HP5 pushed 1-2 stops to add contrast?

I just found this image on the web. I searched for HP5 TriX and HC110, which is the developer I use. I'm going to get some HP5+ to do my own tests and see if I like the results.

awty said:

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.
View attachment 271907

Click to expand...

If Ilfosol 3 is anything like Ilfosol S, there seems to be an odd discontinuity between 1+9 and 1+14, where 1+14 can end up delivering higher contrast than 1+9 - I suspect because 1+9 may be solvent enough to release enough iodide to hold down highlight densities.

Oh, and flash/ fog exposures are easy to do with one enlarger - stick some proper full diffusion material under the lens & make a suitable exposure - it's a technique as old as the hills, but one that seems to lurk only in professional darkrooms.

DMJ said:

I just found this image on the web. I searched for HP5 TriX and HC110, which is the developer I use. I'm going to get some HP5+ to do my own tests and see if I like the results.

View attachment 271912

Click to expand...

You might want to bear in mind that (for whatever reasons) HC-110 seems to produce the largest sensitometric/ curve shape differences in the toe/ shadow/ straight line portions of the curve between 400TX and HP5+. It may make no difference to your outcomes, but don't be too surprised if you find there are greater differences in shadow behaviour than in Xtol or D-76.

DMJ your pics are interesting in that they seem to confirm the conclusion that most presenters of videos on Tri-X v Hp5+ come to, namely that Tri-X is more contrasty but HP5+ preserves shadow detail better. Of course in most of not all videos a correct scientifically valid test has probably not been carried out but as far as I can say that the scenes were the same and taken within seconds of each other and the developer was common to both films and at the developer maker's recommended times

So given that the vast majority of users tend to develop according to what the instructions say it would look as if most users' experience would reflect what the videos conclude. My guess is that choice depends on what "look" the user prefers

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

DMJ your pics are interesting in that they seem to confirm the conclusion that most presenters of videos on Tri-X v Hp5+ come to, namely that Tri-X is more contrasty but HP5+ preserves shadow detail better. Of course in most of not all videos a correct scientifically valid test has probably not been carried out but as far as I can say that the scenes were the same and taken within seconds of each other and the developer was common to both films and at the developer maker's recommended times

So given that the vast majority of users tend to develop according to what the instructions say it would look as if most users' experience would reflect what the videos conclude. My guess is that choice depends on what "look" the user prefers

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I agree on everything. In this case, the user prefers :

MatthewDunn said:

I looking for that contrast and the deep blacks and shimmering whites that Tri-X was typically giving me...

Click to expand...

which in my experience you can get with HC110:B. I just had developed a roll with xtol and the results are much different, small grain, extended midtones, less contrast. So I assume the OP wants the looks obtained with HC110. I have not tried other commercial developers though, my understanding is that D76 gets similar results thanD76 but less sharp, coarser grain?

pentaxuser said:

namely that Tri-X is more contrasty but HP5+ preserves shadow detail better

Click to expand...

pentaxuser said:

given that the vast majority of users tend to develop according to what the instructions say

Click to expand...

This would suggest that they really shouldn't be making any claims at all because they are failing to actually read the instructions - and not understanding the basics of controlling for differences in shadow speed and specified contrast index. Neither of which are difficult in this case. Give both the films identical processing (especially in something like ID-11/ D-76 1+1 they have near identical process times for 0.6-0.62 CI/ av. gradient) and bracket both to try and compensate for the slightly higher shadow speed of HP5+ - ideally in 1/3 stop increments & based off a shadow keyed exposure. Then something rather more meaningful may be obtained, than from the aimless developer chasing that seems to characterise so many fundamentally inept film 'tests'.

The point I was simply trying to make, Lachlan, was that many users when deciding which film suits them, do consult YouTube videos and then rely on a lab for development or do it according to developer maker's instructions. For all I know most of these videos use scanned negs as their evidence but if they do then nearly every one of a Tri-X picture looks more contrasty than that of a HP5+ picture

They may reach a wrong decision but most users are simply interested in what is presented to them in visual form from the likes of YouTube which they accept as a true reflection of the differences in the two films. If Tri-X in all the cases presented in those HP5+ v Tri-X looks more contrasty and HP5+ has what I have seen called a "flat and greyish" look even here on Photrio but with more shadow detail then that is waht people thend to make their mind up on

Gradients and curves occupy a lot of our time here on Photrio but I doubt we are typical in that respect

pentaxuser

There are some YouTube videos that are informative, and take you through the whole flow to a final darkroom print, like the following (I am quite much enjoying his whole series of film comparisons): Tri-X to HP5+ comparsion.

According to the author, at least in D76, the two film stocks are virtually indistinguishable.

sterioma said:

According to the author, at least in D76, the two film stocks are virtually indistinguishable.

Click to expand...

Given that the major differences really relate to highlight/ shoulder behaviour, visible granularity characteristics and specific colour sensitivity, in a great many conditions (if you develop to the same CI and allow for the shadow speed variance) you can make prints which no one (within reasonable limits) will immediately be able to tell which of the two films were used - you will see slight differences, but not necessarily specific identifiers.

Lachlan Young said:

Given that the major differences really relate to highlight/ shoulder behaviour, visible granularity characteristics and specific colour sensitivity, in a great many conditions (if you develop to the same CI and allow for the shadow speed variance) you can make prints which no one (within reasonable limits) will immediately be able to tell which of the two films were used - you will see slight differences, but not necessarily specific identifiers.

Click to expand...

Would those differences in highlight/shoulder behavior be more prominent with non-solvent developers or it doesn't make any difference ?

sterioma said:

There are some YouTube videos that are informative, and take you through the whole flow to a final darkroom print, like the following (I am quite much enjoying his whole series of film comparisons): Tri-X to HP5+ comparsion.

According to the author, at least in D76, the two film stocks are virtually indistinguishable.

Click to expand...

When I looked at Greg's comparison between Tri-X and HP5+, my impression was that the Tri-X print was darker with less shadow detail but Gregg does cede the point that his print exposure may not have been an exact match. However his video may well have reached the most balanced of all the conclusions on Tri-X v HP5+ that I have seen but that was not the point of my post. My point was and is that in recent month with lockdown and long winter nights as well, I had a chance to look at a good number of videos on HP5+ v Tri-X and the conclusion that I mention above was the one that was consistent namely that HP5+ is less contrasty than Tri-X but has better shadow detail.

When videos are that consistent and the people making them are today's "influencers" on a question of film choice then potential users tend to accept those conclusions and it is they who as today's "influencers" have more influence than those with more knowledge on Photrio.

If anyone is interested in the way such influence is being exerted then I invite them to examine such videos. One such video I found tonight is particularly illustrative of this kind of influence. It is this one


In this video the difference( alleged or otherwise) between HP5+ and Tri-X was about as stark as I have seen it.

What I found interesting was some of the comments. Those who criticised the presenter's findings were far fewer than those who supported his findings and despite possible flaws in his method by which he made the comparison and which were pointed out by a few in a somewhat acerbic way that clearly made the presenter's hackles rise, his "likes" way outnumbered his dislikes. In other words his video clearly had influence. Most of those who raised questions about it did so in such a way that largely alienated the "likers" and whatever valid points the questioners may have been raising, they came across as crusty old "cussers " who were in the words of Dylan Thomas " raging against the dying of the light" to largely no avail

pentaxuser

DMJ said:

Would those differences in highlight/shoulder behavior be more prominent with non-solvent developers or it doesn't make any difference ?

Click to expand...

With Rodinal (if you compensate your exposure to allow for differences in shadow speeds) you might find that the differences are less - simply because they won't be able to access the iodide in the emulsion as effectively (depending on how deeply it's buried) to restrain highlight density/ raise sharpness. Delta 400 seems to have been engineered in such a way as to negate these solvent/ non-solvent differences to a greater extent than older generation emulsions

pentaxuser said:

My point was and is that in recent month with lockdown and long winter nights as well, I had a chance to look at a good number of videos on HP5+ v Tri-X and the conclusion that I mention above was the one that was consistent namely that HP5+ is less contrasty than Tri-X but has better shadow detail.

Click to expand...

I agree, the perception within the online community (especially youtube and blog posts) seems to be that HP5 is inherently less contrasty than Tri-X, the latter being often described as "punchy" or "crispy".