Achieving more contrast with D-76

Bormental · Jun 9, 2020

I am watching this thread with great interest. I have always struggled with HP5+ and never quite understood the origins of its iconic status. Yet, I keep trying, perhaps because I'm drawn to the mystery of its popularity. I get pretty good results with stock D76* and stock Xtol. Contrary to internet advice, my 1+1 output with those developers is muddier and grainier. DD-X has been flat & grey regardless of the dilution and development time. Basically, HP5+ is by far the trickiest film I have ever used.

On the other hand, Adrian here suggests that you can develop HP5+ and Tri-X to nearly the same contrast and grain. I hold his advice in high regard, but I can't shake off the feeling that there's something off about HP5+ because the question about compressed midtones and the flat look keeps coming up, and it's hard to ignore the pronounced difference between developers with this film.

Also, it performs waa-a-ay better in 120 format for me, vs 35mm. Obviously all films look better in medium format, but HP5+ is, again, special.

* "Stock D76" is Ultrafine D76 for me, not Kodak's

koraks · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
But what I'm uncomfortable with is that some films come out nice and contrasty right from scanning software (although that is also a post-processing of a kind), while others need a lot of tweaking once they are scanned.

I think it's not very sensible to optimize your negatives to a particular scanner and the accompanying software. What if you get a software update or change your scanning default settings and the HP5+ negs come out nice, but TriX & Co come out fugly? Does that mean all of a sudden your HP5+ negatives have been fixed and now your TriX film is junk?
Going by what your scanner barfs out without further post-processing just isn't a very solid benchmark in my view. Of course, to each their own; if that's the criterion you want to apply, by all means go ahead.

BTw, the negatives you posted look quite OK; a bit dense overall, so I agree with the earlier advice to back off on exposure just a tad, and maybe (but not necessarily) increase development somewhat. In any case, if I had those negatives here in the darkroom, I would get perfectly fine and punchy prints from them without a problem at all. There's not much wrong with those images in terms of shadow density and contrast.

John Bragg · Jun 9, 2020

Bormental said:
I am watching this thread with great interest. I have always struggled with HP5+ and never quite understood the origins of its iconic status. Yet, I keep trying, perhaps because I'm drawn to the mystery of its popularity. I get pretty good results with stock D76* and stock Xtol. Contrary to internet advice, my 1+1 output with those developers is muddier and grainier. DD-X has been flat & grey regardless of the dilution and development time. Basically, HP5+ is by far the trickiest film I have ever used.

On the other hand, Adrian here suggests that you can develop HP5+ and Tri-X to nearly the same contrast and grain. I hold his advice in high regard, but I can't shake off the feeling that there's something off about HP5+ because the question about compressed midtones and the flat look keeps coming up, and it's hard to ignore the pronounced difference between developers with this film.

Also, it performs waa-a-ay better in 120 format for me, vs 35mm. Obviously all films look better in medium format, but HP5+ is, again, special.

* "Stock D76" is Ultrafine D76 for me, not Kodak's

I empathise with you. The connundrum of film and developer combinations that wont play nice is a tricky one. Sometimes it is better to draw stumps and go to what you can get to work. HP5+ has a long straight curve and that doesn't suit everyone, but it does suit me. For my sins, I could never get Tri-X to work well with Rodinal. Others swear by that combo. Go figure ?

Bormental · Jun 9, 2020

koraks said:
I think it's not very sensible to optimize your negatives to a particular scanner and the accompanying software. What if you get a software update or change your scanning default settings and the HP5+ negs come out nice, but TriX & Co come out fugly?

I strongly disagree with this. There is no magic with software, it does not create a new image out of nothing. Almost every post-processing "enhancing" step you do (in software or not) is based on exploiting the discrepancy between mediums (a negative holds more data than a JPEG file, or a paper). And usually there are side effects too, for example increasing contrast always affects grain.

Therefore, the whole point of quality negative development is to optimize for post-processing, be it printing (Ansel books) or digital workflow. And yes, optimizing for your "next step" makes perfect sense (hey, that's why scanning people hate curly film!)

An ideal negative only requires an inversion. Everything else is correcting for defects in scene lighting, exposure or film development. When folks complain about HP5+ being "flat", it often means that their negatives have nothing in them to boost contrast off, at least this was my experience with some developers. The sky and the sea and the beach all would be nearly exactly the same shade of grey, whereas on a Foma exposure made at the same time & place the difference would be quite noticeable (and enhanced even further in software, if desired).

halfaman · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
I do have borax, naturally for mixing D-76 so I can add some more. Can you tell me how much do I need, or should I obtain a pH-meter?

You should measure pH, pH-meters can be difficult to use with some developers. You can try it but I think pH paper would be enough.

MattKing · Jun 9, 2020

Bormental said:
An ideal negative only requires an inversion.

When it comes to scanning, this is only true if the programmer who set up the algorithms for your particular combination of scanner and software happened to match your particular combination of film, developer and subjective preferences.
Scanners and scanning software are full of choices and settings that we don't have any access to. I never expect to get the same scan from two different scanners working on the same negative.

grainyvision · Jun 9, 2020

Have you tried pushing the HP5+? I've found it to keep almost all of its shadow detail at ISO 800, but the contrast is more to my liking. Failing that, you could try adding a tiny bit of thiocyanate (maybe 0.2g per L, NOT an ammonium salt) which will definitely increase contrast while also making it finer grain, though very much at all will give you a shiny dichronic fog, especially in an already solvent developer like D-76

RalphLambrecht · Jun 10, 2020

M-88 said:
Good day

I'd like to know, how to achieve more contrast with a basic developer like D-76. This is especially important considering that HP5+ usually looks rather uninspiring, unless pushed. But pushing it is not always convenient thanks to its high speed and imminent increase of grain. I've read that increasing developing time can yield more contrast, that more vigorous agitation can also yield more contrast, but to me it sounds like "bread is made of water, flour and yeast". I'd be grateful for more detailed instructions.

Please don't suggest to use any other developer, since thanks to regulations on customs terminal, I'm not allowed to import any kind of chemicals, especially in liquid form. Which means I can't have HC-110, Rodinal, Xtol, Microphen and many others. I mix D-76 at home from locally available chems and I also checked out formulas for high contrast developers, but I can't get potassium bromide here and neither can I find phenidone, so I'm pretty much stuck with D-76.

Thank you.

Increase the development time by 15% at a time until you like the contrast.

koraks · Jun 10, 2020

Bormental said:
Therefore, the whole point of quality negative development is to optimize for post-processing, be it printing (Ansel books) or digital workflow.

Yes, I agree with this for sure! But...

MattKing said:
When it comes to scanning, this is only true if the programmer who set up the algorithms for your particular combination of scanner and software happened to match your particular combination of film, developer and subjective preferences.
Scanners and scanning software are full of choices and settings that we don't have any access to. I never expect to get the same scan from two different scanners working on the same negative.

...also with this

NB23 · Jun 10, 2020

Paper changes everything. Fresh paper has such high contrast that it begs for negatives ala HP5.

ilford Art 300, for example, sucked in every tone out of my regular HP5 negatives. I was flabbergasted, and still am every time I look at those prints. The blacks, the gradations, the whites, the intensity. It’s all there.

Analog photography is a lost art, even if it’s practiced today. The essence is lost because people are always chasing a magic bullet instead of understanding that film photography is a long chain of events/actions, where each action is fine-tuned in relation to the one before and to the next, until the final print.

In truth, one should adopt one film, adapt the development regime in relation to the unique tap water coming out of the pipes, which are unique to the darkroom in question. Even the thermometer, which is almost never 100% accurate when compared to another thermometer, commands a fine tuning that in the end becomes a base of standard unique to the artist’s darkroom. This is why, in the end, an artist that has fine-tuned his whole process from A to Z, will always end with a unique personalized look that another artist won’t even come close to, even if they use the same film/developer/paper combo. That’s because of the fine-tuning that, in the end, has been distorted in order to satisfy the environment in which it has been operating and vice-versa.

The water, the air, the humidity level, the pipes, the temperature, the warmth of the place, all play a role in the end print.

This is why talking to plants is so imprtant. The relation you develop with a plant makes it grow in its own unique way. Like a Parisian baguette, it depends on the parisian air, parisian water, parisian flour. The same artisan can’t create the same baguette out from New York. The process will have to be totally recalibrated, and the end result will be a New York baguette, with its own taste.

I know its impossible to expect this, but if you want to truly come up with a great, unique, image quality, you’ll have to stick to one film/developer/water/room/air/humidity/thermometer/paper/washing/toning/drying/scaning combo, and stick to it. You choose Tri-x and forget about HP5. Or choose HP5 and forget avout tri-X. Any film you choose will be a winner because you will adapt it to a personnalized workflow.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 10, 2020

koraks said:
Just develop longer. It ain't rocket science. Start with adding 30% to your current development time and evaluate the results. If it's too subtle a difference, do +50%.

You also don't necessarily need a different developer. D76 is perfectly capable of creating contrast that is totally through the roof. Even on a 'mellow' film like HP5+.

However, keep one thing in mind: concluding that there's something wrong with development because you don't like your images is of course a possibility, but not necessarily the only right conclusion. Put it differently: you can have negatives that look unconvincingly flat and spiritless on the light table, but that create very contrasty, powerful prints. The question with negatives is mostly if they have both the shadow and highlight detail you need, and if the contrast is sufficient to match the desired output process (optical printing or digital post processing). In very many cases, when people complain of insufficient contrast, the problem is not so much in the film development, but either in exposure (insufficient shadow detail) or in the processing that comes after creating the negative. Printing (and also digital post processing) is an art in itself. An excellent negative cannot solve lack of proficiency and skill in further processing.

+1

The only thing I would add is to make sure you're using enough developer stock solution per roll. Kodak's recommendation is over 200ml per 135-36 roll. When I use D-76, I personally use 300+ml per roll. Not using enough developer results in less contrast and less density. You can compensate for that by lengthening your development time to a degree, but at some point you just won't have enough active developer to make much of a difference. It's far better to just be on the generous side with developer volume, especially if you're trying to build contrast or density, then add time to add contrast.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 10, 2020

grain elevator said:
The interesting question behind this is, why don't the standard manufacturer times give equal contrast for all films, as they should per ISO at least for the lower part of the curve?

Partially because a lot of people think ISO contrast is too much contrast and prefer zone system contrast. It would be nice if Kodak and Ilford gave times that netted the same contrast, but alas, they just don't. Kodak tends to be a little on the low side, Ilford tends to be a little on the high side, both are below ISO contrast.

I personally prefer ISO contrast because you tend to get as much film speed as you reasonably can for your given developer. Modern films tend to be so fine grained (even 400+ speeds) that even when doing 11x14 or 12x18 prints from 35mm negatives, the grain isn't really so objectionable and modern VC papers have no problem at all handling negatives that are ISO contrast. The only time I pull the development time in for less contrast is when I know for certain that the negative got really good exposure, or the customer asked for less time (I process a lot of film for other people), otherwise, I run it for ISO contrast as most people tend to underexpose their negatives.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 10, 2020

Bormental said:
I am watching this thread with great interest. I have always struggled with HP5+ and never quite understood the origins of its iconic status. Yet, I keep trying, perhaps because I'm drawn to the mystery of its popularity. I get pretty good results with stock D76* and stock Xtol. Contrary to internet advice, my 1+1 output with those developers is muddier and grainier. DD-X has been flat & grey regardless of the dilution and development time. Basically, HP5+ is by far the trickiest film I have ever used.

On the other hand, Adrian here suggests that you can develop HP5+ and Tri-X to nearly the same contrast and grain. I hold his advice in high regard, but I can't shake off the feeling that there's something off about HP5+ because the question about compressed midtones and the flat look keeps coming up, and it's hard to ignore the pronounced difference between developers with this film.

Also, it performs waa-a-ay better in 120 format for me, vs 35mm. Obviously all films look better in medium format, but HP5+ is, again, special.

* "Stock D76" is Ultrafine D76 for me, not Kodak's

Man, you're just all over my website. I'm in the process of updating that page too.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 10, 2020

Bormental said:
An ideal negative only requires an inversion. Everything else is correcting for defects in scene lighting, exposure or film development. When folks complain about HP5+ being "flat", it often means that their negatives have nothing in them to boost contrast off, at least this was my experience with some developers. The sky and the sea and the beach all would be nearly exactly the same shade of grey, whereas on a Foma exposure made at the same time & place the difference would be quite noticeable (and enhanced even further in software, if desired).

That's not entirely true. Digital systems operate with a different gamma than than film usually is, meaning if all you do is scan a negative in and invert it, its going to look flat because the software is expecting the scanned image data to be at gamma 1.0, and it's actually more like gamma 0.56 to 0.62. You are required to adjust the gamma of the scanned image so that it matches. This is no different than when making a print in a dark room. Printing at different paper grades is adjusting the effective gamma so that what you see approximates a linear gamma of 1.0. If the effective gamma is higher than 1.0 then we perceive it as very contrasty, if it's less than 1.0 we perceive it as very flat and low contrast. "Normal" is an effective gamma of 1.0. Simply scanning the negative in and doing an invert only will rarely give you something attractive. When I'm processing/scanning film for a customer, I always apply a tone curve during the invert stage that straightens the scanned data out to something that approximates 1.0 gamma for that emulsion, then usually stretch from middle gray to film base plus fog out by another stop so the film base plus fog is sitting at least 6 stops down from middle gray so the blacks are nice and black as people tend to like nice punchy blacks with really good contrast in the shadows.

M-88 · Jun 10, 2020

Doremus Scudder said:
Analog Photography 101

If you want contrastier negatives, develop longer (and vice-versa).

No need to mess around with dilution and/or agitation.

FWIW, changing dilution with D-76 changes the degree to which the developer dissolves silver during development and affects the appearance of the grain. Straight D-76 results in softer-edged, "finer"-looking grain. D-76 1+1 gives a sharper-edged and more pronounced grain (still rather fine). This and the recommendation to increase development time to achieve more contrast should be in the instructions (or the easily-findable-on-the-web tech sheet on D-76). Have you read these?

Doremus

I have read how dilution affects sharpness and grain, but I had no info about contrast. That is why I opened the thread about contrast, not about sharpness or grain, both of which I can control.

M-88 · Jun 10, 2020

koraks said:
I think it's not very sensible to optimize your negatives to a particular scanner and the accompanying software. What if you get a software update or change your scanning default settings and the HP5+ negs come out nice, but TriX & Co come out fugly? Does that mean all of a sudden your HP5+ negatives have been fixed and now your TriX film is junk?
Going by what your scanner barfs out without further post-processing just isn't a very solid benchmark in my view. Of course, to each their own; if that's the criterion you want to apply, by all means go ahead.

BTw, the negatives you posted look quite OK; a bit dense overall, so I agree with the earlier advice to back off on exposure just a tad, and maybe (but not necessarily) increase development somewhat. In any case, if I had those negatives here in the darkroom, I would get perfectly fine and punchy prints from them without a problem at all. There's not much wrong with those images in terms of shadow density and contrast.

For me scanning is the only way. I can't print, I have no enlarger, no chemistry, but more importantly, if I make myself a darkroom, it's very likely for me to face a divorce.

halfaman said:
You should measure pH, pH-meters can be difficult to use with some developers. You can try it but I think pH paper would be enough.

With something like this, I assume?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/160Pcs-PH-...078395?hash=item5d86d535bb:g:GTMAAOSwBLlVNLg5

M-88 · Jun 10, 2020

earlz said:
Have you tried pushing the HP5+? I've found it to keep almost all of its shadow detail at ISO 800, but the contrast is more to my liking. Failing that, you could try adding a tiny bit of thiocyanate (maybe 0.2g per L, NOT an ammonium salt) which will definitely increase contrast while also making it finer grain, though very much at all will give you a shiny dichronic fog, especially in an already solvent developer like D-76

I usually push HP5+ between 800 and 1600 and it always yields contrasty images in this case, but if shot at box speed, it's dull. If course it's possible for me to push it all the time, but it's not very convenient in daylight.

Adrian Bacon said:
Man, you're just all over my website. I'm in the process of updating that page too.

Nice article! Wish I had found it sooner!

koraks · Jun 10, 2020

M-88 said:
For me scanning is the only way. I can't print, I have no enlarger, no chemistry, but more importantly, if I make myself a darkroom, it's very likely for me to face a divorce.

That made me chuckle
There's nothing wrong with scanning. But like I said, don't be too hung up on what the scanner gives you without further processing. It's analogous to printing negatives in the darkroom on grade 2 and requiring that they will come out perfect without any change in contrast grade, burning/doding etc. Sure, that can be a way of working, but why would you give up on the vast number of possibilities that post processing give you? Of course, if you need to apply trickery to make something out of negatives that are just fundamentally flawed, then it's a suboptimal situation. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Your negatives are fine, now do your best and make the most of them with the tools you have available - and have lots of fun in the process. Don't forget that final part...!

138S · Jun 10, 2020

Doremus Scudder said:
FWIW, changing dilution with D-76 changes the degree to which the developer dissolves silver during development and affects the appearance of the grain.

Doremus, this is right, but extending development time also affects the appearance of the grain, coarser.

M-88 · Jun 10, 2020

koraks said:
That made me chuckle
There's nothing wrong with scanning. But like I said, don't be too hung up on what the scanner gives you without further processing. It's analogous to printing negatives in the darkroom on grade 2 and requiring that they will come out perfect without any change in contrast grade, burning/doding etc. Sure, that can be a way of working, but why would you give up on the vast number of possibilities that post processing give you? Of course, if you need to apply trickery to make something out of negatives that are just fundamentally flawed, then it's a suboptimal situation. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Your negatives are fine, now do your best and make the most of them with the tools you have available - and have lots of fun in the process. Don't forget that final part...!

I'm not giving up on PP or disregarding it entirely, it just bothers me that some films look good straight out from scanner, while others don't and there's nothing I can do unless I consult the collective mind of APUG...

koraks · Jun 10, 2020

M-88 said:
it just bothers

At the risk of sounding pedantic, but my point is that you may be looking for a technical solution for what essentially seems to me a psychological issue

M-88 · Jun 10, 2020

koraks said:
At the risk of sounding pedantic, but my point is that you may be looking for a technical solution for what essentially seems to me a psychological issue

It is indeed a psychological issue. I'm lucky it's not psychiatric (yet).

koraks · Jun 10, 2020

I'm not too worried; I think you'll make it through this episode.

pentaxuser · Jun 10, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
It would be nice if Kodak and Ilford gave times that netted the same contrast, but alas, they just don't. Kodak tends to be a little on the low side, Ilford tends to be a little on the high side, both are below ISO contrast.

I personally prefer ISO contrast because you tend to get as much film speed as you reasonably can for your given developer. ), otherwise, I run it for ISO contrast as most people tend to underexpose their negatives.

Adrian, can you amplify what you have quoted in my first two sentences above. What is the standard by which you are judging the high side i.e high side of what as you then go on to say that both are below ISO contrast

I checked your times on your website and for HP5+ in replenished Xtol at 75F you quote 7 mins which is a 10% increase on what Kodak gives for 75F as it quotes 6 mins 15secs so I can see that your times will give a greater contrast that Kodak's own times. I am assuming in this that replenished Xtol for the purposes of time comparison is the equivalent or as near as damn it the equivalent of stock Xtol

The puzzle arises when we look at Ilford's times for Xtol. Ilford's time is 8 mins Xtol @ 68F which on Ilford's temperature compensation chart drops to about 5mins 30 sec. Ralph Lambrecht's chart show it as 8 mins to 5 mins so a slight further reduction. However what stands out is that the Ilford time for stock Xtol at 75F is actually less than the Kodak time by 45 secs which at the time quoted is appreciable.

So based on these times it would appear that Ilford's time should result in a lower contrast than Kodak's which seems contrary to the point you makes when you say Ilford tends to be on the high side

Finally can I ask what is ISO contrast compared Kodak or Ilford contrast in terms of numbers and if users want to aim for ISO contrast how is this worked out and for those not able to do the maths is there a percentage increase on Ilford and Kodak times to aim for such as 10%

Thanks

pentaxuser

bernard_L · Jun 10, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
I personally prefer ISO contrast because you tend to get as much film speed as you reasonably can for your given developer. Modern films tend to be so fine grained (even 400+ speeds) that even when doing 11x14 or 12x18 prints from 35mm negatives, the grain isn't really so objectionable

At last someone who prefers healthy negatives (versus wimpy negatives)
Certainly grain ("noise") increases with dev time. But so does the image contrast ("signal"). Not clear whether signal-to-noise is actually degraded.
I remember a thread where the OP was after intentional grain, and someone gave the advice to develop to low contrast and print on grade 5. Even easier with a s*****r because output range can be expanded almost arbitrarily.

Achieving more contrast with D-76

Bormental

koraks

Moderator

John Bragg

Bormental

halfaman

MattKing

Moderator

grainyvision

RalphLambrecht

koraks

Moderator

NB23

Adrian Bacon

Adrian Bacon

Adrian Bacon

Adrian Bacon

M-88

M-88

M-88

koraks

Moderator

138S

M-88

koraks

Moderator

M-88

koraks

Moderator

pentaxuser

bernard_L

Achieving more contrast with D-76

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency