Developer for FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X

[JackRosa]

Sneak Preview (Tri-X vs. HP5 & FP4)

Far from completing my tests, but here is a sneak preview:

120 film
prints: Oriental VC RC paper in PD-130 (1+1)
---------------------------------------------------
HP5 & FP4 in Rodinal (1+50)
Tri-X in D76 (1+1)
-------------------------------------------------
note: I've been using HP5 and FP4 (in Rodinal) in 4x5 and 8x10 as "my" films for many years.
-------------------------------------------------

Result: I like the Tri-X prints far, far better than the prints from the HP5 and FP4 in Rodinal. I thought it was going to b the other way around. Still have to do the PD-130 (1+10) tests but the Tri-X blew me away. I am now wondering whether I should look up Tri-X in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes and develop in D76 and compare against the negs achieved with HP5 in Rodinal!

Ouch .... more testing to be done.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Keep in mind that Tri-X 320 in sheets is a different animal compared to the Tri-X 400 in rolls.

The sheet film has a long toe which compresses shadows, and a straight to upswept tone curve, giving great mid tones and highlights. The 400 has a shorter toe and a shoulder, which compresses the highlights. They are, for all practical purposes, different films.

 

[removed account4]

Far from completing my tests, but here is a sneak preview:

120 film
prints: Oriental VC RC paper in PD-130 (1+1)
---------------------------------------------------
HP5 & FP4 in Rodinal (1+50)
Tri-X in D76 (1+1)
-------------------------------------------------
note: I've been using HP5 and FP4 (in Rodinal) in 4x5 and 8x10 as "my" films for many years.
-------------------------------------------------

Result: I like the Tri-X prints far, far better than the prints from the HP5 and FP4 in Rodinal. I thought it was going to b the other way around. Still have to do the PD-130 (1+10) tests but the Tri-X blew me away. I am now wondering whether I should look up Tri-X in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes and develop in D76 and compare against the negs achieved with HP5 in Rodinal!

Ouch .... more testing to be done.

sounds like you are on a roll !

i tend to use the same dilution and time for ALL my film no matter the iso or sheet/roll ... its ez like that ..
but like with everything internet, my way might be totally bogus .. good to see you are testing to see
what works for you ( YMMV )

and good to see you are still having fun!
john

 

[JackRosa]

Thank You Thomas

Keep in mind that Tri-X 320 in sheets is a different animal compared to the Tri-X 400 in rolls.

The sheet film has a long toe which compresses shadows, and a straight to upswept tone curve, giving great mid tones and highlights. The 400 has a shorter toe and a shoulder, which compresses the highlights. They are, for all practical purposes, different films.

Thank you Thomas, I was not aware that Tri-X sheet and 120 were different animals. I like shadow detail and therefore the toe would be a problem for me.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks Michael

Be careful not to draw conclusions about films without comparing them using the same developers, same test subjects, same contrast index. HP5, Tri-X 400 and FP4 have very similar characteristic curves, so all other things being equal they should produce very similar "tonality", although image structure will be different. Tri-X 320 (sheet) is a different story.

Beware the limitations and pitfalls of tests, or else it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

Good advice, Michael. I know you are 100% correct and this is why I called my posting a "Sneak Preview"

I plan on developing FP4 and HP5 in D76 (1+1) in order that the comparison is objective. The subject will, of course, be the same subject, same lighting, same camera position (camera on tripod), and films developed to achieve same (approx.) values for Zone I and Zone VIII. I favor density (I) higher than 0.1 above (fb+f) and shoot for density (VIII) = 1.35 above (fb+f).

The essence of my message is: agreed! . . . the tests need to be systematic and objective before drawing conclusions. The variables/conditions need to be the same for all tests.

 

[JackRosa]

Developing in PD-130 (1+10) is part of the tests - and I will report results.

Now that I started this testing, I am invested and feel the need to carry these tests to the nth degree. I am obsessive that way! In the end, it is all about the image and the "look", regardless of all the technical stuff, but having a technical background, I have a need to know (or at least to think I know) the science behind it.

 

[JackRosa]

In PD.130 (1+10) next

sounds like you are on a roll !

i tend to use the same dilution and time for ALL my film no matter the iso or sheet/roll ... its ez like that ..
but like with everything internet, my way might be totally bogus .. good to see you are testing to see
what works for you ( YMMV )

and good to see you are still having fun!
john

John: PD130 (1+10) next. Although I was thinking of diluting (1+20), finally decided to go (1+10). Stay tuned . . . . . . .

 

[JackRosa]

Be careful not to draw conclusions about films without comparing them using the same developers, same test subjects, same contrast index. HP5, Tri-X 400 and FP4 have very similar characteristic curves, so all other things being equal they should produce very similar "tonality", although image structure will be different. Tri-X 320 (sheet) is a different story.

Beware the limitations and pitfalls of tests, or else it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

P.S. My preliminary conclusion was not about FP4 and HP5 alone (which I consider to be fine films); my conclusion was about the (film+developer) combo, namely [FP4+Rodinal (1+50)] and [HP5+Rodinal(1+50)]. One thing I know for sure is that I like Tri-X in D76 better than either FP4 or HP5 in Rodinal. Next step, of course, is to develop FP4 and HP5 in D76 and see what happens. I used Rodinal only; now I have a new friend: D76.

 

[removed account4]

John: PD130 (1+10) next. Although I was thinking of diluting (1+20), finally decided to go (1+10). Stay tuned . . . . . . .

1:20 ... sounds good to me !
don't forget to keep having fun !
john

 

[JackRosa]

Results are in for PD-130 (1+10)

The testing is far from over, but here are some preliminary results (re: PD-130):

Shots: Portraits ~ person standing next to big window. Natural light coming in.
Camera on tripod; person did not move other than to take breaths and blink eyes)

120 film,
HP5 and TriX both rated at EI=200 and developed to yield density (Zone VIII) = 1.35 (+/-) [above (fb+f)].
Developers: D76(1+1); PD-130(1+10)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
I am liking the look of Tri-X much, much better than HP5
(BTW - I developed some FP4 and HP5 in Rodinal (1+50) and don't like that look at all)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John was right! ... PD-130 is great!

A side-to-side comparison PD-130(1+10) vs. D76(1+1) shows almost no perceptible difference. If I were "pushed" to select one, I think I would go for D76, but I can tell you that (at least with my old eyes), the difference is negligible (if any).

I always thought of PD-130 as a paper developer and have been blown away by how well it performed as a film developer. JOHN - THANK YOU for sharing this insight.
- - - - - - - - -

I also took a few shots outside (deep shadows all the way to very bright highlights). When these tests are complete, I will share my observations.

 

[JackRosa]

XTOL

Now try XTOL and blow them both away! Ok I'll stop now. The last thing you want to do is get caught up in endless testing.

In the end what you observe with your own eyes is what counts. Glad these experiments gave you good results and you've found something you like.

Michael: thanks for the suggestion. I am always up for finding ways to achieve better rests. Thorough testing can be consuming but in the long run, when one compares the investment of time in testing vs. the many years ahead of good results, I think testing is a very good investment. I have not developed film in XTOL but I will!

Thanks again.

 

[JackRosa]

PD-130 (1+10) with FP4

Just as with HP5 and TX400, PD-130 (1+10) performed great with FP4. Side to side, I can barely tell the difference between the prints [negatives developed in (a) D76 (1+1) and (b) PD-130 (1+10)]. Another star for PD-130!

 

[JackRosa]

Results with PMK and Pyrocat HD

For the Portrait part of the testing (see details below), I also developed in PMK and Pyrocat HD. Although the results are excellent, I do not see a difference significant enough (vs. D76 or PD-130) to justify the additional trouble of using staining developers (staining of everything, toxicity, fooling of ZoneMaster II due to stain on negs).
Next step - see what happens with outside shots (which had deep shadows all the way to very bright highlights). Compare negs developed in D76 and PD-130 vs. negs developed in PMK and Pyrocat HD.

Note: I continue to favor the results achieved with TX400 vs. HP5+

Details
Portraits ~ person standing next to big window. Natural light coming in.
Camera on tripod; person did not move (other than to take breaths and blink eyes)
120 film,
HP5 and TriX both rated at EI=200

P.S. Do not mean to inundate this thread with postings; simply feel I need to share results/observations with my fellow APUGers who kindly provided insight & advice.

 

[removed account4]

im glad you are enjoying the developer jack
i know i have over the years ..

 

[JackRosa]

THANK YOU John

im glad you are enjoying the developer jack
i know i have over the years ..

John: PD-130 as a film developer is a great find - for me! I thank you!

 

[JackRosa]

XTOL vs. D76

Now try XTOL and blow them both away! Ok I'll stop now. The last thing you want to do is get caught up in endless testing.

In the end what you observe with your own eyes is what counts. Glad these experiments gave you good results and you've found something you like.

Michael: I am about to bring XTOL into the fold. In your experience, how does XTOL surpass D76? Speed? Shadow detail? Acutance? Tonality? All? I just want to keep my eyes open for the benefits you have already identified. Thanks in advance and I will let you know my observations/conclusions.

 

[JackRosa]

Michael: HD Curves - Yes, please

Thank you Michael. YES, I am familiar with H&D curves and find them most useful. I would appreciate you sharing HD curves on these 2 developers.

 

[JackRosa]

H&D Curves

Hoping Michael sends me the H&D curves for Tri-X 400 in D76 (1+1) and XTOL (1+1)

 

[JackRosa]

D76 vs XTOL

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developers: XTOL (1+1) and D76 (1+1)

Results/Observations:
I see XTOL yields a little better shadow detail and handles the highlights a little better. As far as grain, I did not see a visible difference with enlargements up to 16x20. OK, there was a difference but it took a 16x loupe to see it.
I like the "look" of D76 better, especially with portraits. There is a certain "look" with TX400 negs developed in D76 that (in my opinion) is hard to beat.

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developers: Pyrocat HD and PMK Pyro

Results/Observations: beautiful results (both portraits and landscapes) but not enough (in my eyes, anyway) to justify the additional trouble vs. just using D76 or XTOL. For sure, I would simply chose D76 for portraits and would consider the staining developers in cases where important highlights fall on Zone IX or above (when exposing for good shadow detail). Also, I think I like the "look" of Pyrocat HD better than PMK.

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developer: Formulary's PD-130 (1+10)

Results/Observations:for sure a close alternative to D76 or XTOL ~ both, portraits and landscapes. I keep liking the "look" of D76 better but would not hesitate to develop a roll in PD-130 if I am out of D76.

Film: FP4+ 120 size
Developers: Pyrocat HD, PMK Pyro, D76 (1+1), XTOL (1+1), PD-130 (1+10)

Results/Observations:the staining developers produce beautiful results buy my eyes do not see the difference (vs. D76 or XTOL) to justify the additional trouble of dealing with the staining stuff. PD-130 (1+10) again produced very nice results and in my opinion, is a close 2nd to D76.
I continue to like the "look" of D76 (1+1) the best, followed very closely by XTOL and PD-130. I consider the results achieved with the staining developers to be equal to the ones with D76. I can see using the Pyrocad HD or the PMK in situations where the important highlights fall above Zone VIII.

Film = HP5
I developed HP5 in all the developers mentioned above. I don't like "the look".

 

[TareqPhoto]

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developers: XTOL (1+1) and D76 (1+1)

Results/Observations:
I see XTOL yields a little better shadow detail and handles the highlights a little better. As far as grain, I did not see a visible difference with enlargements up to 16x20. OK, there was a difference but it took a 16x loupe to see it.
I like the "look" of D76 better, especially with portraits. There is a certain "look" with TX400 negs developed in D76 that (in my opinion) is hard to beat.

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developers: Pyrocat HD and PMK Pyro

Results/Observations: beautiful results (both portraits and landscapes) but not enough (in my eyes, anyway) to justify the additional trouble vs. just using D76 or XTOL. For sure, I would simply chose D76 for portraits and would consider the staining developers in cases where important highlights fall on Zone IX or above (when exposing for good shadow detail). Also, I think I like the "look" of Pyrocat HD better than PMK.

Film: Tri-X (TX400) 120 size
Developer: Formulary's PD-130 (1+10)

Results/Observations:for sure a close alternative to D76 or XTOL ~ both, portraits and landscapes. I keep liking the "look" of D76 better but would not hesitate to develop a roll in PD-130 if I am out of D76.

Film: FP4+ 120 size
Developers: Pyrocat HD, PMK Pyro, D76 (1+1), XTOL (1+1), PD-130 (1+10)

Results/Observations:the staining developers produce beautiful results buy my eyes do not see the difference (vs. D76 or XTOL) to justify the additional trouble of dealing with the staining stuff. PD-130 (1+10) again produced very nice results and in my opinion, is a close 2nd to D76.
I continue to like the "look" of D76 (1+1) the best, followed very closely by XTOL and PD-130. I consider the results achieved with the staining developers to be equal to the ones with D76. I can see using the Pyrocad HD or the PMK in situations where the important highlights fall above Zone VIII.

Film = HP5
I developed HP5 in all the developers mentioned above. I don't like "the look".

Develop HP5+ in one of the following three developers and thank me later: Microphen , DD-X, HC-110.

 

[JackRosa]

Will do Tareq

Develop HP5+ in one of the following three developers and thank me later: Microphen , DD-X, HC-110.

Thank you Tareq for your suggestions. Coming from a fellow engineer, I am just going to have to try these developers with HP5

 

[TareqPhoto]

Thank you Tareq for your suggestions. Coming from a fellow engineer, I am just going to have to try these developers with HP5

I have HC-110 and Microphen, but i didn't mix Microphen yet from its box, so i will not use it, but with a surprise i found 2 rolls i didn't develop yet in my fridge, one of them is HP5+, do you want me to develop it with HC-110 and tell you the result? or Ilfosol 3 or TMAX developers? i don't want to mix any powdered developers now.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks Tareq

I have HC-110 and Microphen, but i didn't mix Microphen yet from its box, so i will not use it, but with a surprise i found 2 rolls i didn't develop yet in my fridge, one of them is HP5+, do you want me to develop it with HC-110 and tell you the result? or Ilfosol 3 or TMAX developers? i don't want to mix any powdered developers now.

Tareq: I appreciate your offer. Please do not go through any trouble. I actually enjoy experimenting and would like to try this on my own. You have already helped plenty by suggesting the other developers in combination with HP5.

I happen to like HP5, as I like all Ilford products. In fact, HP5 in 8x10 format is the film that I have used (developed in Rodinal 1+25) for years. I used to use Tri-X (in HC-110) as my film of choice for 8x10 many years ago but became worried about Kodak's financial situation and decided it was time to try something new. I've been using the 8x10 HP5 for at least 5 years (possibly longer).

The 8x10 Tri-X is a different animal from the 120 size.

Thanks again and best regards,

Jack

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I personally find HP5+ to be more like Tri-X 400 if I give it less exposure than Tri-X and develop it longer for a slight bump in contrast. That is for D76 stock or 1+1.
Both are excellent in PMK Pyro when agitated every 15 seconds. You may wish to make sure you have more solution of PMK in your tank than you think you need, as it oxidizes and exhausts fairly rapidly. I even know of those who switch to a fresh bath half way through the process when they do rotary development due to developer exhaustion.

Sounds like you're doing it the right way.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks Thomas

I personally find HP5+ to be more like Tri-X 400 if I give it less exposure than Tri-X and develop it longer for a slight bump in contrast. That is for D76 stock or 1+1.
Both are excellent in PMK Pyro when agitated every 15 seconds. You may wish to make sure you have more solution of PMK in your tank than you think you need, as it oxidizes and exhausts fairly rapidly. I even know of those who switch to a fresh bath half way through the process when they do rotary development due to developer exhaustion.

Sounds like you're doing it the right way.

It makes sense! What was missing with HP5 was contrast! By exposing less and developing longer, I can see how this can "correct" the 'lackluster' look I was getting. I also tried Tri-X with PMK Pyro and liked it but felt something was "missing". I was agitating every 30 seconds. I may try developing a roll using agitation every 15 seconds and using more than the 500ml of developer (amount I used for my tests).

Question: have you had any experience with Pyrocat HD? If so, what are your impressions and how do you think Pyrocat HD compares against PMK Pyro for TRi-X or HP5 (or both)?

Thanks again for sharing your insight.