HP5+ shot in bright sun conditions. Should I reduce the dev. time?

[Iridium]

Last Sunday I shot a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ (both 35 & 120mm) @ the nominal speed of 400 under bright sun conditions. Most of the photos were shot on the comp of 250/f11 which was +1 stop of the built-in lightmeter reading (which is correct according to a handhold lightmeter incident metering).

I usually develop my films in HC-110 with H solution.

In order to keep a good tonality and normal contrast, should I under-develop a little bit the film? Cause, I think if I use normal development time, then the contrast will be unwillingly high.

 

[Anon Ymous]

When developing film for a shorter time you get lower contrast negatives, but the effective speed (whichever way you may define it) drops. The thin areas of the negative (shadows in the original scene) will get thiner for a given exposure and the local contrast will be reduced. If it gets too low it will become problematic, at least when printing traditionally. Shadow definition can suffer and it can be hard to make details clear. Of course, that assumes that you have part of the original scene at the toe of the characteristic curve of the film. So, if I were you, I'd follow the recommended times for EI400 and do my best at the printing stage.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have had success with HP5+ at EI 200 then processing with 20% less time than whatever was recommended for ISO 400.

If you shot with +1 stop exposure then you have also used this film at EI 200.


Steve.

 

[2F/2F]

You can certainly print down to normal tonality with one stop of overexposure and normal development. What really will determine whether of not you "should" pull (i.e. under develop) the film is what sort of contrast you want on the print compared to what sort of contrast ("luminance range" or "subject brightness range") existed in reality when you took the photos.

The good thing about the overexposure is that if you decide to pull the film based on desired contrast, you won't lose as much in the dark areas due to the underdevelopment as you would have lost if you had exposed normally and pulled.

 

[markbarendt]

If you shot at what the incident meter said, I see no reason to change your development.

In camera meters are easy to fool.

I would suggest doing some film testing going forward to match your metering to your processes.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I'm shooting HP5 in pretty much the same conditions as the OP in terms of lighting. contrast etc just the other side of the Aegean. The light is very bright but less contrasty than you'd think when you check with a Spotmeter. It's no more contrasty than UK spring sunshine. I shoot HP5 at 320 ISO with plenty of tonality.

Watch because HC110 doesn't give good film speed anyway so drop the speeed by half a stop.

Ian

 

[Iridium]

According to your answers, I'm gonna develop it in normal time. Actually, at first I will develop only one roll and after inspection I'll decide. In any case that I'll need help, I'll come back.

I think, with HC-110, H solution and after 30'' continuous agitation and 2 agitations/minute, it's possible to smooth somehow the contrast. I haven't tried the HP5+ with Agfa Rodinal. I have seen a contradiction on the latter.

 

[Iridium]

Watch because HC110 doesn't give good film speed anyway so drop the speeed by half a stop.

Ian

Thanx Ian. I have never tried to drop the speed of HP5+ by 1/2 stop. I see that a lot of people do it. Thus, I will give a try next time. I think in the development I should alternate the time respectively...or not?

 

[Ian Grant]

See what your fisrt negatives are like first.

Ian

 

[Robert Budding]

I used to rate HP5+ at EI 200, but then I discovered XTOL. Now I rate at EI 320.

 

[Steve Smith]

I used to rate HP5+ at EI 200, but then I discovered XTOL. Now I rate at EI 320.

.... me too.... then I discovered Prescysol. Now it's box speed for everything and the same development time for everything!


Steve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Last Sunday I shot a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ (both 35 & 120mm) @ the nominal speed of 400 under bright sun conditions. Most of the photos were shot on the comp of 250/f11 which was +1 stop of the built-in lightmeter reading (which is correct according to a handhold lightmeter incident metering).

I usually develop my films in HC-110 with H solution.

In order to keep a good tonality and normal contrast, should I under-develop a little bit the film? Cause, I think if I use normal development time, then the contrast will be unwillingly high.

In a word? NO!!!!!!!!! There is nothing wrong with box speed. The film can handle the latitude of light.

Steve

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Agree with most of the above. Just take care not to over-agitate. Stick to the recommended method.

 

[Q.G.]

In a word? NO!!!!!!!!! There is nothing wrong with box speed. [...]

If so, would shooting it at half the box speed not lead to another one word answer?

 

[Steve Smith]

If so, would shooting it at half the box speed not lead to another one word answer?

Lots of words.... the conclusion to my lazy person's guide to finding a personal EI: http://www.freewebs.com/stevesmithphoto/personal.html



Steve.

 

[Iridium]

Lots of words.... the conclusion to my lazy person's guide to finding a personal EI: http://www.freewebs.com/stevesmithphoto/personal.html


Steve.

Dear Steve, thanx for your answer. I red also your link. However, I would like to ask you what's the reason for halving the nominal speed of a 400 ISO film, if you use this film exactly for its high speed? I could understand to downgrade to EI 320 in order to achieve better details on the shadows.

 

[Steve Smith]

I would like to ask you what's the reason for halving the nominal speed of a 400 ISO film, if you use this film exactly for its high speed? I could understand to downgrade to EI 320 in order to achieve better details on the shadows.

If using an ISO 400 film at EI 320 gives an increase in shadow detail then using it at EI 200 will increase it even further.

In overcast conditions where the scene doesnt have much contrast then I would stay at ISO 400 but on bright days with a large subject brightness range I would use it at EI 200 to get the shadows and reduce the exposure to tame the highlights.

I don't do this any more though. I now use all films at rated speed and develop with Prescysol.


Steve.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... However, I would like to ask you what's the reason for halving the nominal speed of a 400 ISO film, if you use this film exactly for its high speed? I could understand to downgrade to EI 320 in order to achieve better details on the shadows.

Because you want to get lower contrast negatives, that's why.

We usually control contrast by adjusting the development time. More time gives more contrast and less time gives less. Additionally, for a given, adequate exposure, more time gives more density in the negative and less time gives less. So, if you reduce development time and shoot at EI400, you will not only get lower contrast, but also less density, thinner negatives. But there's also a fine detail: there's a minimum useful density and below that point it's impossible to get anything other than black; you won't get enough tonal differentiation. That point is about 0,1 log density units above the density of clear film (film base plus fog). Depending on what scenes you have shot, you might shoot at box speed, reduce development time and have no, or minimal problems, because the scenes didn't have quite dark shadows. The truth is, that's the exception, not the normal case. But density can be controlled by both development and exposure. So, in order to get a good low contrast negative, you'll need to reduce development and increase exposure. That means that you'll have to downrate your film by about 1 stop, so you'll halve it's speed. So, an ISO400 film shot at EI200 is still a fast one, because the ISO100 films would be shot at EI50, still slower by 2 stops...

 

[Marco B]

Last Sunday I shot a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ (both 35 & 120mm) @ the nominal speed of 400 under bright sun conditions.
....
In order to keep a good tonality and normal contrast, should I under-develop a little bit the film? Cause, I think if I use normal development time, then the contrast will be unwillingly high.

In a word? NO!!!!!!!!! There is nothing wrong with box speed. The film can handle the latitude of light.

Steve

Well, depends on what end result you want...

I only seriously started experimenting with push/pull developments about a year ago, mostly pull for night shots. I recently had similar conditions to yours (bright sun), and decided to do an experiment by shooting two consecutive sheets of HP5+ from the same scene with different exposures (one normal, one overexposed), to do a "normal" and "pull" development to see what I would get.

The attachments show the (scanned) results, both the negatives, and a bit arbitrary positive conversions I made in you-know-what, but that I think represent the images quite well.

The left images are the "normal" ones, the right the "pull" version.

I measured at EI250, but that is mainly because my light meter is calibrated to match my Dynax 7, which seems to underexpose (at least with my standard BW development techniques) compared to box speed. I get best results if I overexpose by 1/2 - 2/3 of a stop and do a slight pull (10-15%)

I measured an EV9.8 for zone 2/3 in the lower left corner, and EV 16.3 for the brightest patches in the sky, so overall about 6.5 EV values. Not an exceptional range, and a pull might not be necessary, but I decided for "science sake" to try it anyway...

I exposed the "normal" shot 1 second, F32
I exposed the "pull" shot 8 second, F32 (reciprocity!)

Both shots with a red filter.

I developed the normal shot 10 min. in D76 1:1
I developed the pull shot 6.5 min. in D76 1:1

Notice the pull shot looks considerably flatter, but has clearly more shadow detail in the lower parts of the image in the shadow of the ferns. If I would print this negative, I would probably print it a slightly higher grade (3), to get the image somewhere inbetween the two scanned ones you are seeing here.

 

[Steve Smith]

Here is another article I wrote on the subject of matching EI to contrast. Not because I think I'm an expert, more as a permanent note to myself: http://www.freewebs.com/stevesmithphoto/contrast.html

Please feel free to correct any assumptions/errors I have made and I will change my article.


Steve.

 

[OMU]

If anyone prosesses in JOBO, here are my data:

Developed in HC-110: HP5+ ISO 400
N - 2 EI 200 G 6 min 50 sek
N - 1 EI 250 B 5 min 45 sek
N EI 320 B 7 min 45 sek
N + 1 EI 320 B 9 min 30 sek
N + 2 EI 400 B 12 min 40 sek

Regards
OM