HP5 highlight boost

John Louis · Jan 23, 2021

I have been shooting HP5 for a little while for a specific set of pictures - low key, atmospheric landscapes. The film has worked well to this end. I am currently debating using it for some pictures which may tend towards more open daylight and do want a good sense of piercing light in these pics.

I have never quite been able to get a handle on highlights of HP5, by which I mean, what the inherent character of the highlights should be. In my limited exposure/dev experiments I have never even been close to losing information. Today I shot some snowy scenes and increased development 20% hoping for some brilliance, but still no detail lost and actually the snow looks dull, even where there is no real detail. Shadows and value placement otherwise are where I want them.

Is this typical in others experience? Any developer suggestions for a bigger kick in the high end? I am so used to the film otherwise and feel it is now part of my style, but considering Delta 100 for the new work if I can't figure this out.

Sirius Glass · Jan 23, 2021

How about showing us some negatives?

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 23, 2021

I've been using this film for many years. It's not known for its high light separation in conventional developers. It's marvelous in D-19 1+3, though, even for alt printing in carbon transfer.
Intensification in selenium toner helps a lot too. 1+3 for 5 min. One zone expansion in the high lights.

Lachlan Young · Jan 23, 2021

@John Louis what are you processing in? HP5+ can be pretty demanding of diluted developers. Once you compensate for that, it'll boost highlights just fine. It also tends to shoulder later than Tri-X.

John Louis · Jan 23, 2021

Andrew O'Neill said:
I've been using this film for many years. It's not known for its high light separation in conventional developers. It's marvelous in D-19 1+3, though, even for alt printing in carbon transfer.
Intensification in selenium toner helps a lot too. 1+3 for 5 min. One zone expansion in the high lights.

OK cheers. I don't tend to stray from conventional dev as I go in for a "straight" kind of ethos. What you say about seperation sounds about right in my experience so far - no breaking through it. Prints definitely have more pop than scans but I am still reaching towards #3+.

John Louis · Jan 23, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
@John Louis what are you processing in? HP5+ can be pretty demanding of diluted developers. Once you compensate for that, it'll boost highlights just fine. It also tends to shoulder later than Tri-X.

Sorry, DD-X 1:4. I am rating between 400 and 800 (9:30 and 10:30 mins) with shadows and mids falling exactly where I want them. I am scared of developing longer than this given the range of scenes I shoot per roll, but maybe I do need to go longer still.

ic-racer · Jan 23, 2021

Today I shot some snowy scenes and increased development 20% hoping for some brilliance, but still no detail lost and actually the snow looks dull

What grade paper are you printing? Can you post an example? Try going one grade or two higher.

Lachlan Young · Jan 23, 2021

John Louis said:
Sorry, DD-X 1:4. I am rating between 400 and 800 (9:30 and 10:30 mins) with shadows and mids falling exactly where I want them. I am scared of developing longer than this given the range of scenes I shoot per roll, but maybe I do need to go longer still.

It may be that DD-X is reining-in the highlight density a bit to make highlights easier to print - have you tried any other developers like ID-11? I can't say highlights are a problem with HP5+ and ID-11 or Rodinal. As I say in the following post, you may also want to consider how you metered the scene - snow often wants a bit less exposure than you might think.

Lachlan Young · Jan 23, 2021

ic-racer said:
What grade paper are you printing? Can you post an example? Try going one grade or two higher.

This is overall a better approach than adding development time - and people tend to screw up metering of snow, which makes everything harder.

John Louis · Jan 23, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
It may be that DD-X is reining-in the highlight density a bit to make highlights easier to print - have you tried any other developers like ID-11? I can't say highlights are a problem with HP5+ and ID-11 or Rodinal.

I did do HP5 in ID-11 1:1 once actually but with a different camera. I recall being put off by chunky grain in skies particularly, but the tonality was otherwise pretty nice. Might be worth another try. Thanks.

Lachlan Young · Jan 23, 2021

John Louis said:
I did do HP5 in ID-11 1:1 once actually but with a different camera. I recall being put off by chunky grain in skies particularly, but the tonality was otherwise pretty nice. Might be worth another try. Thanks.

You may want to pull back on dev time in that case if you're getting overly grainy skies.

I'd stick to the DD-X and bracket a few rolls, then maybe try 8 & 10 mins and see how they do - some of the muddiness may be from overexposure and overdevelopment. Maybe even go as low as 7 mins.

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 23, 2021

Another thing to consider. Extending HP5's development time to increase contrast, affects the low density areas more than most films and some developers more so than others. HC110, ID-11 more than Xtol. I suspect DD-X to give similar results to Xtol.

Juan Valdenebro · Jan 24, 2021

Hi John,
I've used HP5+ since 1999. The main reason for what you're seeing is: that's how the film was designed.
It's a low contrast film, witha lot of "space" in the highlights... It won't have that bite: indeed, it does just the contrary, by nature: it retains lots of detail in the highlights, even on metallic surfaces under strong direct light.
That design is what allows it to be pushed while retaining detail in the highlights instead of being easily blocked or burnt...
So, just as you say, if you expand its contrast by development, for vibrant highlights, you'll get very present grain, and the same if you use high contrast multigrade filters trying to reach strong whites...
IMO developers won't change that too much: I've never seen it give an upswept curve, without grain, I mean...
I'm afraid another film or another format would be your only options, as with 35mm HP5+ getting great tone in soft light implies a good amount of grain...
Anyway, Pyrocat HD works very well with HP5+ if you don't need speed, and grain is masked, and results are sharp: but I'm no expert there, 'cause I need speed and I like grain...
Good luck!

Juan Valdenebro · Jan 24, 2021

And also: its middle values really respond to more development, so first you'll see its middle grays become too high, and yet you won't see the bite you want in the highlights: at least that's what I've seen...
Good night.

John Louis · Jan 24, 2021

Juan Valdenebro said:
And also: its middle values really respond to more development, so first you'll see its middle grays become too high, and yet you won't see the bite you want in the highlights: at least that's what I've seen...
Good night.

Thanks Juan, what you say makes sense and pretty well answers it. This stuff is 120. I think both low grain and nice highlights are necessary for the new work, so will likely reach for D100.

pentaxuser · Jan 24, 2021

Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi John,
...
So, just as you say, if you expand its contrast by development, for vibrant highlights, you'll get very present grain, and the same if you use high contrast multigrade filters trying to reach strong whites...
.
Good luck!

So does this mean that if you simply use a higher grade MG filter for a print from a negative that you have not expanded its contrast by additional development this will still show extra grain? Does that mean that you either accept flat negs and prints or change to another film?
Finally from the above can I take it that the higher the grade of MG filter being used the more grain is shown in the print?

Thanks

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht · Jan 24, 2021

John Louis said:
I have been shooting HP5 for a little while for a specific set of pictures - low key, atmospheric landscapes. The film has worked well to this end. I am currently debating using it for some pictures which may tend towards more open daylight and do want a good sense of piercing light in these pics.

I have never quite been able to get a handle on highlights of HP5, by which I mean, what the inherent character of the highlights should be. In my limited exposure/dev experiments I have never even been close to losing information. Today I shot some snowy scenes and increased development 20% hoping for some brilliance, but still no detail lost and actually the snow looks dull, even where there is no real detail. Shadows and value placement otherwise are where I want them.

Is this typical in others experience? Any developer suggestions for a bigger kick in the high end? I am so used to the film otherwise and feel it is now part of my style, but considering Delta 100 for the new work if I can't figure this out.

I always felt that HP5 is a bit softer than I like it but I have no suggestion other than slight underexposure and modest overdevelopment.

Lachlan Young · Jan 24, 2021

In a broad selection of developers, if 400TX and HP5+ are directly compared for a particular developer, different effective EI's allowed for etc, the toe and the curve through the midrange in each pairing are almost always very similar. The divergence, when it happens, is largely only in the highlights - in D-76/ ID-11, Tri-X shoulders noticeably earlier than HP5+ which also seems to maintain a slightly steeper gradient up into the highlights beyond 7 stops. Similar behaviour is displayed in Xtol, although the differences are smaller. The highlight curve section of 400TX in HC-110 bends up a little more steeply, then shoulders, whereas HP5+ keeps going in a straight line. What is important however is that HP5+'s shadow speed seems often a little bit higher than 400TX in many developers - the obvious consequence of this being that it'll push the exposure up the scale & add that to Ilford's recommended dev times being usually around a G-Bar 0.62 average (compared to Kodak's 0.55 CI average) and you can see that it's not immensely difficult to get people claiming that HP5+ is 'flatter'. So, it's more a question of process controls... or people's lack of effective thereof.

Juan Valdenebro · Jan 24, 2021

RalphLambrecht said:
I always felt that HP5 is a bit softer than I like it but I have no suggestion other than slight underexposure and modest overdevelopment.

I feel exactly the same, Ralph... Some time ago I use it for normal contrast at 640 and print it with filter 3 1/2.
That very small push doesn't seem to make it lose its ability to resolve fine straight lines really sharply. I`m using D-76 1+1 at 22C.
I got some 120 HP5+ last week just to do the same in MF for the first time: as I like the 35mm results for street, I bet prints from 120 must look very well. Soon I'll see.

Sirius Glass · Jan 24, 2021

If HP5+ does not give you what you want, try Tri-X.

Juan Valdenebro · Jan 24, 2021

I use both and both are great...
And both of them can give us what we want, as Lachlan said.

HP5 highlight boost

John Louis

Sirius Glass

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Lachlan Young

John Louis

John Louis

ic-racer

Lachlan Young

Lachlan Young

John Louis

Lachlan Young

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

John Louis

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht

Lachlan Young

Juan Valdenebro

Sirius Glass

Juan Valdenebro

HP5 highlight boost

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency