HP5 for a year!

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Brian, I think you'll find that Ilford HP5 pushes quite nicely to 1600 in flat lighting.

You can also use a different developer to get a different result tonality wise. There are some developers that Edmund Lowe designed, Edwal 10 and Edwal 12, which changed the curve shape at normal speed. They understate the shadows, and give a stunning modulation of highlights right on the edge of breaking up.

Attached examples are Tri-X 400 and HP5+ developed in Edwal 12 (which is a fine grain version of Edwal 10). I'm not going to tell you which is which, because it does the same thing to both films, and in prints I can't really tell a difference. Both exposed in window light, both shot with the same 80mm Zeiss lens, at EI 400, and processed in Edwal 12. To me, TX400 and HP5+ are completely interchangeable.

Edwal 10 gives grain on par with ID-11 or D76, but has a different characteristic in giving deeper shadows (with less detail) and more intense highlights. Edwal 12 gives super fine grain, like replenished Xtol, but is otherwise pretty much the same as Edwal 10. These developers are great for flat lighting. They are not so good for extreme contrast.

- Thomas

 

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, those are excellent examples. At what EI did you shoot both of those photos? I'm interested in trying some Edwal 10. Any idea where I can get some? I didn't see any at B&H or freestyle.

 

[cjbecker]

I also like those. I like how the edwal really brings out the highlights of the image.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, those are excellent examples. At what EI did you shoot both of those photos? I'm interested in trying some Edwal 10. Any idea where I can get some? I didn't see any at B&H or freestyle.

Brian,

Both films exposed at EI 400. I could have exposed more, say EI 200, to gain some shadow detail, and then develop for less time. But I didn't feel the pictures warranted it. Shadow detail everywhere, to me, is overrated. I like a good, big, solid black as a foundation in my pictures.

I'm not sure that Edwal 10 is available commercially, but Edwal 12 is available at Photographers' Formulary as 'Developer 12'.

It seems to be a variation of D76, and you may have to mix it from scratch. But the ingredients should be readily available.

metol..........................5g
glycin.........................15g
sodium sulphite anhyd....70g
borax.........................10g
water to 1L

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

- Thomas

 

[cjbecker]

Where do most people buy there ingrediencts from? I see photographers' formulary sells a lot of ingredients.

 

[brian steinberger]

Yes, photographers formulary. That's where I buy all my raw chems.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So here is the interesting conclusion:

1. You can add one more developer to your arsenal, and develop your film in it when you need a boost in contrast.

2. You can underexpose your film, and over-develop it while slowing down agitation for a highly similar result. D76 should work really great for this purpose, along with either HP5 or Tri-X.

Your choice. I prefer to use a single developer and just alter how I expose and develop the film, as it keeps it simpler in stocking chemistry. It may be a bit of a compromise. I really love Edwal 12, and can't quite get there with Xtol. For portraiture, I may just add Edwal 12 back into the mix. It is a rather extraordinary developer, especially for 35mm and diffusion enlarging.
But you can get really really far with just one film and one developer. Just today I received an email from a friend who had visited someone that has used the same developer for 70 years. Master craftsman who knows his tools.

- Thomas

 

[Rolleijoe]

Well I am going to commit to using hp5 in 120 for a year, I hope for longer, but now all I need to do is decide on a developer. I am looking at liquid developers, the ones in running are rodinal, hc 110, Edwal fg7, and any others you might suggest.

I use to use acros 100 and rodinal for a very long time and I really liked the look. I am now moving up to a faster film that will be able to do anything with. Mainly shooting at 200 all the way to 3200.

So out of the liquid developers which one would you use to be the most versatile. I really like the look of rodinal for the sharpness and the grain in the higher dilutions but don’t want to develop for 1-3 hours.

I like HP5+ especially for portrait work, and used to use D76 but that was 20 years ago or so, and still had hair. The last time I used it, was with Rodinal 1:50 for 10min and it came out fine (these were for architectural shots).


But there's a new developer I'm ready to try: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/30681-Moersch-Eco-Film-Developer?cat_id=301. I've seen results on their German website, and it's remarkable.


So will try it with the new Rollei films too as well as HP5+. Don't shoot much Tri-X anymore unless I head back east for some reason.


That's my 2¢, and I've been shooting for almost 40 years. But my main films now are Rollei Ortho 25, Rolleipan 200, and waiting to try their new 100 & 400 speeds which are available in Europe at the moment. Also I like Efke 25 and Efke 25 Ortho.

 

[cjbecker]

So here is the interesting conclusion:

1. You can add one more developer to your arsenal, and develop your film in it when you need a boost in contrast.

2. You can underexpose your film, and over-develop it while slowing down agitation for a highly similar result. D76 should work really great for this purpose, along with either HP5 or Tri-X.

Your choice. I prefer to use a single developer and just alter how I expose and develop the film, as it keeps it simpler in stocking chemistry. It may be a bit of a compromise. I really love Edwal 12, and can't quite get there with Xtol. For portraiture, I may just add Edwal 12 back into the mix. It is a rather extraordinary developer, especially for 35mm and diffusion enlarging.
But you can get really really far with just one film and one developer. Just today I received an email from a friend who had visited someone that has used the same developer for 70 years. Master craftsman who knows his tools.

- Thomas

That is awesome about the guy who used the same developer for 70 years. Wonder what it was? Rodinal? Was d76 around then?

Do you think that you could use edwal 12 could be used for everything.

Also I want number 2. Use the same developer but expose different for the look I want for certain picture. I have never been about having every detail in the shadows. The way that I see pictures in my head is contrasty B&W, with a smooth tones in-between. Dark shadows and light highlights.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That is awesome about the guy who used the same developer for 70 years. Wonder what it was? Rodinal? Was d76 around then?

Do you think that you could use edwal 12 could be used for everything.

Also I want number 2. Use the same developer but expose different for the look I want for certain picture. I have never been about having every detail in the shadows. The way that I see pictures in my head is contrasty B&W, with a smooth tones in-between. Dark shadows and light highlights.

I think it was Beutler's. Not really familiar with it.

Either way - you can under-expose and over-develop any film, commonly called 'pushing' with almost any combination. Some developers retain a lot of shadow detail, others don't.
Edwal 12 is a great developer, but it isn't for everything. It will not be your best friend in really high contrast lighting. It works best in flat lighting.

If I were you I would just go with ID-11 / D76 (same thing), and explore different ways to use it. You don't need anything exotic to get exotic results. D76 is a really fantastic developer. Mix it 1:1 for higher sharpness and a bit better speed. Or use it stock for a bit smoother tones. The greatest thing about D76 is that it doesn't really do anything wrong.

One of my mentors recommended that I lock myself in a darkroom with a few hundred feet of Tri-X and lots of D76, come out only to expose film, and then basically just process and print film from the same film stock and developer stock - if I really want to learn how to do it and learn inside out what can be expected.
Your idea of using one film and one developer is really good. Really very good. But you don't have to make the choice such an agony. D76 or ID-11 with HP5 will be as good to learn with as anything else available. Or HC-110. Or Rodinal. It really won't matter that much. It will matter some. But your technique will matter a lot more.

- Thomas

 

[cjbecker]

Ok well I have looked around and found the 2 developers I am going to choose from. ID-11 or Microphen. I like how microphen is not much as a solvent developer as ID-11, as I like sharp grain rather then mushy. It is better for full speed, which only really for me says, is better for pushing. As I will be shooting a lot at higher speeds. On the other hand ID-11 is tried and true.

And also Thomas thank you for all the help, as along with everybody else.

 

[brian steinberger]

Yes Microphen offers better speed and may be better for pushing, but as I believe it, ID-11 is sharper. I would stick with ID-11 and dilute it 1:1. The 1/3rd or 1/2 of a stop you might gain from using Michrophen isn't worth it to me. I tend to prefer sharpness over speed. Now if you're going to be regularly shooting at EI 1600 or 3200 I may change my opinion.

 

[cjbecker]

The microphen is actually a sharper developer since it does not act as a solvent developer. It has more grain but also because if that appeares sharper.

 

[Grif]

One of my mentors recommended that I lock myself in a darkroom with a few hundred feet of Tri-X and lots of D76, - Thomas

I really need to do this,,, been thinking about it since the 60's. One film, one camera, one lens, one developer, one year.

I may cheat a bit and just put my 105 on my plain jane Nikon F and load it up with T-max 100 with Xtol (I'm not a grain fan at all) I'm using HP5 in my 4x5, just getting started on that whole show

 

[brian steinberger]

The microphen is actually a sharper developer since it does not act as a solvent developer. It has more grain but also because if that appeares sharper.

Microphen and ID-11 are both solvent developers. I haven't used Microphen before but I think it's supposed to be Ilfords version on Xtol. I have used Xtol before and ID-11 is sharper. Fine grain doesn't always mean sharper. I'd recommend getting both and develop the HP5 to see which one you like better.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Brian, I have a different experience regarding sharpness and Xtol; I actually find it to yield sharper prints than D76 (which is the same as ID-11). That is stock compared to stock.
1+1 they both gain sharpness, speed, and increase grain.
Replenished Xtol is even sharper than 1+1 but gives FINER grain. At the expense of 1/2 stop speed. This is how I use Xtol, mainly, but am using it 1+1 too to re-create a TXP type curve from TMax 100 and Acros exposed at 400 and then pushing it.
My observations are mainly from printing 35mm negatives to 9x12" size, equivalent to about 10x enlargement. I have gone to 16x (15x20), but only from Xtol negatives so no comparison there, and it holds up surprisingly well with TMax 400 and really well with TMax 100 or Acros.

 

[hpulley]

Ilford powder developers:
HP5+
Best sharpness: ID-11 1+3.
Best speed: Microphen stock, use when shooting 1600-3200, gives 1/3 stop boost to HP5+.
Finest grain: Perceptol but will lose speed.

 

[aoresteen]

I started using HP-5 when it first came out in 1976 - I was using HP-4 before that. I tried a few developers with it and quickly settled on HC-110 B. I rate it at EI 200 and love the results. It's my main film in 35mm, 120, and 2.25 x 3.25 sheets.

Just wish I could get it in 220, 127, and 70mm DP!

 

[hpulley]

I like HP5+ in HC-110 1+31 too.

 

[brian steinberger]

Brian, I have a different experience regarding sharpness and Xtol; I actually find it to yield sharper prints than D76 (which is the same as ID-11). That is stock compared to stock.
1+1 they both gain sharpness, speed, and increase grain.
Replenished Xtol is even sharper than 1+1 but gives FINER grain. At the expense of 1/2 stop speed. This is how I use Xtol, mainly, but am using it 1+1 too to re-create a TXP type curve from TMax 100 and Acros exposed at 400 and then pushing it.
My observations are mainly from printing 35mm negatives to 9x12" size, equivalent to about 10x enlargement. I have gone to 16x (15x20), but only from Xtol negatives so no comparison there, and it holds up surprisingly well with TMax 400 and really well with TMax 100 or Acros.

Interesting Thomas. I used to be a huge Xtol user, back when they made that wonderful film in 120, oh what was it called.... ?? Oh yeah, Neopan 400... That was a match made in heaven. Now that Neopan is gone I've done a lot of work with ID-11 and find it a great developer. Xtol to me was a bit too fine grained. I like a little bit of bite. And ID-11 gives HP5 a nice bite. Both developers are great and can't go wrong either way.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interesting Thomas. I used to be a huge Xtol user, back when they made that wonderful film in 120, oh what was it called.... ?? Oh yeah, Neopan 400... That was a match made in heaven. Now that Neopan is gone I've done a lot of work with ID-11 and find it a great developer. Xtol to me was a bit too fine grained. I like a little bit of bite. And ID-11 gives HP5 a nice bite. Both developers are great and can't go wrong either way.

Oh, absolutely. ID-11/D76 and Xtol are both fantastic products, no doubt about it. Either one would give really great results.
With Xtol (especially replenished) I mainly see sharpness as I start to print bigger. That's where it comes through for me. Since I've started to go big, especially from 35mm, I'm liking the fact that I can shoot something like TMax 100, Fuji Acros, or Delta 100, process in replenished Xtol, and get prints in 9x12 size (10x) that are both sharp and virtually grain free. Then if I want grain I can use Neopan 400, Tri-X, or HP5 and process in Xtol 1+2, or I'll crack open that bottle of Rodinal I have sitting around, and soup it 1+25. Anyway, I digress...

It sounds as though perhaps D76/ID-11 would have some perceived sharpness added when printed at smaller magnification? Can that be it, maybe? Or maybe it has to do with the enlarger? I don't know. How big do you print? Do you use condenser enlarger or diffusion?

- Thomas

 

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, yes certainly ID-11 would have more perceived sharpness at smaller sizes, just as using a 400 speed film over a slower speed film would do the same. The book that really opened my eyes to all this is "The Edge of Darkness" by the late Barry Thornton. I would certainly recommend this book to the OP. In the book Barry used HP5 in 6x6 and developed in Perceptol 1:2 for maximum sharpness. Basically when you shoot a fine grain film (Tmax 100) and develop it in a fine grain developer (Xtol stock) you're hiding what gives you perceived sharpness, which is grain, and the adjacency effects you get from developing in a non-solvent developer, or diluting ID-11 or Xtol to atleast 1:1. Now obviously if you're printing larger or shooting 35mm that statement doesn't necessarily hold true, as you would want the finest grain in those circumstances. But with medium format at moderate enlargement I like the bite I get from Tri-x or HP5 in ID-11 1:1. The slower films look great with smoother things like portraits.

I usually print 5x5" or 7x7" on 8x10" paper or 10x10" on 11x14" paper. I use a diffusion enlarger, an LPL that I just got last year that I love.

 

[brian steinberger]

Also I forgot to mention that I look at my negatives on the lightbox with a 4x loupe. I've tried many and many of film/dev combos over the years, and HP5 and ID-11 1:1 is the sharpest combo I've ever seen. The only other one that I can think of that comes very close is FP4 in Rodinal. Pan F in Rodinal is damn sharp too.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That explains why I find Xtol sharper at 10x to 16x...

 

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, how big are you printing?