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.
... 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) …
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
I avoid the word "push" as much as possible!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?
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.
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.
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 itI 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.
Would you consider toning your prints which lack the certain gusto?
A minute or two in selenium toner can do wonders ...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?