Film dynamic range

[Annibale G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was looking to find in high ISO the same dynamic range of a 400iso flm, a Tri-X for example. I was thinking about a kodak neopan 1600 at 800 iso or a kodak T-max 3200 at 1600.

Does anyone have tried to get in this?

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leitzmac]

I'm not sure exactly how to answer this, or in fact whether I have any experience that is relevant, but I have used Neopan 1600 and it's a very contrasty film rated at 1600 so my instinct is it wouldn't push well. That said rating it at 800 might work nicely, my question would be if you're looking for that speed why not push Tri-X or HP5 a stop? I've often pushed them a stop and on occasion I've rated both at 1600 and the results have been fine, but if I want a really fast film I go for Delta 3200 which given the restraints of fast emulsions is pretty good.

[Annibale G.]

I thought pushing he Tri-x to 800, 1600 but it will decrease its dynamic range. So I was thinking to expose the neopan 1600 at 800 or the tmax 3200 at 1600. Don't know which one is better.

[ndjambrose]

I've recently been shooting Tri-X at 1250 and developing it in Diafine. As far as I can tell, dynamic range is not compromised. If it is, then it's certainly not visible to me. The two bath process develops shadows and highlights separately and seems to get the best out of the film. It avoids blocking the shadows and frying the highlights, which is typical of normal push processing.

[Leitzmac]

I've recently been shooting Tri-X at 1250 and developing it in Diafine. As far as I can tell, dynamic range is not compromised. If it is, then it's certainly not visible to me. The two bath process develops shadows and highlights separately and seems to get the best out of the film. It avoids blocking the shadows and frying the highlights, which is typical of normal push processing.

 

That would seem to knock the nail on the head! Developing with a little more time and care can work wonders with almost any film. Thanks Neil.

[tgray]

If you want higher speed, I suggest getting a higher speed film like T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200. Both are about ISO 800-1200 speed films, but look very nice at 1600. Neopan will be finer grain, but its a slower film, so you'd have to rate it slower accordingly.

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I regularly shoot Tri-X TX400 film in low light handhold and push develop for ISO 3200.

I often push the shots further in Adobe Lightroom after scanning for shadow detail.

 

In my experiments, this yields a dynamic range, far exceeding my Nikon D3 under such conditions.

I manage barely to clip highlights this way (street lamps, car head lights).

 

The down side is, that of course shadows will have some grain.

 

Look at my website, the Tri-X shots are mostly pushed ISO 3200, you see there.

For critical clean shadows, you can use Nik Dfine and Nik Sharpener Pro, to get the best out of the files without noise.

 

small gallery with pushed Tri-X:

shanghai on TRI-X

 

 

 

[Annibale G.]

well it seems the dynamic range is compromised in this last case, could be good, but not as I mentioned.

[menos I M6]

well it seems the dynamic range is compromised in this last case, could be good, but not as I mentioned.

 

No - it is not. The photograph has been developed in Lightroom with high contrast.

Flat scans (this is how I scan problematic shots for digital post) do have plenty of detail.

 

Not the dynamic range of pushed Tri-X is the issue in such cases.

The limiting factors are: missing light (very low shutter speeds - 1/4 − 1/8 in the case of the dark entrance) and slowly vanishing tonality in shadows, when pushed 2 or more stops.

 

Of course, you have to have a plan for the grain. I like some, but it is also possible, to develop for a clean photograph in digital post.

 

As I only do film for a rather short time now, it always amazes me, how much more latitude for pushing and how greater the dynamic range is, as with top edge digital cameras.

[andybarton]

I have taken shots with Tri-X at 1600 and 320 (my normal speed) on the same roll, and got more than acceptable results at both ends.

 

Tri-X is an extremely forgiving film.

[Annibale G.]

Which developer did you use? Won't the contrast be

so much?

[Annibale G.]

I was thinking to use D 76 pure (stock). What do you think? Will I affect the dynamic range? How much?

[menos I M6]

I used Kodak Tmax developer, 'cause I was lazy to mix up D-76.

 

The lab, where I brought the film for pushing before I developed by myself used D-76 and I got similar results, but less shadow detail.

 

The less shadow detail part though could well be underdevelopment by the lab and not difference in developers.

 

I tried a few rolls with Xtol from the lab as well. The Xtol developed scans looked much flatter with more shadow detail but had unpleasant grain blotches, which I didn,t like.

 

Xtol development was also double the price than D-76 at that time, so I didn't investigated that route further.

 

On the NikonCafé film forum, I have seen awesome ISO3200 pushes by Rodinol stand development.

This would be another way, to get finest grain and widest dynamic range.

 

But again, from all Tri-X ISO 400 to ISO3200 pushes I have seen, dynamic range really is the least thing, to worry about.

Todays digital cameras (I am talking here Nikon Dx and Canon 1D class) are far away still from reaching DR, hat TX400 gives today already.

[atournas]

The following link may be of help:

 

California Creeks - Film Characteristics Table

 

Paul

[budrichard]

Unless you have laboratory measuring equipment, you will have no idea of the dynamic range and how your exposure/developments affects a film other than your sensory input(eyes). Maybe there is some sort of optical measuring device that is low cost these days but I don't know of any.

Film specifications are given for the normal ASA/ISO correctly exposed and correctly developed. If you under expose and increase development time to increase the ASA/ISO you are shooting at, you will affect the dynamic range of the film, no matter what you think from your results.

So you really have to experiment and finds what works for you in the situations you encounter.

Usually, dynamic range measurement considerations are not a reason for higher ASA/ISO films but the ability to capture detail in shadows is the reason for the use of higher ASA/ISO films. Using Tri-X at 3200 ASA/ISO will usually result in a more pleasing grain structure than a 3200 ISO film but you will lose something depending on your exposure and the dynamic range of the scene.

I suggest you experiment with the films in question and determine what meets your expectations.-Dick