HP5+, two developers... Please help me decide...

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello.

First, the situation:

I have a 35mm roll of HP5+ shot at 320… Yet to develop. It was common overcast, not too bright, not too dull… Some frames were taken after incident metering at 320, and the rest of them were equally carefully metered, with in camera meter: when the scene was a bit lighter than middle gray, I decided +1/2 or +1, and when most of the frame was white wall, I used +2, and if there were light sources of course metering was done in an appropriate area excluding those light sources, or with the spot meter. So, it’s really 320. (Question A)

I had never exposed HP5+ generously in my life… I have used it for pushing at 1600 for decades with several developers, even knowing pushing is nothing less than frying horribly underexposed negatives… HP5+’s grain is a bit disorganized (compared to Tri-X), and less tight… Also grains -space between grains- have more varying size: that’s necessary to make the film sensitive enough to reach ISO3200, something Tri-X doesn’t like to do… So HP5+ is kind of flat, because its made to reach a common contrast after pushing… And it can hold a wild developer shot…

I prefer its grain as sharp as posible… I used Rodinal for many years but I became worried about middle grays compression… So my goal is getting, with another developer, (and a non staining one) the best tonality that’s posible from ISO400 film with sharp grain: nearly no solvency… I studied for long with HP5+ and ID-11 1+1: that’s some solvency… I want less solvency than ID-11 / D-76 1+1… Xtol is very solvent, even dilute… I use 12x16 paper. Grain is very visible.

Second, the matter of this post:

All I care about is tone… I need to decide if I use my just mixed ID-11, or my just mixed Microphen: I’ll do what most forum members say here… Why? Because I have several reasons to think each of both developers is the best option… I’ve been thinking, and I can’t decide…

Why ID-11? Because it’s been for a lifetime optimized for the most precious tone with traditional grain film, and the most rigid academia indicates one should use just the standard developer all the time, and only take a different road in very few and really uncommon ocassions… And because in fact it does beautifully the small contrast expansion that’s needed to place that overcast on Galerie 3…

Why Microphen? It’s a developer that’s not just made for pushing… Phenidone simply develops film with a bit more speed… But is that really usable…? In some cases, no… In other cases, I’ve found it means a stop faster shutter speed, or a stop more depth of field, two valid reasons… It has less solvent than ID-11/D-76, and it produces a sharper grain that remains controlled after pushing… But what here, with ISO400 film exposed at 320…? Is it correct to asume Microphen produces -from a 320 exposure- the very same wonderful tone/grain ID-11 produces from a 200 exposure? Microphen can seem a good idea too because is has a special snap for bringing alive soft light: what it’s designed for…

Question A: Do I get totally linear shadow separation with HP5+ at 320? Would it be safer to go to 250 or 200 with ID-11? Even with microphen?

Question B: What developer why? For tone and sharp grain…

Thanks!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's my main film. I routinely shoot it at EI 250. I've developed it with many developers and it performs best with more exposure given to the shadows... like most b/w films. But to be honest with you, I really didn't like it in ID-11. I found the B+F excessive. For tone and sharp grain I recommend conventional developer, Xtol 1+1 or for staining developer, Pyrocat-HD. Xtol 1+1 and HP5 was a match made in heaven. Then I discovered pyrocat-hd...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Andrew...
Now or later, from anyone, all images (or links) comparing tone, grain, EI, etc., from the same image in two developers / dilutions, are extremely well received...
Gathering information on well exposed HP5+ seems like a good idea, as there are lots of contradictions about developers and tonal responses all around the web.
I've read: "Microphen should be used stock. Dissolved it loses its powers, and you get more grain."
It can be translated as "Right now I don't enjoy the benefits of sharp grain, and I enjoy mushed grain better, so I dissolve it more than you do."
And I've read: "Don't use Microphen. Stick with ID-11. Microphen will make your grain exploit always."
That means "Microphen has lower solvency than ID-11, so Microphen stock dissolves grain less than ID-11 does, so Microphen cares about acutance..."
And also "You can't get great tone with Microphen with well exposed film because it was made for pushing..."
Sometimes that's "I have no idea about how good Ilford's Chemists made Microphen to work tonally when film receives all the light it can take..."

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would recommend XTOL and here is why:

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Last year I tried Xtol stock, diluted, and replenished: it is a great developer indeed, sharp and fast, and that's why it's found its place... In my case, I found it surprisingly solvent even dilute...

 

[removed account4]

Last year I tried Xtol stock, diluted, and replenished: it is a great developer indeed, sharp and fast, and that's why it's found its place... In my case, I found it surprisingly solvent even dilute...

i found it to be the flattest developer i have ever used, must be the vit c cause caffenol c is kind of the same

 

[Rudeofus]

Here's a page which provides test image samples of a wide range of film&developer combinations, including HP5+ and the two developers you asked for.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Rudeofus!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't know what to think of that site: when I compare on screen side by side HP5+ in D-76 and Xtol, both 1+1, Xtol looks clearly grainier... When I compared some time ago Xtol to D-76 1+1, Xtol showed less grain than D-76 with all the films I tried.... I don't think Xtol should give more grain than D-76.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Look at FP4+ in D-76 and Xtol: with Xtol it shows less grain...

 

[Rudeofus]

If you compare the XTol to the D-76 result for HP5+, then yes, XTol looks very grainy even compared to D-76, especially in the highlight region. I do like the shadows in XTol a lot better, though, just look at the lower left section.

And let's face it: if graininess is your main concern, then HP5+ is not exactly a good starting point anyway ....

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you compare the XTol to the D-76 result for HP5+, then yes, XTol looks very grainy even compared to D-76, especially in the highlight region. I do like the shadows in XTol a lot better, though, just look at the lower left section.

And let's face it: if graininess is your main concern, then HP5+ is not exactly a good starting point anyway ....

Hi,
You forgot I said tone was my main concern.
And I like grain.
Clear and sharp.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello.

First, the situation:

I have a 35mm roll of HP5+ shot at 320… Yet to develop. It was common overcast, not too bright, not too dull… Some frames were taken after incident metering at 320, and the rest of them were equally carefully metered, with in camera meter: when the scene was a bit lighter than middle gray, I decided +1/2 or +1, and when most of the frame was white wall, I used +2, and if there were light sources of course metering was done in an appropriate area excluding those light sources, or with the spot meter. So, it’s really 320. (Question A)

I had never exposed HP5+ generously in my life… I have used it for pushing at 1600 for decades with several developers, even knowing pushing is nothing less than frying horribly underexposed negatives… HP5+’s grain is a bit disorganized (compared to Tri-X), and less tight… Also grains -space between grains- have more varying size: that’s necessary to make the film sensitive enough to reach ISO3200, something Tri-X doesn’t like to do… So HP5+ is kind of flat, because its made to reach a common contrast after pushing… And it can hold a wild developer shot…

I prefer its grain as sharp as posible… I used Rodinal for many years but I became worried about middle grays compression… So my goal is getting, with another developer, (and a non staining one) the best tonality that’s posible from ISO400 film with sharp grain: nearly no solvency… I studied for long with HP5+ and ID-11 1+1: that’s some solvency… I want less solvency than ID-11 / D-76 1+1… Xtol is very solvent, even dilute… I use 12x16 paper. Grain is very visible.

Second, the matter of this post:

All I care about is tone… I need to decide if I use my just mixed ID-11, or my just mixed Microphen: I’ll do what most forum members say here… Why? Because I have several reasons to think each of both developers is the best option… I’ve been thinking, and I can’t decide…

Why ID-11? Because it’s been for a lifetime optimized for the most precious tone with traditional grain film, and the most rigid academia indicates one should use just the standard developer all the time, and only take a different road in very few and really uncommon ocassions… And because in fact it does beautifully the small contrast expansion that’s needed to place that overcast on Galerie 3…

Why Microphen? It’s a developer that’s not just made for pushing… Phenidone simply develops film with a bit more speed… But is that really usable…? In some cases, no… In other cases, I’ve found it means a stop faster shutter speed, or a stop more depth of field, two valid reasons… It has less solvent than ID-11/D-76, and it produces a sharper grain that remains controlled after pushing… But what here, with ISO400 film exposed at 320…? Is it correct to asume Microphen produces -from a 320 exposure- the very same wonderful tone/grain ID-11 produces from a 200 exposure? Microphen can seem a good idea too because is has a special snap for bringing alive soft light: what it’s designed for…

Question A: Do I get totally linear shadow separation with HP5+ at 320? Would it be safer to go to 250 or 200 with ID-11? Even with microphen?

Question B: What developer why? For tone and sharp grain…

Thanks!

I recommend Rodinal according to the massive dev chart. It seems to have the most hive intelligence.

 

[Pentode]

You forgot I said tone was my main concern.

If tone is your main concern I, personally, wouldn't worry too much about whether a developer is more or less solvent and just concentrate on whether it gives me the tonality I'm looking for.

I like the tonality of ID-11/D-76 1:1 on traditional grained films like HP5+ but that's just my preference and tonality is a very personal thing. If you have both developers mixed you're best bet is to do some testing and decide based on your results rather than our opinions. How you print will affect your overall outcome, too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I recommend Rodinal according to the massive dev chart. It seems to have the most hive intelligence.

Thank you, Ralph... I started having troubles getting Rodinal two or three years ago: it's the developer I've used the most... Now it was declared a risk for water years ago, it's simply illegal to make it cross the oceans (to South America in my case), so I stopped using it... I like Rodinal so much that I used it even for pushing no matter its speed loss and its middle tones compression; but now you mention it, as I've basically pushed film all my life, maybe I should give it (Rodinal) a try for the first time for slight overexposure, instead of pushing... I might find that gives an interesting tone... Thank you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If tone is your main concern I, personally, wouldn't worry too much about whether a developer is more or less solvent and just concentrate on whether it gives me the tonality I'm looking for.

You're very right, if you're thinking of a different subject or about other threads and larger formats... But you're very wrong here, because as I said (and you may have done it too...) I'm printing 35mm to 12x16 inches... The ways grain is treated count a lot. Thanks.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's my main film. I routinely shoot it at EI 250. I've developed it with many developers and it performs best with more exposure given to the shadows... like most b/w films. But to be honest with you, I really didn't like it in ID-11. I found the B+F excessive. For tone and sharp grain I recommend conventional developer, Xtol 1+1 or for staining developer, Pyrocat-HD. Xtol 1+1 and HP5 was a match made in heaven. Then I discovered pyrocat-hd...

Any examples of sharp grain with Xtol or Pyrocat-HD? Weren't both of them designed precisely to avoid sharp grain and produce a more delicate tonal transition?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Any examples of sharp grain with Xtol or Pyrocat-HD? Weren't both of them designed precisely to avoid sharp grain and produce a more delicate tonal transition?

They were designed with sharpness in mind. If I were to go back to a conventional developer, I'd use Xtol 1+1. I have several images in my gallery here... but those won't really tell you much about grain. We can tell you this, and we can tell you that. In the end, you'll have to try them, compare them yourself. I did exhaustive tests way back in the 90's and settled on Xtol. Now I use Pyrocat-HD because to my eye, it appears sharper and less grainy. That's probably due to the staining effect. I also work mainly with large format film, and that's a different baby.

 

[Rudeofus]

You forgot I said tone was my main concern.
And I like grain.
Clear and sharp.

Yes, you did state that in your OP. However, in your followup post to my fotoimport link it suddenly was all about the grain of HP5+ in XTol. If tonality is still your top prio, you can use that page to explore tonality for HP5+ exposed under very controlled conditions and developed in a variety of known products. If the small enlarged section does not give you that info, you can download the full negative scan as JPG in the bottom right section of this page.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, it seems the best possible tone, considering HP5+ was already exposed at 320, would be Microphen... Something close to the tone of ID-11 at 200, but with a little more snap (OK for overcast), and sharper grain... Sounds like it will work, in theory...
Perhaps it's not a myth the internet rumour about someone inside Ilford stating microphen should not be diluted... Maybe at least not to the same degree PQ developers can be well used... As I want as little solvency as possible, and considering microphen stock has less solvent than standard developers, I'll take the risk and dilute it just 1+1, to see if I can get sharper grain than I've got with stock.
I may end up using ID-11 for direct sun only.
Thanks everybody.

 

[Bormental]

I've been lurking here for a while and looks like it's going to be my first comment, because HP5+ development has been somewhat problematic for me.

Since getting back to film, I have been experimenting with different film stocks doing my own development at home, as well as using our local lab here in Berkeley (for reference). I do not wet print, I only scan with a DSLR and do post-processing in Photoshop. I have tried Xtol, DD-X and ID-11. And speaking of film stocks, I've been regularly shooting HP5+, Tri-X, both Delta films and FP4+, i.e. the usual suspects.

I have been following manufacturer recommendations to the letter and I haven't found significant differences between different developer / film combinations. Sure, some are grainier than others, but in terms of contrast and tonality, Photoshop is a great equalizer. I can get any look I want with any of these films.

But there's one glaring exception...

HP5+ looks quite bleak in DD-X and Xtol and requires a lot of massaging in post. I almost gave up on it but then I tried ID-11 and loved the results. Yes, processing errors and shooting conditions should always be considered, but I've developed several rolls of HP5+ in DD-X using Ilford's recommended timings, and I am leaning towards "not my fault, it really looks like this", especially after seeing some samples online. My lab uses Xtol for everything, and when they process my HP5+ rolls, the results are just marginally better, but still not great.

When developed in DD-X and (to a lesser degree) in Xtol, HP5+ looks very "compressed" towards mid-tones, i.e. I find a lot of middle-grey variations, but highlights are suppressed and shadows collapse into 100% blackness quite abruptly. And this remains true regardless of the negative density, i.e. over/under exposure does not help. The "levels" tool shows HP5+ curve as a nearly symmetrical hill, which goes up-down or shifts left-right from one exposure to the next, but keeps similar shape... At first I was thinking "well, this must be HP5+ low-contrast look people are talking about, and it's not for me". But then I tried ID-11 and HP5+ looks fantastic in it, very moody with unmistakable "film look" to it.

Someone later told me that Xtol and DD-X are "new generation" developers and "traditional" emulsions like HP5+ are best developed in "traditional" developers like ID76 or ID-11. I do not know... Tri-X which is also quite old, looks nearly identical in all developers I tried.

TL;DR: do not use DD-X or Xtol for HP5+ with stock dilutions (I am yet to try DD-X at 1:9 or Xtol 1:1)

 

[voceumana]

DK-50 supposedly produced nearly linear middle tones, though it's not recommended for high contrast scenes, and grain with 35mm might be excessive. You'll have to mix your own or get a kit from Photographer's Formulary.

 

[voceumana]

DK-50 supposedly produced nearly linear middle tones, though it's not recommended for high contrast scenes, and grain with 35mm might be excessive. You'll have to mix your own or get a kit from Photographer's Formulary.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

My go-to conventional developer is Rodinal 1+63 (1/2oz per quart): sharpest grain, good tonality and good speed when used with somewhat reduced agitation (every 2 or 3 min).

I love staining developers for their unmatched tonality and microcontrast, except in 35mm - the inherent and unavoidable grain of the small format becomes too mushy because it’s basically mixed with a dye image. Larger formats avoid this because grain structure is not part of the look.The MC version of pyrocat is better for sharpness than HD, but the grain will still be softer than Rodinal for example.

Pyrocat HD, in my tests, is not a sharp developer- it needs a larger format to convey sharpness. Great tonality though,

-Jarin

 

[pentaxuser]

What did you decide to use in the end, Juan and did it do what you wanted?

Thanks

pentaxuser