Do you like HP5+ ?

[Michael Kadillak]

The HR curve for HP5+ is an elongated S shape that at the top end goes nearly horizontal. What this means very simplistically is that if this film is density limiting and this limitation needs to be understood for what it is.

Alt processors and grade 2 Azo printers that need larger density ranges within the negative (1.6 - 2.0) and may occasionally need to expand development within their development likely run into this gamma infinity situation with HP5 and likely opt for other alternatives. The reason is that the film does not have the density capability to get the job done.

Silver printers that only need a density range of 1.0 can use HP5, but must be aware that if you are not extracting its full film speed and are expanding development it could impact the tonal range of your prints.

As a comparison, there are several films that build density like a .44 magnum and for which this "concern" is moot. Efke/Adox has many films that meet this criteria like PL100 and Efke 25 (the ones that I have tested and used) and T Max 400 and T Max 100 and even FP4+.

I saw some Super XX negatives of Michael Smith that had such fog on them (probably over 0.5 density units) they looked like what you would use to view an eclipse with to protect your eyes. But because Super XX builds density like a hot damn these negatives printed absolutely marvelously.

The story inside ths story from a strategic perspective and the primary reason that I bring this subject up is this.

If I am going to store film long term I need to select a film that can carry naturally occuring FB+F without the risk of having an operational "ceiling" that could get me in trouble down the road. It is like carrying an insurance policy.

 

[mikebarger]

I use tri-x 120 and 35, but HP5 in 4x5 as Tri-x 400 isn't made in that size.

Mike

 

[keithwms]

Along the lines of what Mike just pointed out: my preference for hp5+ (as opposed to tri-x) has to do with the fact that I can readily get it in all formats, out to 8x10. I use it with ID11 1+1 for all formats, and love it. The destination of my hp5+ stuff is always silver prints; if it weren't, then I would consider some other film/dev combo.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

HP5 plus pulled in bright conditions produces stunning prints with glowing shadows and soft highlights. In flat, overcast conditions it is a poor choice IMO, esp if you use a very soft enlarger as I do. I had two rolls of HP5 + that were over two years out of date which I used in an emergency here. Guesstimated development time for Xtol 1+2 and the resultant negs were absolutely fantastic. Side by side on the light box next to TriX, the HP5 grain is less regular (more salt and pepper) but noticeably sharper. The film has considerable inherent acutance and anyone who has used pyro devs with this film will be able to tell you. I think it is grainier than TriX and is less suited to hard prints (it would be a poor choice if trying to mimic the Salgado look IMO) but as I say, try it at 200 in perceptol or aculux with conservative development for beautiful prints albeit with a limited range. As some have said, in overcast condition it does make everywhere look like England! In flat light it is my last choice. for bright scenes where you want very open shadows and a silvery look, overexpose, underdevelop and the prints are quite lovely.

 

[jp80874]

Not mentioned so far, but another reason to try other films is how long will Kodak keep making Tri X in this size? I don't see any 7x17 Tri X. Or shorter question, how long will Kodak make film? I read here that Glazer's didn't get enough orders to reach Kodak's minimum on 11x14 or 7x17. Those are pretty basic LF sizes. The price was the stopper for me.

John Powers

 

[nworth]

400TX is my standard 35mm black and white film, but I have used a bit of HP5+ sheet film. It is difficult to compare such widely differing formats, but my impression of HP5+ is very good. These are quite different films, however. Try five rolls or so, and see what you think. In tests, HP5+ shows outstanding tonal separation - better than Tri-X, but it may not show up in the prints. One of the outstanding qualities of Tri-X is the subtle differentiations it gives in the midtones. I like its look. HP5+ is different - not better or worse, just different. It looks a bit more bland to me, but that's me.

 

[FredW]

Yes, I really like HP5+, its may standard film in sheet film sizes I use, 4x5, 8x10, and 11x14. I also starting to like FP4+, its given some excellent results for my Alt. Process work, and now I can order it once a year with the ULF program, I could not be happier.

 

[dr5chrome]

..while i think TX and TXP are great emulsions, HP5, though different is as good if not better in some lighting conditions. In all, HP5 is our highest volume film.

regards
dw

www.dr5.com

I shoot tons of Tri-X and thought of getting some HP5+, just to sample the grass on the other side of the fence.My only problem is that the local shop sells it for $8.00 a roll and to make things economically sound I'd have to go bulk load.
Is it a silly idea to try another 400 speed B&W film?

Thanks