how to shoot up contrast on hp5?

[2F/2F]

I have to know why you decided to try Perceptol as a solution to a flat negative...

Perceptol reduces the speed even more. I tested once with this developer and it made Tri-X sheets half the speed I got in HC-110 (EI 125 - Tri-X!). Highlights were also pretty tame, and grain was mushy ugly, making the pictures kind of soft. Probably a very neat look for certain work, but not for general purposes. I went no farther with it than establishing a working EI and normal development, and finishing off the batch. If I ever want a soft look with absolutely no "bite", I know what developer to use!

So, the fact that you got "better" negs in Perceptol is purely a matter of shooting conditions and/or variables in development.

I also have to know your test methods. If you don't keep test conditions the same roll to roll, you are shooting blanks in the dark. Next post you will have tried Pan F in D-19 and wonder why your prints look like a charcoal and chalk drawing. Bite the bullet and do a film speed and normal development test. You don't have to do the whole zone system thing, but anyone will benefit from at least doing these two tests.

 

[pierods]

For you, to increase total contrast, you under expose and over develop, to stretch out the tonal response of the film. This is true for all films.
- Thomas

That would mean loading a roll of hp5, setting my camera to 500/600 iso, shooting my photos, and developing at 20/30% longer, right?

 

[jim appleyard]

400-center weighted.

I must say that after posting, I developed my film in perceptol stock and the situation got better.

not up to par to fomapan r100, but better.

OK. Perceptol 1+0 (stock) is a speed reducing dev. I would try using HP-5 in it at an EI (400 is the film's ISO, but when you expose the film at a different "ISO", the term then becomes Exposure Index) of 200 or maybe even 160. That may give you the negs you're looking for. There is much more info on this than I can write here. I'll try to post a link for you.

Lots of info at this site, but this may get you started:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps iso speeds.html

 

[argus]

That would mean loading a roll of hp5, setting my camera to 500/600 iso, shooting my photos, and developing at 20/30% longer, right?

Pierods,

if you want to get more contrast from HP5+, try my approach:

EI 250
developer: Tanol 1+1+100. This is a staining developer, blocking the highlights more but still with detail, so you can burn-in as you wish (I print with a diffusing enlarger). 20C.
Time: 12 minutes on a Jobo CPE2 - yes, that is continuous agitation!


I love not too far from Brussels, if you want hands-on for this or want to see my film & prints in person before trying it, just drop me a line.

Kind regards,
Geert

 

[2F/2F]

Why are people telling him to give more exposure if he wants more contrast? I don't get it. Perhaps if he were complaining that his dark areas are too thin, but not if he just wants to give his negs a bit more pop. The first step should be to rate your film as you have it, and just test increased development. 10%, 15%, 20%...whatever...until you get what you like.

But then again, all useless unless you are consistent in your methods and analysis.

 

[argus]

Why are people telling him to give more exposure if he wants more contrast? I don't get it. Perhaps if he were complaining that his dark areas are too thin, but not if he just wants to give his negs a bit more pop. The first step should be to rate your film as you have it, and just test increased development. 10%, 15%, 20%...whatever...until you get what you like.

But then again, all useless unless you are consistent in your methods and analysis.

What you get on film is a result of the combination exposure+development.
There are many ways to Rome... mine is only one and you won't hear me tell that it is the best way

G

 

[2F/2F]

"What you get on film is a result of the combination exposure+development."

Exactly my point. Why would 2/3-stop more exposure increase the OP's contrast? It might get him closer to his "true" workable EI, but would not increase contrast. It would decrease it.

Such specifics are not really the question here, as everyone's equipment, materials, and methods will give different results. The OP needs to sit down and bite the bullet and be consistent and do some testing to be able to control what he wants. He does not need to try various specific suggestions that work for the rest of us.

I am sure your formula is beautiful...for YOU, but my point was that it is too much specific information that is applicable only to you. Taken as you wrote it, the OPs contrast would go down simply by rating his film at 250. It may be your true EI, but simply rerating a film from 400 to 250 will not increase the OP's contrast. Following someone else's magic bullet suggestion is about as useless as patching a steam pipe with duct tape. It'll sort of help, but only until the next plant transient. Are you also suggesting he go and buy a Jobo and do everything just like you?

What you have done is given him a formula that you use to obtain a nice high contrast neg. My problem is that it could be taken as general instructions for contrast-increasing techniques, which it is not.

I agree that the negs would be better your way. If you read one of my earlier posts, I make a similar suggestion as you: downrate the film to open up the shadows, which seemed totally thin in his scans, and add development. But this is based on my critique of the pix he posted, not some magic bullet pulled from my portfolio of working methods. It was not intended as a blind answer on how to increase contrast in general, but intended as a specific analysis of his posted pix, and what I think the problem is. I thought the problem was not as simple as "not enough contrast", and had to do with underexposure as well.

Who wants to get to Rome anyhow...it is a dreadful place...

 

[argus]

"What you get on film is a result of the combination exposure+development."

Exactly my point. Why would 2/3-stop more exposure increase the OP's contrast? It might get him closer to his "true" workable EI, but would not increase contrast.

I guess you did not read my earlier post very well... I did mention something about development, but... never mind

G

 

[argus]

"What you get on film is a result of the combination exposure+development."

Exactly my point. Why would 2/3-stop more exposure increase the OP's contrast? It might get him closer to his "true" workable EI, but would not increase contrast. It would decrease it.

Such specifics are not really the question here, as everyone's equipment, materials, and methods will give different results. The OP needs to sit down and bite the bullet and be consistent and do some testing to be able to control what he wants. He does not need to try various specific suggestions that work for the rest of us.

I am sure your formula is beautiful...for YOU, but my point was that it is too much specific information that is applicable only to you. Taken as you wrote it, the OPs contrast would go down simply by rating his film at 250. It may be your true EI, but simply rerating a film from 400 to 250 will not increase the OP's contrast. Following someone else's magic bullet suggestion is about as useless as patching a steam pipe with duct tape. It'll sort of help, but only until the next plant transient. Are you also suggesting he go and buy a Jobo and do everything just like you?

What you have done is given him a formula that you use to obtain a nice high contrast neg. My problem is that it could be taken as general instructions for contrast-increasing techniques, which it is not.

I agree that the negs would be better your way. If you read one of my earlier posts, I make a similar suggestion as you: downrate the film to open up the shadows, which seemed totally thin in his scans, and add development. But this is based on my critique of the pix he posted, not some magic bullet pulled from my portfolio of working methods. It was not intended as a blind answer on how to increase contrast in general, but intended as a specific analysis of his posted pix, and what I think the problem is. I thought the problem was not as simple as "not enough contrast", and had to do with underexposure as well.

Who wants to get to Rome anyhow...it is a dreadful place...

Editing your post and adding 1 sentence and 5 paragraphs of arguments to it (including one joke, but I haven't been to Rome yet) is in my eyes unfair in an online discussion.

Add the fact that I don't like to argue on the internet and I rest my case here.

G

 

[2F/2F]

I always write the gist and post it, and update continuously as I finish, to avoid losing my posts if they will be long ones!

And, the basic structure of what you highlighted WAS there very soon, if not right in the first draft.

There is nothing to argue about anyhow. Why not just state your point instead? You cannot rest a case that you have not even made.

Heavenforbid someone should add a JOKE after the fact...

 

[jim appleyard]

Why are people telling him to give more exposure if he wants more contrast? I don't get it.QUOTE]

Because the two are often confused as one. Just my experience teaching the youth of America photography.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's exactly right. Something along those lines should get you more contrast. It really is as simple as that. Here's what you do:
1. Expose a roll where you bracket between EI 400 and 800 and develop normal. Pick the EI that gives you the shadow density you like for the level of black you prefer in your prints / scans.
2. Expose another roll at that EI and then cut the roll in thirds. Develop the first cut at your normal time, check it out, see if you like the highlight density or not. If too little, develop longer. And if you still need more to experiment with, there is a third cut to play with.
So, in all, you probably need two rolls and some time to dial in the results you want, but it's as easy as that.

Good luck,

- Thomas

That would mean loading a roll of hp5, setting my camera to 500/600 iso, shooting my photos, and developing at 20/30% longer, right?

 

[2F/2F]

'That's exactly right. Something along those lines should get you more contrast. It really is as simple as that."

Indeed...for a blanket increase in contrast similar to printing on a harder paper. That is the quick answer to the OP's question of how to "shoot up contrast". It will work for any film; black and white or color, positive or negative.

However, it is important to identify the problem accurately when searching for a solution. We have the benefit of seeing the actual pix. IMO, in this case, the OP does not need a blanket increase in contrast. That would send what little shadow density he does have on an already thin neg into oblivion. IMO he simply has weak highlights. His darks are fine, if not a bit *too* dark.

And the HP5 pix are supposedly more flat.

There really is no answer, as the OP has not stated that he will stay consistent and perform the necessary tests to give himself some command of his medium. So all this is in vain anyhow until that happens. It'll just be one "what if" and "why" and "how" after another.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Pierods if you've not already done so you might like to try a more vigourous/energetic developer then Perceptol, something like Rodinal diluted 1:25, Pyrocat HD diluted 1:2:100 (1 part soln. A, 2 parts soln. B to 100ml water) or as others have mentioned HC110, there are many others out there in the market place and/or from fomula.

Whenever I need more contrast (N+1) I switch from my standard developer (PMK Pyro) to either Pyrocat HD or Rodinal. Further contrast adjustments I undertake at the printing stage and on the very rare occasion selenium intensify the negative. These of course are my methods that work well for me, others have their ways and methods of working. For me that is part of the beauty of photography, it's not always an exact science, it has one foot in 'science' the other in 'art'.

 

[keithwms]

Pierods there are different kinds of contrast; you have to decide what you want.

Foremost there is contrast index (CI), which is basically the range of density (Dmax-Dmin) in your neg; you can look up the formal definition. CI is what people are usually talking about when they speak of boosting contrast in a neg. More often than not, when people say they aren't getting enough contrast and you look at their negs, those negs are thin. And when you print a thin neg, it's pretty hard to build more contrast into the print without clumping tones together or getting sloppy grain in the print. Hence the advice given by some (including me) that if your negs tend thin according to a standard dev procedure, then you might boost the exposure next time around. Yes you can play with development as well, but I urge you to play with one variable at a time! It's not a bad idea to just pin down your development procedures, including dilutions, times, temps, agitations etc. and play with the exposure variable first.

N.b rating the film a bit slower than box speed is *not* the same thing as overexposing to the point that the highlights start blocking up. :rolleyes: Shooting a b&w film a half stop or so slower than box speed may not really be an overexposure at all; it may simply be the optimal exposure for your desired CI... using your dev conditions and your metering habits.

Note that there are many potions for slightly boosting contrast in a neg which is a bit thin; you can read up on the relative merits of Se toning and using intensifiers etc. but first and foremost, try to get appropriate CI in your negs!

Besides CI, there are several other issues you might consider:

* edge contrast / acutance, which is going to be a function of the film / developer / dev technique combo that you use. One could write volumes about this; the best thing to do is look at the massive dev chart and first try to identify which developers are acutance developers and why people do 1+0 or 1+1 or whatever. N.b. I use these developers: ID-11 1+0, 1+1, perceptol, xtol, tmax dev, and wd2d+, and I feel that these more than adequately span the range of effects that I desire.

Look, if you really want to get to brass tacks on how dev affects CI and edge contrast etc, then my advice is to shoot minisheet film, or do a clip tests on roll film. That way you'll learn very quickly. Much can be learned by simply shooting a whole roll of the same scene and separately developing a bunch of clips.

* scene contrast (for lack of a better term): of course, the contrast in a scene is a strong function of the light. When you shoot a b&w pan film, obviously you can play with scene contrast by using colour filters to raise or lower particular tonal values with respect to others. Of course, you can just hold the filter up to your eye to get a rough idea of the effect, but remember to think about the sensitivity curve of the film and the colour temp of the light you're using; the net effect will be a convolution of all these things, and if you realize that then you will see that exposure compensation can be nontrivial.

N.b. If you want really zippy edge contrast then you might consider one of the near-IR films like SFX or the Efke or the Rollei with a 72 filter or such.

* lens contrast: different lenses provide different contrast at different apertures etc. It is quite possible to see diminished contrast from certain lenses... particularly when they're shot wide open. This effect can be seen not only in edge contrast / sharpness but also overall tonal contrast. I don't want to start naming names, but if you read up on different lens families, you'll see that there is some consensus. Explore.

* Last but not least, too often people give up a lot of contrast simply by being too lazy to deploy a hood! Hood whenever and wherever you can!

Probably I left out some things, but anyway, my point is that there are a lot of issues here, but in my opinion, the best starting point is to decide whether your negs are too thin. And then start to consider other things... and bear in mind that there are many ways to skin a cat....

 

[Rob Archer]

Have a look at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) .

Taken on 35mm HP5+ @ ISO800 in Microphen at 1+1 at 20C. 17 minutes.

WorKs for me!

Rob