The Darkroom Cookbook Forum

Greetings, Matteo.



The choice of film and developer. Tri-X used to be the BEST film for pushing, until Kodak changed the design of the film, moving it towards T-grain construction. Second, neither Rodinal nor HC-110 are ideal for pushing film. A better choice would be D-76. An even better choice would be X-tol or Ilford DD-X.



I have found that Ilford HP5+ pushed to EI 3200 and developed in DD-X 1:4 is the best option. I use 75F for 18 minutes with agitation for 10 seconds at 1 minute intervals. The results are far superior to anything you will obtain with Tri-X and any developer. Have a look at the pushed photo on page 53 of the 3rd ed. of the DCB. In any case, the only way to know for certain is to expose and develop a test roll prior to committing to an assignment.



If DD-X and HP5+ are not available in Bogata try Tri-X in D-76. For test purposes only try my time and temperature with HP5.

If you can find D-76 try using it undiluted. If not, then get some DD-X and HP5 for next time. Good luck.

Wow, even back in the day Tri-X was rarely pushed more than two stops, that's EI1600, and personally i don't consider HC110 to be a "high energy" developer like Acufine, Microphen, or Rodinal. That said, if you want to try semi stand development in a Paterson tank, process only one roll at a time in a two roll tank, that way you can do 1+60-ish; 9ml concentrate + 600ml water (close enough to dil. H) or 1+100, 6ml concentrate + 600ml water and stand develop. I'm not sure what time to use, but I doubt you could over develop with this situation. This would not be my first choice (not even my 3rd or 4th) but it's what you have to work with. [I would also test these combos before committing to client work but that's just me, I like testing.] But if you have a No.3 safelight in a Kodak bullet housing, and a 7.5 watt bulb you could pre-flash the film one stop and then process at EI1600, probably not worth the extra work.

One man's sauce is another man's cyanide! I, too, would like to see an example.

The simple answer is that there appears to be a way to upload images to posts. However, being new to using this BB I haven't yet figured it out. As soon as I do I will post it in announcements.

i think it depends on your subject matter as well as the requirement of your assignment. people subjects (aka street or even photography) tend to go fine with "pushing" (under-expose & over-develop), because the shadow details aint too important; what's essential is the photos be made at all & the so-called short-comings of the method might even create the "mood" for the shot. on the other hand, scene shots dont usually benefit from the lack of details in the shadows & the exaggerated grains; so for these situation i'd go with the opposite: over-expose & under-dev.

would like to see your photos once the forum allows upload or you can post link to flickr or something?

The forum DOES have the capacity for image upload. Use the Browse button below the message.



I am attaching two images to this post. The first, Live to Ride, was made in 1982, one of my early attempts at night street photography, using a Nikon F. The film is old-style Tri-X, pushed to EI 1600 using D76 1:1 and the hydrogen peroxide pushing formula found in the DCB. I have not found this technique to be effective with the modern Tri-X emulsion and haven't tried it with HP5+ as that film pushes very well.



The second image, Yvette, was made in 2007 using Ilford HP5+ EI 3200 developed in Ilfotec DD-X 1:4, 18 minutes at 75F. I am able to easily make 16x20" prints of negatives developed using this method.



My own experience is that D76 1+1 is one of the best formulas for pushing film, and HP5+ is the best film to use. The only formula I have used that I like better is Iloftec DD-X. However, DD-X is often difficult to find whereas D76 is readily available in most parts of the world. In fact, in the '70s I knew a photographer who weighed out the chemicals for 1 liter of D76 divided them into 35mm film cassettes, and carried them when he traveled. A bit of thiosulfate, and a one or two reel daylight tank and he could develop film anywhere.

Hi Steven,



i'm a little late to this thread, but do want to verify - in your Developer cookbook vol.2 - you mention early on that HP-5 is NOT a favorable film for pushing, however, in this thread you're advocating that HP-5 & DDX as the best combination for extreme pushes - superior to any combination of Tri-X? What has changed since the book was published? Lastly, if I'm committed to Tri-X - what is the best developer for 3 stop pushes based on the current version of the emulsion?



Thanks in advance, neal

Greetings, Neal. First, if you're using The Darkroom Cookbook 2nd edition, don't. There are a lot of errors in that book that were made when I was young and careless. Send it to the recycler and pick up the 4th edition.



At the time I wrote the 2nd ed. I had not fully explored the possibilities of HP5+ with DDX. My experience pushing film was primarily with D-76, which I didn't feel worked as well with HP5. However, I have since found that HP5+ and DDX is an excellent combination. I have also found that Tri-X with XTOL works very well, perhaps as well. I don't have a valid time/temp for Tri-X as i no longer use the film. There are many fine photographers that swear by it, but I find it doesn't suit my taste, which is, of course, part of the beauty of film, we have choices. In digital one pixel looks like another.

Thanks for the quick follow-up Steve - (will def be picking up the new edition of the developer cookbook!)



for my purposes - 3 stop pushes are for high contrast indoor stage lighting scenarios. I will have to do some testing ultimately, but your input helps my focus on optimizing.



Look forward to testing both tri-x /xtol combo vs. HP5 / DDX combo in the near future.

I would very much like to hear about the results of your testing.

Steve - finally getting around to testing some HP5+ & DDX combo you suggested. Albeit I only had to push to 1600 for this, it's still a very nice tonality that isn't all that different from delta 3200 (from my experience). One follow-up question - Do you have any recommendations for prudent sharpening of digitized negatives? not sure how to post an example to this thread?

I don't know what prudent sharpening is.



As far as the difference between HP5 and delta 3200, try making an 11 x 14 (or even better, 16 x 20) enlargement from each negative and let me know the results.

Hi Neal: You'll want to use an "unsharp mask" type of sharpening filter. The greatest errors in sharpening digital files, whether a scan or a camera capture, comes from to big of a "radius" there. That's the number of pixels on either side of the edge being sharpened that are affected by the contrast change. Slide it to the lowest setting the software will allow: 0.3-0.5. The default is something like 5 on most software. Then use a higher "amount" than the default. Default is about 25. Try 100 to 150 with the radius set low.



That's all for display rather than making a neg, so you may find different settings give you a better result. But that's how I'd make sharpening prudent.

I still don't know what prudent sharpening is. But should I ever be faced with such a daunting task I will certainly follow the perfesser's advice.

Thanks Perfesserkev,



sometimes i feel like it's a fine line b/t under/oversharpening scans, this is helpful.