HP5 sheet film best developer to make the equivalent of tri-x in hc110

[Jordan.K]

I would like recommendations on what developer would give HP5 the tonality of Tri-X in HC110. I have tried HP5 in Xtol with really flat and not so great results. Thanks in advance.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Which tri-x? The 400 or the 320 speed stuff?

If it is just flat you just most likely didn't develop it long enough try adding 20% to the time and see what you think then.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Each film will require you to fine-tune your processing to get the results you want. The published times are really only a starting point. Why not develop your HP5 in HC-110 like the Tri-x you like? I don't mean develop for the same time as the Tri-x, but rather use the same developer, and arrive at a developing time that gives you the density you want.

 

[JBrunner]

Yeah, I think your best bet is HC110. It's got all of the same characteristics as HC110. Just find the right time, and you will be as close as you can get, I bet.

 

[Don Wallace]

I have used HP5 with HC-110, which is my standard developer - and have not liked the results. I would also like to hear about other combinations and perhaps see some results, if possible.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I don't believe you can do what you want. IIRC HP5+ has a very different characteristic curve compared to either of the Tri-X films. I don't believe that you'll find an HP5+ and developer combination that can replicate what Tri-X does with any particular developer.

If you want the Tri-X look, use Tri-X. It's still widely available. If you want the HP5+ look, use it. Still widely available also.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Try HP5 in D76 / ID11. Find the shadow detail you want by bracketing a few sheets. Pick the best one. Shoot a few sheets at that exposure index, and now vary your development time and agitation to get the midtones and highlights you want. You can tweak how the film looks quite a bit.

Attached is a comparison of HP5+ and Tri-X 400 in 120, both developed in Edwal 12. Same scene, same exposure, same development time. Edwal 12 is much like D76 but with a bit more brilliant highlights and finer grain.

View especially the bark of the tree.

- Thomas

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I would like recommendations on what developer would give HP5 the tonality of Tri-X in HC110. I have tried HP5 in Xtol with really flat and not so great results. Thanks in advance.

You can still use HC-110 or Ilford`s equivalent Ilfotec HC with HP5 Plus, but HP5 plus has a kind of different look to Tri-X what ever developer you use.
It`s neither better or worse, just a different look to it. Only you will know if you prefer it or not.

 

[eclarke]

Try HP5 in D76 / ID11. Find the shadow detail you want by bracketing a few sheets. Pick the best one. Shoot a few sheets at that exposure index, and now vary your development time and agitation to get the midtones and highlights you want. You can tweak how the film looks quite a bit.

Attached is a comparison of HP5+ and Tri-X 400 in 120, both developed in Edwal 12. Same scene, same exposure, same development time. Edwal 12 is much like D76 but with a bit more brilliant highlights and finer grain.

View especially the bark of the tree.

- Thomas

I do HP5 in Germain's Finegrain which is a high solvent developer and I love it...EC

 

[Peter Schrager]

hp5

funny how hc110 was the recommended combo by fred picker and ansel adams...hp5 and hc110 are an even BETTER combo than tri-x ever was....
Best, Peter.

 

[Don Wallace]

Peter, there is a kind of ... softness with HP5 that I don't get with Tri-X. It could be that I need to do more testing, and it may be that I expected HP5 to be a faster HP4. Does anyone else have this experience?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I would say that FP4 has more inherent contrast than HP5. To me, Tri-X looks more like a faster FP4 than HP5 does.
I think that HP5 is softer in its appearance, especially in the low values. The adjacent tonal shifts don't seem to be as clearly defined as with other films, for better or worse.

 

[AlanC]

I have done a comparative test with 35mm HP5+ and FP4+ and found no difference in sharpness, which surprised me. Developer - ID11 1+3

Alan Clark

 

[Don Wallace]

Alan, I believe you, and I guess it is not softness that I am trying to describe (lousy choice of words, especially in a photography forum). I think Thomas (see above) explained it better. It a tonality in the shadows that gives the appearance of softness. Hard to describe. Maybe I will scan some negs and show you what I mean.

 

[JBrunner]

In revisiting this, the crux of the matter is that Tri-X has a very characteristic curve, and you will be hard pressed to duplicate that with a different emulsion. There is a reason Tri-X is the go to portrait film for some photographers, and the response curve is perhaps for many the foremost of those reasons, whether they know it or not... in short, the best combo to give you what you are after is Tri-X in hc110. Fine results can be had with Ilford emulsions as well, but the curve will be different, end of story.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

One more thing to keep in mind. The Tri-X 400 and 320 are different films. Completely different.

I was talking about the 400 up above, because it's the only one I know well enough to have an opinion.

- Thomas

 

[gainer]

Perhaps the most important difference between 320 TX and 400 TX is the long toe of the 320. It is a helpful characteristic in portraiture, especially of us old folks, so I"ve heard. It could be approximated by pre- or post-fogging. If you are looking for that long toe in HP5+, you can try that. If you are looking for a shorter toe, good luck.