Good results with HP5+ (also 400TX) and DK-50 1:1

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm sure there is always someone looking around for an answer to the question "but what about this developer and that film?" so I thought I'd share some useful impressions.

I've shot 400TX in 120 using my Rolleiflex 3.5 (Tessar) the other day. It was a very bright, but also clear day, perfectly haze-free. I had read in Anchell and Troop that DK-50 was favourable to midtones and highlight contrast. That's why they recommend using it for studio portraits, where you have a narrow range of illumination. So I bought a kit from PF.

That said, when shooting outside, I treated my film like slides, and metered to ensure that highlights would not blow up (I was at f/11 and 1/500 in full noonlight). I shot at EI 400. There are also anecdotal reports that recommend mellowing the developer with a few rolls, and then replenishing. I went instead the one-shot route, and used DK-50 1:1. Kodak happens to recommend 6 mins for 400TX.

The results? I'm very pleased: my 400TX is almost like 320TXP, in that the image is very sharp, the grain is pleasant (this is 120, and I enlarge up to 11x14), but most importantly it has that upswept curve, this glowing highlight separation I've been missing. And there's plenty of shadow detail, but they're still shadows, don't expect 14 stops of detail!

The negatives printed perfectly at a grade 2 on Ilford MGIV RC, but on MG FB I needed to use a grade 1. Go figure.

It's comparable in look to HC-110, but more so in terms of sharpness and highlight contrast. I'm terribly pleased and will keep on using it in other lighting situations to further understand its usefulness, but it's clearly a "look" that I like. Will try to post pictures when I can.

Anyway, I'm posting this because trying out stuff can sometimes be scary or nerve-wracking, but this one is really one worth trying.

 

[Trask]

I’m pleased to hear of your success with DK-50 1:1 because I too was interested in trying it out, mixed up a batch, developed some film, and was not very impressed. My take-away was that I’d not used the developer properly, perhaps in agitation, or perhaps in using it too soon after mixing. So now that it was mellowed/aged, I’ll do another run and see what’s what. There are too many success stories on the web by users of DK-50 for me to walk away without further testing. So — thanks for the inspiration!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I suppose it's always relative to the kind of results expected. I went with three agitations every 30 secs, at 20C.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Could you show us the results?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Here's the best I could do to reproduce the print: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/finally-back-in-the-darkroom.62584/

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

And some close-up of specific areas.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ultimately, the point is that once your exposure is correct, this has character.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The negatives printed perfectly at a grade 2 on Ilford MGIV RC, but on MG FB I needed to use a grade 1. Go figure.

I was cleaning up tonight, and since I had opened a new box of Ilford MGIV RC, I thought now was the time to read the documentation (yeah, it's becoming an obsession of mine.... https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-things-you-learn-when-actually-reading-the-docs.175352/).

I suppose I'm not the first to understand what ISO (R) means?

For those who would like to pretend they already knew, well Ilford MGIV RC has an ISO (R) of 110 at grade 2; Ilford MG FB Classic has an ISO (R) of 110, but at grade 1.

So it means that the contrast range you can print on G2 of RC is the same as G1 on FB. That's why.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Well, well, a couple of months in, quite a few rolls, and I think I found that HP5+ in 120 is an excellent match for DK-50 1+1. I shoot at EI 250 or so, and developed 5 mins (5s agitation every 30s).

I was initially drawn to try HP5+ just because it was cheaper (like, half the price of Tri-X), but I stayed for the look.

It has slightly more shadow details than Tri-X, which is actually a boon if you're shooting outside. It also has smoother gradations: in 120, 400TX is already quite contrasty, and gets more so in DK-50. But HP5+ is just soft enough that the look of DK-50 is tempered to a sweet spot.

The combo has all I want: a versatile look, sharpness, good midtones, personality with balance. More to do with this.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Alright, so I posted this image in the gallery. I think it shows well the characteristics of the HP5+ and DK-50 1+1 combo. It's very nicely sharp, and grain is there just enough to help with sharpness/texture (I printed on 8x10). I really like this look.

You can also see the characteristic contrast of DK-50. Unlike D-76, which gives good shadow detail and evens out contrast, DK-50 has a more "icy" look: there are brilliant highlights, and the contrast is more apparent. Shadows quickly fall off, but you can still have delicate gradations. I find that on Tri-X the loss of shadow detail is maybe exaggerated, but on HP5+ it's more balanced.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I was re-reading Kodak J-1 publication, and then I fell upon this nugget I had overlooked, on page 29:

Replenishment: Add 30 milliliters (1 fluidounce) of KODAK Replenisher DK-50R per 8 x 10-inch (20.3 x 25.4-centimeter) sheet or equivalent (516 square centimeters or 80 square inches) processed.

If the developer is diluted 1:1 for use, the replenisher should be diluted in the same proportion [emphasis mine].

I knew that DK-50 1:1 was usable for up to 5 rolls per litre before exhaustion, and I have reused my developer in the past with success.

However, for some reason, I used to believe that replenishment was only an option with the full-strength developer. It's the case for other developers, like D-76, but here good old faithful DK-50 makes itself amenable to replenishment even in diluted form! I clicked when I saw someone casually mentioning it on another forum, so I went back to the documentation, and here we are.

I am totally going to start a replenishing system with a 2L jug of DK-50 1:1 and a 1L one of DK-50R 1:1. I just need to pour my developer into my tank, process, return to the large jug, top it off with replenisher, and we're good to go.

I've always been curious about the claims of "ripened" developers, so this is now a good opportunity to make an opinion for myself.

 

[Paul Howell]

This is good know, I been using DK 50 stock with short developer times then replenished, now I can develop 1:1.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

With DK-50 diluted 1+1, I have been able to print HP5 in Alt processes, such as Carbon Transfer. HP5 is a very stubborn film when it comes to Alt.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for sharing your results, Michel. Great tone!
Yes, HP5+ has a wonderful upswept curve and middle and highlight contrast in DK-50 (same as diluted HC-110).
And grain's character is superb: I don't like HP5+ better in any other developer.
Currently I'm testing how much exposure shadows can receive -without blocking highlights- for short development times and reduced agitation in case of sunny landscapes...
I mean for direct printing, not for dodging and burning.
We can use several stops more light than sunny 16.
HP5+ is amazing.
Current HP5+ with sharp grain can sometimes look like older versions of Tri-X.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have said this before about DK-50 and that is I could probably get by just fine if it were the only developer out there. I have used it more diluted than 1:1 and liked it better. You can dilute it even more and it acts like a Buetler style developer. I have never tried it replenished since I use Xtol-R, but later this summer I might just try it replenished for my 4X5 negatives and see how it works. I know it works really nice with Fuji Acros, Shanghai GP3 and HP5+ in 120. Grain is no problem. At least for me anyway.

 

[gone]

I love the spook pic Michel.

DK 50 was recommended by several people here, but I haven't tried it because I'm worried it would go off quickly like D76. I've had lots of issues w/ that developer over the years, once it's mixed up as a stock solution it gets weird quickly in my Tucson summer temps.

It was like that in Fl as well. The F76 Plus I often use is one shot and lasts months in the bottle. It gives similar results from what I see, at least w/ Foma 400 and Tri-X.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I've seen a few comments that can give DK-50 a bad rep, but for some reason that eludes me they come from people who have bought 50-year old unopened cans of developer from a yard sale. Once you mix from scratch, it becomes just another developer with a nice sharpness and a characteristic tonal response.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've seen a few comments that can give DK-50 a bad rep, but for some reason that eludes me they come from people who have bought 50-year old unopened cans of developer from a yard sale. Once you mix from scratch, it becomes just another developer with a nice sharpness and a characteristic tonal response.

I agree and I also mix from scratch.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I switched over from one-shot to replenished DK-50 1:1, and in 120 the results are still the same.

So I took the opportunity to try it on 35mm, because why not? The results are divided. Grain is big and visible, but it has a "fibrous" structure at this magnification, a little bit like when you look at a sheet of paper through light and see the individual fibres.

It's still very sharp, but it won't be as versatile as 120. Skies are mottled. Very fine details (although they are resolved) literally interfere with grain, so that it can create odd "noisy" effects (to make a digital comparison).

The grain pattern worked well with photos that had very smooth out-of-focus backgrounds, because it added a little tooth, a little texture, making it paper-like. It also worked with some images that had fine details, but caveat emptor as I said above.

I won't be using it regularly for 35 mm, but I'm glad I tried it out. I'll probably go back to XTOL or D-76 because of the better tonality and still very good sharpness.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I agree and I also mix from scratch.

we continue to agree, John. With 35mm T-grain 400 @ box dil. 1+9 for 13min I am most impressed. Little grain and very acceptible contrast. As soon as I saw the results I decided I could live with that if it was all I could get, as said above.
N.B. FX-37 is the phenidone equivalent.

 

[John Wiegerink]

we continue to agree, John. With 35mm T-grain 400 @ box dil. 1+9 for 13min I am most impressed. Little grain and very acceptible contrast. As soon as I saw the results I decided I could live with that if it was all I could get, as said above.
N.B. FX-37 is the phenidone equivalent.

Hi Murray,
I'm still using the wine bags you so graciously sent me. I hope you're still having fun making empty ones, just in case I might need a couple more. Ha-ha! I made a batch of FX37 a few years back and liked it very much with Ilford Delta films, but when it was gone/expired I didn't make more. I think that both DK-50 and FX37 are extremely good developers and very versatile at different dilutions. The trouble for me is I'm on that damn Xtol-R addiction, and it's so hard to get upset with Xtol-R to make me want to go in another direction.
I often scratch my head when people talk about grain (in the negative) since most viewers look at prints, not negatives. Only us crazy photocologist look at negatives. The prints are where it's all at and where it should be as far as grain is concerned. I once took a series of pictures of the front of a coal-black steam locomotive on a bright, near cloudless day, using both FP4+ and HP5+ in 120. They were processed in the same developer and the results from both films were first-rate with equal shadow detail and no blown highlights. I then made wet prints from each on 11X14 paper at a 16X20 equivalent. Guess which one I liked the most? Yup, the HP5+ print had a “bite” to it that made it look more three-dimensional and sharp/snappy. Grain wise? I couldn't really see any at arm's length, and even closer. The FP4+ print just had a “softer” look, or maybe I should say “smoother” look. I actually think the slightly bigger grain of the HP5+ was a benefit to that old locomotive, whereas the FP4+ would have made a great portrait of one of my lovely granddaughters. Lesson learned, “ALL GRAIN AIN'T BAD”. Of course if the shots had been on 35mm then maybe the FP4+ would have won me over? Who knows!
Just my 2 cents worth,
JohnW

 

[Paul Howell]

I've been using Dk stock with Foma 400, have switched to 1:1 to lengthen the developing time, even with film hangers 31/2 minutes was just too short. Sometime this week will try Foma 400 6X9.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've been using Dk stock with Foma 400, have switched to 1:1 to lengthen the developing time, even with film hangers 31/2 minutes was just too short. Sometime this week will try Foma 400 6X9.

Paul,
I'm with you and have never liked or needed short developing times. A college photography course I took years ago require us to use Tri-X developed in HC110 dil. B. Many of us rookies had a hard time getting real consistent results due to a very slim margin of error in the timing department. It was a Zone System class, and I think they wanted us to use what AA used. After the class was over, I switched to Ilford ID11 and was much happier. I do realize that some folks require a short developing time for various reasons, but for me, it's asking for trouble. Good luck with your work on testing out DK-50.
JohnW

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Hi Murray,
I'm still using the wine bags you so graciously sent me. I hope you're still having fun making empty ones, just in case I might need a couple more. Ha-ha! I made a batch of FX37 a few years back and liked it very much with Ilford Delta films, but when it was gone/expired I didn't make more. I think that both DK-50 and FX37 are extremely good developers and very versatile at different dilutions. The trouble for me is I'm on that damn Xtol-R addiction, and it's so hard to get upset with Xtol-R to make me want to go in another direction.
I often scratch my head when people talk about grain (in the negative) since most viewers look at prints, not negatives. Only us crazy photocologist look at negatives. The prints are where it's all at and where it should be as far as grain is concerned. I once took a series of pictures of the front of a coal-black steam locomotive on a bright, near cloudless day, using both FP4+ and HP5+ in 120. They were processed in the same developer and the results from both films were first-rate with equal shadow detail and no blown highlights. I then made wet prints from each on 11X14 paper at a 16X20 equivalent. Guess which one I liked the most? Yup, the HP5+ print had a “bite” to it that made it look more three-dimensional and sharp/snappy. Grain wise? I couldn't really see any at arm's length, and even closer. The FP4+ print just had a “softer” look, or maybe I should say “smoother” look. I actually think the slightly bigger grain of the HP5+ was a benefit to that old locomotive, whereas the FP4+ would have made a great portrait of one of my lovely granddaughters. Lesson learned, “ALL GRAIN AIN'T BAD”. Of course if the shots had been on 35mm then maybe the FP4+ would have won me over? Who knows!
Just my 2 cents worth,
JohnW

"photocologist". Sounds suspiciously like proctologist. How does one decide to be a proctologist anyhow? Dentistry is bad enough. Staring into one orifice or the other. No thank you.

 

[John Wiegerink]

"photocologist". Sounds suspiciously like proctologist. How does one decide to be a proctologist anyhow? Dentistry is bad enough. Staring into one orifice or the other. No thank you.

Paul,
With either one of those professions, it all depends on how you look at it.