hp5+

[Kodiak]

Characteristic curve, when developed in Rodinal (named "Blazinal" in Canada) is something I never saw before:
At 92% reflectance (like white paper) I got film density 1.28 which tells me that development time is OK.
From white paper to 18% grey the curve is going downward somehow slow, which tells me that details in highlight will be recorded but with reduced contrast, and density at 18% reflectance is very high and will be reproduced un-naturally bright.
From 18% grey to 9% reflectance of the surface the curve is nearly horizontal and on print the surfaces with these two tones might merge very easy.
From 9% reflectance and toward transparent part of the Film the curve drops like from cliff, which means darker parts will be separate very well.
I did test three times for I could not believe that Ilford can make such bad Film. I am done with hp5 for ever.
This shape of the curve is not even and close to what Ilford shows when developed in Ilford developer. I just dislike it very much and bought 30 m of Tri-X which I am about to test, and from information I have now it is to expect much better characteristic curve.

Did anyone tested the Film in other developers and made characteristic-curve (density vs tone II to VIII)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5+ has been my main film for over 20 years. I have made hundreds of curves with many different developers (including Blazinal) and all sorts of dilutions. I've settled on Xtol 1+1 and Pyrocat-HD. D-76 1+1 is very similar to Xtol 1+1 curve. Basically, HP5+ is a medium contrast film, with increased shadow/midtone contrast, decreased highlights (which I prefer). If you look in my gallery, most of my images were made with HP5. Different developers and dilutions can alter the curve somewhat. You should base your decisions on actual images, rather than curves. They only tell part of the story.

 

[Dali]

Yeah, everyone knows that Ilford makes bad films. If I were you, I would contact them and share your conclusions. Who knows, it might encourage then to work on better films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yeah, everyone knows that Ilford makes bad films. If I were you, I would contact them and share your conclusions. Who knows, it might encourage then to work on better films.

Hmmmmm! I believe this comment is meant to be a little sarcastic humor. Am I right? I really like HP5+ in Xtol replenished and Pyrocat-HDC. Either is a perfect combination. JohnW

 

[Lachlan Young]

Characteristic curve, when developed in Rodinal (named "Blazinal" in Canada) is something I never saw before:
At 92% reflectance (like white paper) I got film density 1.28 which tells me that development time is OK.
From white paper to 18% grey the curve is going downward somehow slow, which tells me that details in highlight will be recorded but with reduced contrast, and density at 18% reflectance is very high and will be reproduced un-naturally bright.
From 18% grey to 9% reflectance of the surface the curve is nearly horizontal and on print the surfaces with these two tones might merge very easy.
From 9% reflectance and toward transparent part of the Film the curve drops like from cliff, which means darker parts will be separate very well.
I did test three times for I could not believe that Ilford can make such bad Film. I am done with hp5 for ever.
This shape of the curve is not even and close to what Ilford shows when developed in Ilford developer. I just dislike it very much and bought 30 m of Tri-X which I am about to test, and from information I have now it is to expect much better characteristic curve.

Did anyone tested the Film in other developers and made characteristic-curve (density vs tone II to VIII)

All this tells us is that your testing procedures aren't up to much - HP5+ is a very good, tonally excellent & extremely forgiving film.

It also shows that poor attempts at sensitometry are often worse than starting from the manufacturer's recommendations & adjusting EI & process times from there.

Have you used the film to photograph real-world objects yet or not?

 

[removedacct1]

Hmmmmm! I believe this comment is meant to be a little sarcastic humor. Am I right?

Total sarcasm, yes.

 

[Dali]

Hmmmmm! I believe this comment is meant to be a little sarcastic humor. Am I right? I really like HP5+ in Xtol replenished and Pyrocat-HDC. Either is a perfect combination. JohnW

Of course it is. But I don't want to deceive those who think they know better than manufacturers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Total sarcasm, yes.

That's a relief. C Dickens wrote of Marley's rattling chains in "A Christmas Carol" but I was hearing the rattle of the chains as they were locked on the gates of Mobberley for the last time

On a more serious note the OP has either made his mind up completely on HP5+ which may be the end of the thread or now entertains a slight element of doubt about his conclusion. If the latter then he might give us more detail to see if there is any way to reconcile his findings with what the rest of us have found with HP5+.

Of all the Ilford films in all the world to plagiarise a famous line, I imagine that HP5+ is still the best selling Ilford film. There has to be a reason why.

pentaxuser

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The film is total rubbish. Blues, greens, reds come out as just tones of grey. I had to look very hard to discern any differences among these colours.

Silliness aside, HP5+ is among the best high speed B&W films.

 

[canuhead]

tough room, yikes lol

 

[ann]

The film is total rubbish. Blues, greens, reds come out as just tones of grey. I had to look very hard to discern any differences among these colours.

Silliness aside, HP5+ is among the best high speed B&W films.

on rgb being gray

Used that film for a very long time and my students use=it as well

 

[M Carter]

I rarely need a fast film, but when I do, HP5 pushed in DD-X is very very good. DD-X can eke out shadow detail like nobody's business. (I really don't like the clumpy/mushy grain of Delta 3200).

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Welcome to photrio!

As it seems, your ways differ from the average: Usually, people try to find a good developer for their film, you are looking for a good film to match your developer. Probably Foma can make you very happy with a more traditional emulsion. Your conclusion that HP5+ is a bad product as it does not develop up to your expectations in "Blazinal" seems a bit far fetched and maybe will not be universally accepted.

With regards to your test: When I tried to soup HP5+ in Adonal, it did not meet my expectations either, but that is just me. Maybe the combo aint no good, maybe I was too dumb to figure it out. But I do respect everybody who does / likes that combination. And for me, there is always Perceptol and Microphen.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, it's totally awful film. That's why I kept buying box after box of it in 8x10, just to help me throw away money, which was only the start, cause I printed a lot of them on expensive paper too, then drymounted em on expensive museum board, just to show everyone how bad a film it really is. It's a middle of the road film in terms of characteristic curve, with a bit more toe than FP4, just like Ilford's own published curve (if it ain't - don't blame the film!), and obviously higher speed with bigger grain. And in PMK pyro it has a wonderful non-distracting "watercolor grain", yet with enhanced edge effect. It's wonderful for medium contrast scenes on large sheet film, but struggles with extreme contrast shadow gradation due to that slightly long toe. I won't go into the various special tricks I know how to do with it; but there are some.

 

[removed account4]

Characteristic curve, when developed in Rodinal (named "Blazinal" in Canada) is something I never saw before:
At 92% reflectance (like white paper) I got film density 1.28 which tells me that development time is OK.
From white paper to 18% grey the curve is going downward somehow slow, which tells me that details in highlight will be recorded but with reduced contrast, and density at 18% reflectance is very high and will be reproduced un-naturally bright.
From 18% grey to 9% reflectance of the surface the curve is nearly horizontal and on print the surfaces with these two tones might merge very easy.
From 9% reflectance and toward transparent part of the Film the curve drops like from cliff, which means darker parts will be separate very well.
I did test three times for I could not believe that Ilford can make such bad Film. I am done with hp5 for ever.
This shape of the curve is not even and close to what Ilford shows when developed in Ilford developer. I just dislike it very much and bought 30 m of Tri-X which I am about to test, and from information I have now it is to expect much better characteristic curve.

Did anyone tested the Film in other developers and made characteristic-curve (density vs tone II to VIII)

at the risk of sounding like a snarky jerk ( which i don't mean to sound like )
this is why i don't do densitometry and sensitometry tests, ever.
while i am guessing those types of tests are somehow useful ,,
i just use film and develop it and print ( or scan ) it and end of story.

on the happy note, there's bunches of film made these days.
so you should be able to find one that suits your particular needs !

 

[Wayne]

I developed a sheet of 4x5 HP5+ in Rodinal just the other night and it came out COMPLETELY BLANK! I'm still not sure who to blame, but I know I've never taken a picture of nothing.

 

[wyofilm]

I developed a sheet of 4x5 HP5+ in Rodinal just the other night and it came out COMPLETELY BLANK! I'm still not sure who to blame, but I know I've never taken a picture of nothing.

Expose the sheet a second time! The image might take with another go around.

 

[IanBarber]

Hmmmmm! I believe this comment is meant to be a little sarcastic humor. Am I right? I really like HP5+ in Xtol replenished and Pyrocat-HDC. Either is a perfect combination. JohnW

I have just switched to HP5+ for both 120 and 4x5 and I am also going to be using XTOL Replenished and PyrocatHD. What times have you arrived at for both these developers please.

 

[NB23]

It is true, HP5 is very flat. But it pushes like no other.

Try it at 800 and 1600. Picks up beautifully

 

[cowanw]

Blazinol did not work for me. which left me perplexed as Rodinol is one of the longest in existence and well established developers. Between papers and developers, it seemed best to change to an Ilford developer.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Rodinal does produce very unusual curves with a number of films, but not when used to develop HP5 Plus. Check out the results here:

http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkadonal.html​

Two different films can be compared simultaneously on the main page. For weird, look at what it does to TMX.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Rodinal does produce very unusual curves with a number of films, but not when used to develop HP5 Plus. Check out the results here:

http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkadonal.html​

Two different films can be compared simultaneously on the main page. For weird, look at what it does to TMX.

I have noticed a few weird errors here & there on that page with various film/ developer combinations - probably operator error/ transcription mistakes when entering data into the curve drawing program & not totally surprising given the sheer number of film/ developer combinations covered. I'd not be totally surprised if TMX & Delta 100 delivered pretty similar curves in Rodinal.

On the matter of characteristic curves, I think the reason people who get themselves in a mess with HP5+ vis-a-vis TX is the shorter toe of TX compresses underexposed shadows firmly enough to hold them well under a printable threshold, whereas the softer toe of HP5 gives the impression that more is/ can be extracted - as does its softer shoulder - all of which add up to a perhaps erroneous description of the material as 'low contrast'. It is, I think, a classic illustration of why gamma rather than CI/ G-bar can be a poor indicator of film behaviour away from the straight line portion of the curve.

 

[Ian Grant]

Rodinal is unusual it;s best to control contrast with dilution rather than just development time. I wouldn't use it with HP5.

I've never found HP5 to be a "flat" film, like other films it's about finding your personal EI and development times for various conditions. Now HP4 was a flat dull film unlike HP3 and later HP5, it's why HP4 wasn't around very long.

Ian

 

[Kodiak]

What is a point to have an expensive Camera and Zeiss Lens and then you do not care for film speed, development time, densities,... Ability to control the system with certain accuracy / predictability is just exactly is why some stuff are more / less expensive.
And for HP5+
I might get some bad batch which is easy in Canada. I did some tests in past on HP5+ and never got bad char. curve.
Might be my water was the fuckup, for I used the city water. Water kind knows to change things a lot.
Anyway I got 30 m of Tri-X and already tested it. Result is just perfect, as my 30 m FP4+ is. All developed in "Rodinal".

Adding: colours (mag, red, or, yell, Green-Lg, Green-Da, Blue-Sky) reproduced in Tri-X are just very close to what my LightMeter shows which was not the case with HP5+, so one more point for the Tri-X. Good decision to buy Tri-X.
For your LightMeter and developer HP5+ might be is better choice...

 

[warden]

I did test three times for I could not believe that Ilford can make such bad Film. I am done with hp5 for ever.

I was tracking along until you made the leap of blaming the film. (Why do people blame the film first?) I thought you were about to ask, "what did I do wrong?"

"This shape of the curve is not even and close to what Ilford shows when developed in Ilford developer."

Maybe buy another roll, and develop the film using the Ilford process and fresh Ilford developer this time and see if your curve matches theirs. If your curve is not close to theirs you've narrowed down the source of the problem, and it's not Ilford.

Edit: I see you've posted again and are looking at other reasons for your weird results, which is a good idea.