Ilford classic grain films and direct sun... Which one do you prefer?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello. I think I have never photographed under direct sun... So yesterday I did some tests with different development times and EIs for FP4+ in D-76... In the end I preferred 64 with an orange filter (it takes a stop and two thirds), so for incident metering that makes it 20, and scenes under the strongest sunlight here (no sand or water) look fine at 1/125 f/8 1/2 with the orange filter on... By the way, for overcast expansion, no filter of course, I preferred 80 for FP4+, with D-76 too... Different dilutions and agitation schemes as well... And: the expansion for soft light was made for filter 3, while the contraction for sun was made for filter 2. That way it seems to work well.
I had for long wanted to test direct sun... I picked FP4+ because it's a film that's often praised for its good shadow contrast, so "I imagined" it was the best option for a rich shadows contraction... I have HP5+ too, and TMY-2, but I'm using my TMax as my main film for street expansion, and I want to do sun with classic grain and sensitivity, and with old style filtering for blue skies darkening, so I don't want to use TMax for direct sun these days...
The fact is today I read three different posts about HP5+ being a better film for contraction, and FP4+ a better film for expansion... So: I have HP5+, and I have not moved the objects for the sunny FP4+ scene I did yesterday (including pure black, pure white, and Kodak's gray card, and also a black and white portrait in the shades), so I can repeat the exact scene with HP5+, but: I don't know if I'll get direct sun at the very same hour of the day hitting the scene in one or two days or weeks or months...
So in the meantime I'm here asking you what film do you prefer for sunlight between FP4+ and HP5+...
Although I think both films' designs should define the best film for it (sun), all developers/dilutions/agitagion and printing experiences will be very well received... Thanks.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello. I think I have never photographed under direct sun... So yesterday I did some tests with different development times and EIs for FP4+ in D-76... In the end I preferred 64 with an orange filter (it takes a stop and two thirds), so for incident metering that makes it 20, and scenes under the strongest sunlight here (no sand or water) look fine at 1/125 f/8 1/2 with the orange filter on... By the way, for overcast expansion, no filter of course, I preferred 80 for FP4+, with D-76 too... Different dilutions and agitation schemes as well... And: the expansion for soft light was made for filter 3, while the contraction for sun was made for filter 2. That way it seems to work well.
I had for long wanted to test direct sun... I picked FP4+ because it's a film that's often praised for its good shadow contrast, so "I imagined" it was the best option for a rich shadows contraction... I have HP5+ too, and TMY-2, but I'm using my TMax as my main film for street expansion, and I want to do sun with classic grain and sensitivity, and with old style filtering for blue skies darkening, so I don't want to use TMax for direct sun these days...
The fact is today I read three different posts about HP5+ being a better film for contraction, and FP4+ a better film for expansion... So: I have HP5+, and I have not moved the objects for the sunny FP4+ scene I did yesterday (including pure black, pure white, and Kodak's gray card, and also a black and white portrait in the shades), so I can repeat the exact scene with HP5+, but: I don't know if I'll get direct sun at the very same hour of the day hitting the scene in one or two days or weeks or months...
So in the meantime I'm here asking you what film do you prefer for sunlight between FP4+ and HP5+...
Although I think both films' designs should define the best film for it (sun), all developers/dilutions/agitagion and printing experiences will be very well received... Thanks.

I always conduct a full film test for each type of film and let the test results determine dev times,although, my results have always been pretty close to te great development chart online.

 

[Bormental]

HP5+ has been more sensitive to developer choice for me. If used with stock Xtol or stock ID-11 it's gorgeous with good light and probably would be my choice. FP4+ is super easy to work with, it gives me the same, predictable, a bit boring, if you will, look, and very malleable with post-processing. I do not print, however. A scan is my final destination so we may differ in our requirements.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Maybe someone has done the same sunny scene with FP4+ and HP5+...
The question is: after making two negatives that print closely the areas under direct sunlight, which film offers cleaner, lighter shades?
It's 8am here, and there's heavy overcast and rain...

 

[ic-racer]

For the last 5 years or so I use HP5 for everything.

 

[Alan9940]

I use both, but, if pressed, I'd probably give a nod to HP-5+. Depending on the developer, it's very smooth and the highlights are very controlled when shooting out here in the frank sun of the desert southwest, USA.

 

[Sirius Glass]

HP5+ with replenished XTOL or pyro

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I use HP5 in Pyrocat HD for my hand held 5x4 work in Turkey/Greece I can shoot at 1/125 f22 or sometimes f16 or 1/60, it's nearly always bright direct sun. I get superb highlight and shadow detail. It's some years since I shot FP4 but it's an excellent film I just prefer the slightly finer grain of Delta 100 & 400 for MF.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hard to beat HP5 and Pyrocat-HD.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks everyone!
Someone using diluted D-76 for direct sunlight?

 

[DREW WILEY]

FP4 will handle the higher contrast of open sun better than HP5 due to its longer straight line further down into the shadows - not ideally; but you asked about "classic" or traditional and not T-grain films. In open sun, I rate FP4 at 50 if significant areas of deep shadow are present that I wish to get at least some texture or life into. In more moderate or softer contrast scenes, both FP4 and HP5 can do wonderful things, but with quite different personalities. But all of this depends on someone's definition of "open sun". Here along the coast we get natural softbox conditions this time of year when veiling fog is in; but then, in the middle of the day, the sun can become quite direct, with very high contrast instead, going from about 6 stops of range even up to 12 stops of range in the redwoods on the same day. That's a pretty hard task for one film unless it's one of current TMax emulsions in sheet film, which can be individually developed. Or you can just seek out shots that match the range of the film itself, just like shooters of color slide film necessarily do. What people variously term minus or pull or compensating development risks squishing the sparkle and life out of films in an attempt to make a thin sandwich out of shadow to highlight endpoints which are really too far apart to be ideal. That's why I advocate a different film instead. But don't misunderstand me - I've shot a LOT of both FP4, and at least in 8x10, HP5 too, so know what kind of lovely results both these films are capable of achieving. Pyro helps, either way.

 

[grainyvision]

In my informal tests with different developers, etc, HP5+ is fairly low contrast and would definitely be a good film for contraction. FP4+ tends to be higher contrast and a bit more ideal for expansion. I've tested both in custom compensating and high-contract/minimally compensating developers and they are both capable of good results. HP5+ specifically though is hard to build up a lot of expansion with. However, if you're looking for a film where developer choice can really make a huge difference, you might try to get your hands on some Ilford Pan 400. It's a very low cost film not directly sold in the US at least, but is available rebranded as Ultrafine eXtreme 400. If you want higher speed and the easy capability to use an expanding developer, I'd recommend trying it. Do note that it will be a bit more grainy than HP5+, but pushes very well to 1600 or 3200 at least. For expansion in general though, I've found it paradoxically easier to actually "pull" the film in an appropriate developer. ie, over expose by 1 stop and use a high activity minimally compensating developer. This lets you get some shadow details and to really build up contrast in the highlights. Be careful doing this though because highlights can easily clip to dmax.

Personally for me I tend to struggle with direct sun, typically it means a very low contrast scene with flat lighting. I avoid shooting in it if I don't have to, but otherwise would aim for higher contrast development and using an orange filter as needed.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I've seen old photographs, made in direct sunlight, no haze or veil at all, in which the general visual mood is really sunny, almost happily warm, very close to the way we see, with radiant main subjects under bright sunlight, but with very open shades too... Shades that nearly look the way good overcast photography looks...
How did they do that?
I mean, is that possible on the negative, or is it printing mostly?

 

[Ian Grant]

This was taken close to midday in Southern Turkey, it's Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD, there's tones on the bright marble and details in the shadow area of the entrance to the theatre, there's tone in the sky as well, no filter used. HP5 wouldn't be much different.

This us the Racle Temple at Didim

HP5 in Pyrocat HD again middle of the day very bright sunlight and plenty of detail in the shadows (scans can be deceptive plenty in the print). I'm certain FP4 would be just as good it's a case of a little testing to find the optimal EI and development time for a film/developer combination.

Ian

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Wonderful tone, Ian... Thank you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For my fp4+ tests I went for D-76 1+2.2 (worried about too much midtone compression if I used 1+3), and agitation every third minute... And I used only 200ml stock instead of 240ml., trying to keep my developer not too powerful... When I get sun, I'll start testing HP5+ from there... Anyway I must say I was expecting shadows to be A LOT cleaner... They want to remain a dark thing, with just some texture, and not a sweet place for the eyes... Maybe what I've seen is done with dodging...

 

[Ian Grant]

For my fp4+ tests I went for D-76 1+2.2 (worried about too much midtone compression if I used 1+3), and agitation every third minute... And I used only 200ml stock instead of 240ml., trying to keep my developer not to powerful... When I get sun, I'll start testing HP5+ from there... Anyway I must say I was expecting shadows to be A LOT cleaner... They want to remain a dark thing, with just some texture, and not a sweet place for the eyes... Maybe what I've seen is done with dodging...

Some of the best 35mm FP4 negatives I've ever printed were shot with an Exacta Varex 1000, and its Zeiss lenses a 50m Pancolar, 35mm Flektago, and 135mm Sonnar, they were processed in ID-11 (then identical to D76) at 1+2, this dilution was at the request of a photographer friend, it's definitely better than 1+3. Tonality was superb excellent shadow and highlight details many of the images had been made in the Swiss Alps so bright contrasty light when the sun's out .

Ian

 

[Bormental]

Very much agree with @DREW WILEY here: too much "compression" leads to lifeless results, there's nothing great about shoving 12 stops of light into 6. HP5+ is prone to this with some developers. Ian's photos beg for some blown out highlights, in my humble opinion. Of course this is all subjective, but waiting for a better light is a better option (when you have it available).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ian's shots don't show midtone compression... Their highlights are right in place, even vibrant. And no other better light could have come for making them...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I got a moment of direct sun today, so I could do a couple of strips, and then I tried two development times for sunny HP5+... What I imagined before comparing FP4+ and HP5+: HP5+, being a lower contrast film, was going to show cleaner shadows in general, and FP4+, with its straight portion starting early in the toe, would show shadows a little less open but with more snap or contrast inside those low values...
Not at all... At least from what I can see on contacts, both films perform the same...
I'll stay with HP5+ because while FP4+ gives me 1/125 f/8.5 (at 64 and filtered), HP5+ gives me (at 160 and filtered too) 1/250 f/11, what allows me things FP4+ doesn't, like using MF without tripod, or going for f/16 for depth of field, or using 1/125 whithout losing depth of field when there's a bit of haze or veil...
Thank you all !

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I forgot: there was something new to me... I like grain, sharp visible grain, and I have used HP5+ with different developers since 1999, often in the 400 range for expansion and in the 1600 range for pushing, so I'm used to grainy HP5+, and that's what I expected today because of the low sulphite in my 1+2.2 dilution: not at all, again!
Must be the great amount of light used, never before done in my case, possibly mixed with the minimal agitation, every fourth minute... There's very high definition and detaiI, and I can't see grain on the negative with my 22x loupe: HP5+ under direct sunlight can behave like an ISO100 film! Really unexpected because of HP5+' mix of different sized types of grain... The film does three very different things, and does them very well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Juan - Those shots of Ian you refer to, yes, nice, but instead of marble columns, substitute black basalt or even pitted lava, and then pile up some sparkling snow and glaring ice all around, and see if you can achieve subtle tonality yet sparkle and nuanced depth over the whole contrast range in intense sunlight, and we might be able to have a realistic conversation about contrast and film choice. That's the kind of situation I've had to handle in the desert and high mountains for decades, and it can certainly separate the men from the boys when it comes to the respective abilities of characteristic film curves.... But as per your previous question : early photography was done with blue-sensitive plates and film, so rendered a very different look than today's panchromatic films. You can largely replicate the effect using a moderately deep blue filter over the lens. I too appreciate the more open shadows, and greater sense of atmospheric depth often seen in old pictures. But the nice thing about modern pan films is that you can filter them to create a wide range of desired effects.

 

[Dismayed]

There's no traditional magical film that's best for high contrast scenes (though t-grain films are great for reciprocity characteristics during long exposures). It's really just a matter of capturing shadow detail during exposure and developing to place the highlights where you want them. adam's The Negative is an excellent starting point, and Ralph's book, Way Beyond Monochrome, takes it to another level. But, yes, as Ralph already said, test.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for the explanation, Drew.
We agree: film can't easily record very high contrast and then reproduce the scene in a way that's close to what we see... A re-presentation is what we can do...
When I think of photographing using black and white under direct sunlight, I don't feel like doing common black and white overcast photography, but more like composing for slide film, with dangerous large areas' shadows indicating us to avoid them and compose for what's under sunlight... Then, we seek a way to present a few of those shadows to give the image balance... The first of Ian's shots is a beautiful, very well composed image, and also very well executed technically speaking, from exposure to development... And it conveys the sun's energy intensely, while many sunny images remain sadly cold in mood.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, getting the mood you want in the image should really be the priority. So one needs to become quite familiar with the personality of their favorite films. Various exposure models like the Zone System can be helpful, but are like learning basic chords on a piano rather than creating actual music. At a certain point, one just needs to feel it. For example, there are times I want blinding glare in a scene to give that same emotional impression in the print. At other times I may want a great deal of tonal delicacy in the highlights. A person has to make their own rules.