HP5 pushed 1-2 stops to add contrast?

MatthewDunn · Apr 9, 2021

I like the tonal range of Tri-X, but the price is becoming a little out of control for me. A lot of the folks whose work I enjoy seem to shoot on HP5, but push by default to 800-1600 (when 400 would be sufficient light, even in a handheld situation). My understanding is that they claim to get higher contrast (and a little more grain).

My question - if I looking for that contrast and the deep blacks and shimmering whites that Tri-X was typically giving me, am I better off trying this approach and using Microphen or something similar to deal with the grain if I want/need? Or am I better to expose at box speed and then just extend development time (which is what intuitively seems more obvious to me if don't need the film speed)?

I will obviously run my own tests using both approaches, but interested in the thoughts of others.

Thanks in advance.

Paul Howell · Apr 9, 2021

To expand contrast is not really a push, add anywhere from 10 to 30% time at ISO 400 until you get the contrast you want. The old Kodak data guides had a wheel that showed how much time to add for increased or decreased contrast. A true push means you are losing shadow detail. Any reason you cant increase contrast by printing on a harder paper or VC filter or adding contrast in post with LR?

M Carter · Apr 9, 2021

Pushing just to increase contrast paints you into a corner - your shadows will lose 1 or 2 stops of range; if you're cool with that, just use a good speed developer (IE, not Rodinal or HC-110!) DD-X is impressive when pushing HP5, haven't tried it for pushing other films because I really like having control of my shadows.

Generally, post - printing or scanning - is where you control contrast. You can get full blacks and "shimmering" whites with good post work and fine-tuning your development for good highlight density.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 9, 2021

MatthewDunn said:
I like the tonal range of Tri-X, but the price is becoming a little out of control for me. A lot of the folks whose work I enjoy seem to shoot on HP5, but push by default to 800-1600 (when 400 would be sufficient light, even in a handheld situation). My understanding is that they claim to get higher contrast (and a little more grain).

My question - if I looking for that contrast and the deep blacks and shimmering whites that Tri-X was typically giving me, am I better off trying this approach and using Microphen or something similar to deal with the grain if I want/need? Or am I better to expose at box speed and then just extend development time (which is what intuitively seems more obvious to me if don't need the film speed)?

I will obviously run my own tests using both approaches, but interested in the thoughts of others.

Thanks in advance.

reducing exposure and addind dev timw will increase contrast

Lachlan Young · Apr 9, 2021

MatthewDunn said:
I like the tonal range of Tri-X, but the price is becoming a little out of control for me. A lot of the folks whose work I enjoy seem to shoot on HP5, but push by default to 800-1600 (when 400 would be sufficient light, even in a handheld situation). My understanding is that they claim to get higher contrast (and a little more grain).

My question - if I looking for that contrast and the deep blacks and shimmering whites that Tri-X was typically giving me, am I better off trying this approach and using Microphen or something similar to deal with the grain if I want/need? Or am I better to expose at box speed and then just extend development time (which is what intuitively seems more obvious to me if don't need the film speed)?

I will obviously run my own tests using both approaches, but interested in the thoughts of others.

Thanks in advance.

Short answer, no you don't need anything special - a lot of people do not have the basics of process control enacted, thus they assume that HP5+ (which is often a hair faster than Tri-X) has quite different behaviour - in fact they both have remarkably similar shadow/ straight line behaviour to each other in many developers (apart from HC-110/ Ilfotech HC) with most of the divergences happening in terms of highlight behaviour (HP5+ tends to deliver about a stop more straight line than Tri-X), colour sensitivity, the inherent granularity/ sharpness characteristics of each emulsion and absolute shadow speed.

MatthewDunn · Apr 9, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
...with most of the divergences happening in terms of highlight behaviour (HP5+ tends to deliver about a stop more straight line than Tri-X), colour sensitivity, the inherent granularity/ sharpness characteristics of each emulsion and absolute shadow speed.

First off, thanks to ALL who posted. I think this highlights what I am trying to control. I only wet print and I can split-filter print and use other tools to control contrast in the print, but would also like a good "head start" and I think I am used to seeing the highlights start to move a bit more exponentially at the higher stops. The linearity you are pointing out, while probably "better" (i.e. more "even"), just makes my highlights seem a bit muddy to my eye.

It sounds like, if I am ok with the shadow detail at box speed and don't need increased film speed, that I just need to extend my development time, perhaps move to a more vigorous agitation scheme, or perhaps both. I suspect just more time will be enough.

Again, thanks to all who offered insight. Very appreciated.

ic-racer · Apr 9, 2021

I'd not cast away shadow detail during exposure. I expose normally and control contrast during printing. For example this negative shows all the shadow detail, the mood of the image is created during printing.

awty · Apr 9, 2021

Hp5 @ 400 ISO in D76 1:1. on ilford grade 2 paper. HP5 is wonderful film and has all the contrast you need at 400 iso. As others have said pushed in strong differentual light will just loose shadows and block highlights.

The fortune Teller by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

Bill Burk · Apr 9, 2021

Developing longer than charts say and yet shooting at the normal speed is fine.

You can shoot a 400 speed film at 400 and ask the lab (or pick development time) for a two stop push and you will get higher contrast as a direct result.

And you can still make a wet print and probably only need a lower grade paper to make up for the higher contrast negative.

awty · Apr 9, 2021

Bill Burk said:
Developing longer than charts say and yet shooting at the normal speed is fine.

You can shoot a 400 speed film at 400 and ask the lab (or pick development time) for a two stop push and you will get higher contrast as a direct result.

And you can still make a wet print and probably only need a lower grade paper to make up for the higher contrast negative.

All I get when developing for longer is a denser negative, maybe less contrast. If I want a slight contrast boost I will develop in straight D76 for 7.5 minutes apposed to 13 minutes with 1:1.

I have no issue with HP5 contrast @ 400 iso in d76 1:1.
Hp5 has wonderful tonal range especially if the light is relatively even.
Another print on ilford rc grade 2, this one in natural light.

The Old Man by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

Ko.Fe. · Apr 9, 2021

I use ISO 400 @1600 for street photography. Since I'm still able to print in DR, I choose contrast where.

Bill Burk · Apr 9, 2021

awty said:
All I get when developing for longer is a denser negative, maybe less contrast. If I want a slight contrast boost I will develop in straight D76 for 7.5 minutes apposed to 13 minutes with 1:1.

I have no issue with HP5 contrast @ 400 iso in d76 1:1.
Hp5 has wonderful tonal range especially if the light is relatively even.
Another print on ilford rc grade 2, this one in natural light.

The Old Man by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

Developing longer doesn’t decrease contrast by any measure. There must be more to the story. I can imagine a scenario with serious fog like 75 year old Double-X - I haven’t found the magic touch for that. But otherwise developing time is directly related to increased contrast.

awty · Apr 9, 2021

Bill Burk said:
Developing longer doesn’t decrease contrast by any measure. There must be more to the story. I can imagine a scenario with serious fog like 75 year old Double-X - I haven’t found the magic touch for that. But otherwise developing time is directly related to increased contrast.

Guess in theory the highlights will keep on developing faster than than the shadows, but I find a denser negative usually need more contrast, not that I do it often. Better than a thin negative though, they are a bitch and require a lot of contrast.
As people have shown, there isn't a issue with hp5 contrast with normal development and printing.

I personally don't like trix, especially on skin tones and am biased towards Hp5.

awty · Apr 9, 2021

Ko.Fe. said:
I use ISO 400 @1600 for street photography. Since I'm still able to print in DR, I choose contrast where.

Its not hard to add contrast and block up the shadows shooting @ 400iso. I usually only push because of lack of light and no D3200.
Do you think that high contrast look is getting old?

Ko.Fe. · Apr 10, 2021

awty said:
Its not hard to add contrast and block up the shadows shooting @ 400iso. I usually only push because of lack of light and no D3200.
Do you think that high contrast look is getting old?

OP asked about adding more contrast. I showed photo with more contrast.
As for your comment...
I don't impose any limitations based on trendy things on myself. Nor I'm into showing something absolutely meaningless in the shadows. Not my religion.

Autonerd · Apr 10, 2021

I was first turned on to HP5 back in the 1990s -- a friend said "Works just like Tri-X" (at the time I was more of a TMax man). Bought 100' of it and loved it, and when I went back to film it's where I started.

HP5 @ 1600 is my low-light go-to. It's a bit contrastier, but like others here I like the contrast at 400 as well. Some scans (I do adjust contrast a tad in post)...

HP5 @ 400: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=185610885@N06&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=hp5 400
HP5 @ 1600: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=185610885@N06&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=hp5 1600

Hope this helps.
Aaron

awty · Apr 10, 2021

Ko.Fe. said:
OP asked about adding more contrast. I showed photo with more contrast.
As for your comment...
I don't impose any limitations based on trendy things on myself. Nor I'm into showing something absolutely meaningless in the shadows. Not my religion.

Mr Dunn asked if it were necessary to push hp5 to get deep blacks and nice white highlights and I think most of us who use it can get that and more with out a push.

My remark was a little tongue in cheek. For social media blocked shadows arent a problem, most people dont look hard enough for shadows. When printing I like to just get the shadows in, I think it adds a bit more depth. BTW I really like your last picture on Fickr, works great.

Don_ih · Apr 10, 2021

You can boost d76 by adding a bit of borax. The increased activity, over the same development time, increases contrast. You may need to experiment and also maybe add a tiny bit of potassium bromide to hold back the base fog - but probably not if you only add borax at 1 or 2 grams per litre. I add borax almost every time I use hp5+ because I find the negatives flat without it. That's likely my own doing with exposure, though, and shooting low contrast scenes.

grain elevator · Apr 10, 2021

awty said:
All I get when developing for longer is a denser negative, maybe less contrast.

That means you're over-exposing.
I second the recommendation of Delta 400, although I've not done any real comparison myself, nor have I used much Tri-x. But the curves in some developers do have the more gentle highlight roll-off.
Btw. you could try flashing your paper. That will allow getting the details out if the steep highlights (compressing them) with decent mid tone separation at the same time (avoiding mud). Or put more effort into d&b.

radiant · Apr 10, 2021

This is obvious and very basics but it has hit me really hard lately:

If you overdevelop, make sure your shadows don't have details - otherwise you just end up with meaninglessly dense negative.

What happens in push; destroyed shadows and therefore actual contrast increase. Expose at box speed and no miracles will happen, only troubles.

Bill Burk · Apr 10, 2021

Old Gregg said:
@Bill Burk you are right, but what awty is saying is also true beyond a certain (extreme) point: when your highlights begin to block (emulsion ceiling), and your base+fog keeps creeping upward, the absolute contrast begins to decrease.

That's why I mention 74 year old Super-XX because it has both serious fog and relatively early shoulder compared to fresh, modern film.

You won't block usually block highlights due to reaching the shoulder. It's about twelve stops towards greater exposure. You'll get it when the reflection of the sun is in chrome, glass or mirror... otherwise, the shoulder is not why the highlights are stark white on your prints.

Most modern film does not develop serious fog in the usual time. Any film will develop fog with extensive time I haven't tried leaving it in the developer overnight, the longest I go is usually an hour.

You'll get stark white highlights in prints when the contrast of the negative is too high, but @awty you said you saw lower contrast with longer development. That doesn't make sense, some other issue must have played a part in what you saw. If you wonder what happened to a particular shot/roll, the specifics will help. I just don't want you to feel that developing longer doesn't give you more contrast. It directly gives you more contrast.

DMJ · Apr 10, 2021

MatthewDunn said:
I like the tonal range of Tri-X, but the price is becoming a little out of control for me...
...and shimmering whites that Tri-X was typically giving me....

I will obviously run my own tests using both approaches, but interested in the thoughts of others.

Thanks in advance.

I only shoot Tri-X 400 for the same reasons you posted and I think you will never get those "shimmering whites" with HP5 .
Regarding pushing and "head start" ; isn't a good start to work with a negative exposed at box speed?
I know the price of Kodak film is over $1.5 more than Ilford film, and assuming that you shoot medium format, out of a roll of 12, the difference in price would be 2.5 images. ($5.99 vs $7.6 for a 120 roll)
If you get 12/12 good images that you are going to print then yes, the price becomes a factor but for me, because I don't want to try a different film, I carefully try to get the most out of the 120 roll.

gone · Apr 10, 2021

Like you, I'm a 'lil tired of the price of Kodak products. However, in my mind, the problem is that HP5 doesn't look like Tri-X, or at least it doesn't when you look at my photos. It's really hard to beat the tonality of Tri-X in stock D76, which is why I have so few print files of HP5 negs. I might try FP4 in D76 and see what that looks like.

Don't forget how important the right developer is. Developed in Rodinal, my Tri-X looks very different.

Lachlan Young · Apr 10, 2021

Old Gregg said:
@MatthewDunn I may get crucified here for saying this, but if you are looking for "cheapter Tri-X" you should look no further than Delta 400. The internet keeps comparing it to T-Max 400 but that's BS. Delta 400 is much, much closer to Tri-X than any other film.

More like 'different tech' Tri-X - ie Delta grain structure + epitaxy. Sensitometrically speaking, you're not far off - 400 TX and Delta 400 share relatively closer curve shapes into the upper range/ shoulder - and for that matter TMY-II and HP5+ (in D-76/ ID-11 at least) are a similar pairing, but both of these pairs have radically different grain structures (and rather different colour sensitisation). They all may have somewhat different toe speeds to each other, but their toe shapes are remarkably similar overall in D-76 etc.

awty · Apr 10, 2021

grain elevator said:
That means you're over-exposing.
I second the recommendation of Delta 400, although I've not done any real comparison myself, nor have I used much Tri-x. But the curves in some developers do have the more gentle highlight roll-off.
Btw. you could try flashing your paper. That will allow getting the details out if the steep highlights (compressing them) with decent mid tone separation at the same time (avoiding mud). Or put more effort into d&b.

Probably, I havent used developing longer as a tool, mostly done by mistake. Ilfosal 3 is a very aggressive developer and seems to give a contrast boost, but can go too far quickly. Dont tend to overdevelop with other developers.
Preflash is great, unfortunately I currently only have a tiny cluttered dark room with one enlarger which makes it difficult. Hope to have a much bigger darkroom sometime soon.
I can do preflash easily with contact prints and its very effective especially when using contrasty xray film.
I got the highlights to hold on this print by preflashing.

HP5 pushed 1-2 stops to add contrast?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency