HP-5+ and grain

rich815 said:

Nice shots Vilk.

Click to expand...

hey, rich, coming from you it's double the compliment. it is streams like yours that make me lust after a hassy every now and then... but then i see a shot like your hmong kids and i'm happy with my nikons for another pyatiletka

great stuff, don't stop!

darkosaric said:

I use Rodinal almost exclusively. But with HP5+ I did not like results. When I started to use HC-110 with HP5+ problem was solved. I have bottle of HC-110 only for HP5+, tonality and contrast are great.

Click to expand...

+1

i second hp5 and hc-110....great combo.....funny how ansel always praised tri-x and hc-110 !!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Peter Schrager said:

i second hp5 and hc-110....great combo.....funny how ansel always praised tri-x and hc-110 !!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Good call. HC110 would no doubt counteract the lower inherent contrast of HP5.

HP5+ / Print

Here's an example of 35mm HP5+ in replenished Xtol.

It's a print from a negative shot at EI 250 in moderate contrast, processed by agitating every minute.
Print is on Ilford MGIV fiber matte, in Ethol LPD.

The scan is not very large, obviously, but it shows a smooth tonal gradation, and when examining the 9x12" print itself, it's fairly typical for what I would expect from an ISO 400 film. Lovely texture, the grain isn't intrusive or distracting at all, but it's definitely there as an integral part of the image (which is why I shoot 400 film - I like it that way).

presspass said:

After using Tri-X and the Arista variant for some years, I decided to try HP-5+. Did my first roll yesterday, using D-76h 1:1 and Massive Development chart times. When I wet printed, I noticed two major changes - less contrast than Tri-X and more grain - a lot more grain. Agitation is the same - constant for the first minute (inversion) followed by four inversions every minute. Is this just the nature of the film, or is it developer-specific? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Click to expand...

ime ~10 years ago, D-76h required longer times than D-76. MDC gives times for D-76 if I am not mistaken.
The light source of Your enlarger and many other variables still exist, besides film and developer.

I think through the years Tri-X has always been just a bit finer grained than HP-5. The current Tri-X is remarkably fine grained, so I'm not surprised to hear the difference is greater now. Some people actually complain about the lack of graininess in the current TX.

I'd be perfectly happy with either, but they have always been noticeably different emulsions with strong followings for each.

HP5 is certainly grainier than Tri-x, but it's also sharper, atleast in 120 anyway. Tonality is a separate discussion. I've standardized on HP5 and Tri-x both in ID-11 1:1. HP5 pushed slightly in flat light and Tri-x shot at 250 in contrasty light. This works well for me. I don't worry much about grain. I, like Thomas prefer grain in the image.