• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HP5 PLUS pushed to 1600 in Ilfosol 3?

Procession

A
Procession

  • 3
  • 0
  • 74
Millers Lane

A
Millers Lane

  • 5
  • 2
  • 95

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,906
Messages
2,847,321
Members
101,532
Latest member
aduvalphoto
Recent bookmarks
1

Beanzu

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7
Location
Seattle, USA
Format
Medium Format
What sort of results can I expect with developing a roll of HP5 pushed to 1600 in Ilfosol 3? What's the grain going to look like?Apparently, this isn't a recommended combination by Ilford (they recommend DD-X, but I don't have any mixed up right now).

For developing times, does 18 minutes sound about right at 1:9 dilution? Ilford has no published value. The Massive Dev Chart has no data point for this film at 1600, so I interpolated the data that they do have (which skips 1600, but does include 5 other speeds, including 3200).

Thanks for any suggestions!
 
How will you be printing?
 
I honestly haven't thought that far ahead. My beginner's darkroom still doesn't have an enlarger, so for the time being, I scan the negatives into Lightroom or Photoshop.

What's your thought process, though? I'm curious to know what's behind the question (pros cons with different print options).

Thanks!
 
Adjusting "film development" is a "printing adjustment", it changes the look of the print in relation to a specific paper grade when using an enlarger, or if you were shooting slide film the look of the final result.

Shooting HP5 at 1600 means you gave up 2 stops of shadow detail on the negative, nothing can reverse that decision once shot; the only decision left after shooting a roll at 1600 is "how am I going to print what's left?"

You aren't printing to grade 2 paper or turning the film into a slide so; given your printing method, pushing is of little to no value. Develop for either 400 or 800 because it won't matter, you'll just adjust later in PS or LR.

Even when you get an enlarger today's variable contrast papers eliminate a lot of the need for pushes or pulls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently, this isn't a recommended combination by Ilford (they recommend DD-X)
. . .
The Massive Dev Chart has no data point for this film at 1600

Sometimes saying very little says a lot.
 
Your question covers two vaiables: exposure EI and development time. If you expose for EI 1600 and develop normally (N) you'll get a thin negative (all black shadows and muddy mid tones. If you overdevelop two stops (N+2) you'll get normal shadow detail and blown out highlights ( the sky f.ex.). This can be effective if your subject contrast range is very low (a landscape on a very dull day f.ex.). Now figure out what would happen if you do both!
But this reasoning is based on the results from printing on paper. I don't know anything about PS and LR.
Peter
 
Your question covers two vaiables: exposure EI and development time. If you expose for EI 1600 and develop normally (N) you'll get a thin negative (all black shadows and muddy mid tones.

Yes, it will be thin. That thinness and the muddy mid-tone issue is correctable with a harder paper grade; film development changes (like a push) and paper grade changes (like moving to grade 4 or 5) make essentially equal changes to the final result. In theory a 2-stop push is equal to a 2-grade paper change.

If you overdevelop two stops (N+2) you'll get normal shadow detail and blown out highlights ( the sky f.ex.). This can be effective if your subject contrast range is very low (a landscape on a very dull day f.ex.). Now figure out what would happen if you do both!

When the camera exposure is reduced from box speed the normal shadow detail on the negative is reduced, that doesn't necessarily affect the print immediately but it is a fact. Film ratings have some safety factor built in and on top of that what we expect in the shadows might be low. That safety factor helps, as do low expectations for the shadows, but with a camera exposure 2-stops under box speed normally available print detail is probably being lost. At that point we have essentially lost the ability to dodge for more detail.

But this reasoning is based on the results from printing on paper. I don't know anything about PS and LR.
Peter

The details aren't important here on APUG, but practical proof is handy.

Thousands of rolls of film from disposable cameras are processed by labs every day.

These cameras typically use 400 speed film (Ilford even sells their own with HP5 installed). These cameras have no exposure adjustments, shutter is normally about 1/100th, with f/11 or so for the aperture.

The EI is the exposure variable for each shot and it simply "floats". Some shots may end up at EI 12 (and will have a lot more than normal shadow detail that you may or may not use) others may end up at EI 1600 (and have no reserve shadow detail).

Regardless of how each frame is shot the film is developed normally and the contrast and placement are adjusted for printing digitally.

What we get back from the lab may not be perfect, but the lab's first try should IMO be called proofs; still and yet these proofs typically turn out just fine, or at least fairly close in most cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If found 1+9 at 1600

Massive Dev Chart Search Results

35mm

HP5+ Ilfosol S 1+9 400 7 7 7 20C
HP5+ Ilfosol S 1+14 400 9.5 9.5 9.5 20C
HP5+ Ilfosol S 1+9 800 8.5 8.5 8.5 20C
HP5+ Ilfosol S 1+14 800 14 14 14 20C
HP5+ Ilfosol S 1+9 1600 14 14 14 20C

As an old timer photojournalist pushing film is a trade off, expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. In terms of time, add 50% for each push of 1 stop, so recommended time for box speed 1+9 is 7 minutes, so from 400 is 10.5 minutes which a minute longer than posted on the massive development chart, second push is 10.5 + 50% or 15 minutes which is the ball park, less than 12% as recommended by the MDC.
 
Thanks for the great tips, all.

I should have made my question a bit more specific, though: how will my results differ using Ilfosol 3 (not specified by Ilford; no dev chart data available) versus DD-X (which Ilford recommends) pushed two stops to 1600?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom