Can you make HP5+ look like FP4+?

[banandrew]

This is probably a stupid question, but can you make a print from HP5+ look like one from FP4+ through some combination of exposure, development, and printing technique? Ignoring grain, I am only talking about tonality. I mean, theoretically if HP5+ has a 'lower contrast' under normal conditions, shouldn't one be able to reproduce FP4's higher contrast look? Or is this beyond the realm of what is reasonably achievable in the darkroom? Are their characteristic tonalities "locked in" as a feature of the film?

 

[Harry Stevens]

I think it's called graded paper if you want a contrast change but a good print is a good print be it FP4 or HP5 can't see why you would want to go looking for a FP4 look from a good HP5 negative anyway, I like the results HP5 gives when shot at 250 ASA.

As for the original question you could try some split grade printing but again things are what they are like a roll of HP5.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Develop HP5 in a high contrast developer, such as D-19. I use it diluted 1+3. It's enough to get an up swept curve in the high lights. You can come close, but the two films will always look different. The grain is very different.

 

[MattKing]

Contrast in film is a function of development. So to match contrast, adjust development.
There are some other, more subtle differences that are harder to match - spectral sensitivity, shape of toe, shape of shoulder. You can manipulate those with exposure and developing controls, but to make two different films match you need to be very familiar with those controls.
Before you go down that road, try adjusting development to match over-all contrast. It won't be a large adjustment. Then decide whether the results are close enough to satisfy your needs. Most likely, they will be.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good points, Matt. I work with both films and I can easily match contrast. They still look different. HP5 have slightly more red sensitivity, when comparing their spectral sensitivity charts... Curve-wise, HP5 always has that "hump" which increases shadow and midtone contrasts (which I love). FP4's has a straighter line....and then there is the issue of grain.

 

[banandrew]

Thanks for all the responses! I mostly shoot HP5 and push it for the speed, but when I looked back at some old FP4 negatives that I shot at box speed while ago, I realized that I really like how the FP4 looks with normal printing. I've been in the process of switching to FP4 when this question occurred to me. HP5 would be preferable to FP4 for the speed, but I just really love the look of FP4. I also think I prefer the finer grain of FP4 in 35mm, so I am definitely going to shoot it for a while regardless.

For fun, I tried printing HP5 EI400 with more contrast (#2.5 or #3 instead of a #2) but if I try to keep the highlights from being blown out, the midtones get pushed down further than I want. If I aim to keep the mid tones where they are and burn in the sky for some tone, (this is more work than I'd like), and the shadows still don't fall off the way they do with FP4. Obviously the answer is to keep shooting FP4 but sometimes I'd like the speed of HP5, especially here in rainy BC (I'm sure Matt can sympathize). Anyway it was just something I was curious about, and since my darkroom skills are limited I thought I'd ask here. Thanks for the discussion

 

[banandrew]

Before you go down that road, try adjusting development to match over-all contrast. It won't be a large adjustment. Then decide whether the results are close enough to satisfy your needs. Most likely, they will be.

Just to clarify, does this mean to push the film and then increase development accordingly? so HP5 @ 800 or @ 1600? Or to shoot @ 400 and then increase development, but use a lower contrast to print?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Delta 100 is a closer match curve-wise to HP5+ & Delta 400 is closer to FP4+.

 

[banandrew]

Interesting, haven't shot a lot of the delta films. Maybe it's time to give them a try

 

[silveror0]

... Curve-wise, HP5 always has that "hump" which increases shadow and midtone contrasts (which I love). FP4's has a straighter line ...

Andrew, I’m curious about the “hump” you describe with HP5+, as I see no such behavior in my tests when developing in HC-110 (EI 200). Granted, my tests were done with sheet film, but according to my query to Ilford (see below) some time back, this should not cause a significantly different result than the roll film version. And I doubt that agitation differences would cause a hump. Perhaps a staining developer might cause one, but I’ve never used one so IDK.

I’m attaching my test results for HP5+ in HC-110 (EI 200) as well as FP4+ in HC-110 (EI 64) for a comparison. For both plots, "Net Density" of zero represents film base + fog reading.

Ilford comments:
… there can be small differences between 35mm, 120 and sheet film as these do use different bases and slightly different emulsions. Although we endeavor to manufacture all three types to be as close as possible in order for development times to be consistent across the range for any one film type (and they are for most practical purposes) …

 

[banandrew]

Andrew, I’m curious about the “hump” you describe with HP5+, as I see no such behavior in my tests when developing in HC-110 (EI 200). Granted, my tests were done with sheet film, but according to my query to Ilford (see below) some time back, this should not cause a significantly different result than the roll film version. And I doubt that agitation differences would cause a hump. Perhaps a staining developer might cause one, but I’ve never used one so IDK.

I’m attaching my test results for HP5+ in HC-110 (EI 200) as well as FP4+ in HC-110 (EI 64) for a comparison. For both plots, "Net Density" of zero represents film base + fog reading.

Ilford comments:
… there can be small differences between 35mm, 120 and sheet film as these do use different bases and slightly different emulsions. Although we endeavor to manufacture all three types to be as close as possible in order for development times to be consistent across the range for any one film type (and they are for most practical purposes) …

View attachment 174645

That FP4+ chart is very interesting to me... maybe I'm not reading it right. What is your development temperature and agitation scheme? I developed 35mm FP4+ in HC-110 and found I needed to use dilution 1+60 (from the syrup) for 7:00 at 20*C to get printable negs. When I followed Ilford's recommended time at dilution B the negs were denser than a black hole

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

All my curves were developed using sheet film, using Xtol 1+1, and Pyrocat-HD. This hump in the curve I referred to is subtle, but noticeable. DI#13, a developer concocted by the late Phil Davis, really exaggerated this hump.

 

[silveror0]

That FP4+ chart is very interesting to me... maybe I'm not reading it right. What is your development temperature and agitation scheme? I developed 35mm FP4+ in HC-110 and found I needed to use dilution 1+60 (from the syrup) for 7:00 at 20*C to get printable negs. When I followed Ilford's recommended time at dilution B the negs were denser than a black hole

Temp = 20*C, 4x5 sheets (6 sht stack, shuffled in tray, once through the stack every 30sec). No idea how that agitation compares to roll film inversions in a spiral reel. Stouffer 31-step wedge taped to film in 5x7 camera (Sinar monorail) to keep camera bellows farther from film, shutter speeds tested prior to testing, bellows lens shade to minimize flare, white mat board illuminated with blue floodlights to approximate daylight. Reflection light meter, calibrated by Quality Light Metric in LA, exposure placed on Zone X. EI determined prior to test with identical setup conditions.

 

[MattKing]

Just to clarify, does this mean to push the film and then increase development accordingly? so HP5 @ 800 or @ 1600? Or to shoot @ 400 and then increase development, but use a lower contrast to print?

I avoid the word "push" as much as possible!
With black and white film, contrast is easily controllable, and varying development time is the easiest way to exercise that control.
As an example, not too long ago it was very common for photographers to customize their development (and the resulting contrast index) to the type of enlarger they had - higher contrast for diffusion sources, lower contrast for condenser enlargers.
If you wander into the world of Zone System work, you may find yourself shooting individual sheets of film, and adjusting the development on each (N, N-1, N+1) to expand or contract the contrast, in the hope of adjusting for the inherent contrast of the subject. The goal being to match the scene and to print as close to effortlessly as possible.
In the interest of pedantry, I will mention that dreaded word "push". It only refers to a change in development and has nothing to do with how you expose or meter.
One "pushes" development to increase near shadow and mid-tone contrast, usually in circumstances where a photographer is forced to under-expose film. A "push" doesn't retrieve any of the shadow detail lost because of the under-exposure, but it does make those near-shadows and under-exposed mid-tones look more pleasing. The "push" will often negatively affect how highlights are rendered - highlight detail is often either lost or rendered with poor contrast.

 

[banandrew]

Temp = 20*C, 4x5 sheets (6 sht stack, shuffled in tray, once through the stack every 30sec). No idea how that agitation compares to roll film inversions in a spiral reel. Stouffer 31-step wedge taped to film in 5x7 camera (Sinar monorail) to keep camera bellows farther from film, shutter speeds tested prior to testing, bellows lens shade to minimize flare, white mat board illuminated with blue floodlights to approximate daylight. Reflection light meter, calibrated by Quality Light Metric in LA, exposure placed on Zone X. EI determined prior to test with identical setup conditions.

Thanks for all that detail. I'm still left wondering how I've found my development times for roll FP4 are so much less than the recommended ones by Ilford. I can't imagine the difference between sheet and 35mm being so big. I used the same bottle of developer, same thermometer, similar dilution, and similar agitation scheme for a roll of 120 HP5 using recommended time within a few days of developing two separate rolls 35mm FP4 using the time I found to work. Both printed well with #2 filters. Really weird, but I guess that's why it's good to test film...

 

[banandrew]

I avoid the word "push" as much as possible!
With black and white film, contrast is easily controllable, and varying development time is the easiest way to exercise that control.
As an example, not too long ago it was very common for photographers to customize their development (and the resulting contrast index) to the type of enlarger they had - higher contrast for diffusion sources, lower contrast for condenser enlargers.
If you wander into the world of Zone System work, you may find yourself shooting individual sheets of film, and adjusting the development on each (N, N-1, N+1) to expand or contract the contrast, in the hope of adjusting for the inherent contrast of the subject. The goal being to match the scene and to print as close to effortlessly as possible.
In the interest of pedantry, I will mention that dreaded word "push". It only refers to a change in development and has nothing to do with how you expose or meter.
One "pushes" development to increase near shadow and mid-tone contrast, usually in circumstances where a photographer is forced to under-expose film. A "push" doesn't retrieve any of the shadow detail lost because of the under-exposure, but it does make those near-shadows and under-exposed mid-tones look more pleasing. The "push" will often negatively affect how highlights are rendered - highlight detail is often either lost or rendered with poor contrast.

I've read a couple of books about the full zone system and I get the basic premise of it, but never had the opportunity to try out the full system. I think I understand now your original suggestion of increasing development of HP5 to approximately match the contrast of the FP4. In my first post I wrote "HP5+ has a 'lower contrast'", I realize now that it was basically an 'abuse of notation'. I suppose all I'm trying to ask is whether you could print HP5 negs to look as if they were shot on FP4 without a lot of darkroom manipulation.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Going to say I thought this thread was about HP5 negatives that already been developed and that the OP wanted to get the same darkroom result/look that he gets from his FP4 negatives.

Pheraps I am confused.............Or pheraphs not.

 

[banandrew]

Going to say I thought this thread was about HP5 negatives that already been developed and that the OP wanted to get the same darkroom result/look that he gets from his FP4 negatives.

Pheraps I am confused.............Or pheraphs not.

It did get a little bit off track didn't it I guess one reason for my asking this question is whether I could use HP5 for the speed but still print it to look as FP4 (ignoring issues of grain). Matt has suggested I try increasing contrast (which I understand to mean increase development) with HP5 until it matches that of FP4, and see how similar they are.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It did get a little bit off track didn't it I guess one reason for my asking this question is whether I could use HP5 for the speed but still print it to look as FP4 (ignoring issues of grain). Matt has suggested I try increasing contrast (which I understand to mean increase development) with HP5 until it matches that of FP4, and see how similar they are.

Don't let my comment discourage you from trying - by all means prove us wrong.

But...

HP5 and FP4 have different characteristics with respect to tonality. HP5+ will have what looks like 'more' mid-tones, so even if you get the overall contrast identical with the two films, where shadows and highlights have the same values in your print, the mid-tones will be more prominent with HP5.

You will never get there completely. But you might be able to get close enough where it doesn't matter. In the end, both films are supremely excellent products that will yield great prints.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Would you consider toning your prints which lack the certain gusto?

A minute or two in selenium toner can do wonders ...

 

[banandrew]

Would you consider toning your prints which lack the certain gusto?

A minute or two in selenium toner can do wonders ...

Oh, now that's interesting. I'd never looked into toning as I once read that the chemicals were a lot more dangerous than the usual black and white chems. I did very poorly in highschool chemistry and I don't want to kill myself or my family! Maybe it's worth looking into again though as it could be fun...

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

There are toners which are quite unhealthy, but at least selenium, gold and thiourea toning does not involve more dangerous chemicals than you already have for developing & fixing or in your household.

Selenium toning will increase the density in the shadows first, if you proceed it will affect the mid tones and last the highlights. Results depend on the paper, developer used and dilution and temperature of the toner. There might also be a change in colour leaving you print a little pinkish.

Gold toner starts working in the highlights, then it darkens the mid tones and last the shadows. It should make your print a little blueish and give it a cold tone.

Play around a little, it is not difficult.

A word of warning: if your paper is fogged or your process is "dirty", Toners will enhance any flaw there and is, even if it was not seen before.

And: This is not a magic bullet. If there is nothing in the highlights before toning, there will be nothing in the highlights after toning (except for maybe an ugly stain). But it can increase the contrast and make a flat print a lot more interesting.

 

[banandrew]

Thanks for the info and encouragement. I think I will look into it before my next darkroom session. I've read that it will only have a small effect on RC papers, so maybe this is also the time to get a box of FB paper too.

 

[NB23]

fp4 @ iso 25 would be my Try to lower its contrast

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for the info and encouragement. I think I will look into it before my next darkroom session. I've read that it will only have a small effect on RC papers, so maybe this is also the time to get a box of FB paper too.

Toning and results thereof isn't a matter of what kind of substrate the paper emulsion is on, but rather the emulsion itself. RC and fiber papers tone with various effectiveness depending on emulsion.
Most sulfide and thiourea toners will exhibit a lot of print color if bleached to completion. Then follow-up in selenium or gold will give even more color. But if you tone directly in selenium, some papers show almost no effect at all, while others show significant difference, both in tone and in color. It's an interesting chapter, and I recommend reading Tim Rudman's 'The Toning Book' if you can find a copy. It's very good.