inspired" this thread:

...I like the contrast you got from pushing TMX. Did you just extend your development times, or did you try a stand or semi-stand process? Just curious. I've been reading a lot about pushing films lately, because I'm researching high speed options...

...I do all of my pushing by extending development times. For the TMAX I recommend just going with the Kodak recommended push times. I found the Neopan and Acros like a touch longer than recommended or at least by my tastes anyway. This roll of TMAX got a little bit extra on the agitation... there was nothing gentle about it...LOL What kind of options are you considering for high speed, and how fast do you need/want to go?...

...You've pushed Acros? How far? I never thought to try that.

I'm looking for a good 1600 ISO to use for candids at a friend's wedding in a few months. I think I'm about to get a bottle of Ilfotec-DDX for push processing, after researching speed enhancing developers. I already have Diafine, which I tried with TriX. It worked great for shadow detail and highlight compression, but it was very gritty and not so kind on skin tones, especially in flat lighting.

There are a lot of choices, but most involve golfball sized grain. I'm considering trying to push TMY and/or Delta 400. I've seen a few very nice examples of both at 1600. But I also have two rolls each of Neopan 1600, Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200 on order. I have a lot of testing to do. Good thing it's dark when I get off work.

Paul, so far I have pushed Acros film to about 400. I say about because there are no published times for pushing Acros that far. I just guestimated development time. I'm running low on Neopan 400 and since I have plenty of Acros, I figured might as well try it.

Here is a shot from that roll:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2183575053_f345745201.jpg

Now were you looking for a 1600 speed film to push further or a film to push to 1600? So far I have only pushed Tri-X and Neopan 400 this far. Tri-X gives you "golfball sized grain" but, Neopan 400, that's a whole other story. I LOVE the varsatility of Neopan 400. Rsponds VERY well to push processing. Over half the rolls I have shot of it have been pushed and mostly to 1600.

Here is a sample of Neopan 400 pushed to 1600:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2144920744_83a9d6b01a_o.jpg

Good idea, Aaron. This is a complicated topic. I can use all the help I can get. I only have time to write a little now, but I'll be back...

I'm looking for a good film to shoot at 1600. Something that has decent contrast control, so I don't have to worry about blowing highlights (too much) when I overdevelop, and also something that doesn't have grain so gritty that it makes skin tones look bad...in 35mm.

I recently shot a few rolls of Tri-X at 1250 and developed them in Diafine. It would probably be almost as good at 1600. Diafine does a great job of bringing up the shadow detail and controlling the highlights, by flattening the overall image. So as you might guess, this works well for high contrast scenes, but it makes low contrast scenes look too flat. My biggest concern is skin tones, and the grain produced by this combo is not very nice to skin tones...in my limited experience. (I'm being harsh. It's really pretty good, all things considered. I just feel a need to experiment to see if I can find something better.)

Here's an example of one of the "good" ones:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2148610744_8c219f392a.jpg

There seem to be a lot of different opinions on the best way to develop, best developers, and the best films for low light shooting. A lot of people prefer to push mid speed films instead of using the super high speed films, because the higher the true speed, the larger the grain structure. Of course, the slower the true film speed, the less shadow detail and the greater chance of blown highlights when you overdevelop to bring the mid tones into the proper range. I guess I'm like everyone else. I want to find the best of both worlds.

I ended up writing a lot, but I gotta go. :D

Paul

The Neopan has excellent contrast control control ability when pushed. I generally tend to go a little heavier on agitation for contrast. I really can't compare it to anything though. The only other film I have pushed that far was Tri-X and that was 35mm. Comparatively speaking though, the Neopan is a lot less grainy and contrasty when pushed. How are you liking Diafine? Part of me wants to try new developers but, I feel like I have HC110 pretty much dialed in and have been very happy with the results.

Aaron

I like Diafine for high contrast situations. It's amazing how much shadow detail it can pull from TriX at 1250 and still keep the highlights in check. And it couldn't be easier to use because temperature and time are not critical. Plus, it keeps for a long time...mine is over a year old and works fine. I think it's a great choice for high-contrast / low-light shooting, but it's not too good with flat lighting I've only tried it with TriX. They say you can get about 2000 ISO from Neopan 1600 in Diafine, so I'll probably try that too.

Right now I'm shooting TriX in one camera and Delta 400 in another, both at 1600. I got a bottle of DDX to soup them in. Neopan 400 definitely has finer grain than TriX. I might try pushing it too, depending on how I do with the films I already have lined up for testing. I'll try to post more examples as I get them.

Paul