Ilford HP4

[xBaxterx]

Hi guys,

I recently acquired a bulk loader second hand which was half full of Ilford HP4, I misread the label and thought it was HP5, so while on holiday i shot three rolls of it at 400 in my FM2.

Now I have returned home and am gutted at the thought of loosing all my travel shots.

The only developers I have here at home are Xtol and Rodinal.

Does anyone here have any suggestions for development times or techniques?

Thanks in advance!!!!!

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Is that film HP4 or FP4 ? If you shoot 125 ASA FP4 to 400 , ı think it is small problem. In couple of hours someone would inform you the correct development timing.

 

[pdeeh]

HP4 was a 400 speed film, though if you have some the chances of it still retaining full speed by now is pretty slim, as it's about 40 years since it was last manufactured.

 

[Ian Grant]

HP4 had a tendency to build up base fog with age, try it in Xtol times were similar to HP5, run some tesy exposures ti see the speed. Chances are it' not really usable now as it was replaced in 1976, slower emulsions keep better.

I cut my teeth on FP3 & HP3

Ian

 

[Axle]

Xtol, full strength, also, pull a stop for every 10 years the film is expired. (Approx). Pull it to ASA-100 and see what that gives you.

 

[Regular Rod]

Hi guys,

I recently acquired a bulk loader second hand which was half full of Ilford HP4, I misread the label and thought it was HP5, so while on holiday i shot three rolls of it at 400 in my FM2.

Now I have returned home and am gutted at the thought of loosing all my travel shots.

The only developers I have here at home are Xtol and Rodinal.

Does anyone here have any suggestions for development times or techniques?

Thanks in advance!!!!!

It will be fine.

HP4 was a good film of 400 ASA.

Use the developer you like best and go for it. You might find a 2 minute pre-soak with plain water at your developing temperature will help ensure even development and avoid streaks.

If you fear under exposure might have occurred try a roll developed to a stand or semi-stand procedure. That way you will make the most of whatever shadow detail can be retrieved without blocking your highlights.

RR

 

[pentaxpete]

Sorry to disagree with the above post BUT if you have shot it at 400 ASA the film will be very under-exposed as it will have lost so much sensitivity over all those years since it was discontinued --- I never got really 'Good' results with HP4 especially in 35mm -- it had a high fog level and was not as sharp and fine-grained as Kodak Tri-X but I had to use it as I was supplied with it by the newspaper for which I was a 'Retained Freelancer' in the 1970's until they went broke in 1980.

 

[Regular Rod]

If the film is developed as if underexposed, in other words as if pushing it, the images can be salvaged, especially if the negatives are scanned and then worked on with Photoshop to deal with any fog. Not 100% analogue of course but the main objective here surely has to be to salvage the images?

If Xtol is available there is a routine here in the Massive Development Chart http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?devrow=5697 that would take the under exposure into account by two stops...

This one for Rodinal is a classic stand development routine that might be even better http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?devrow=5574

RR

 

[Fixcinater]

If your film was stored well, you should be OK.

I don't know the relation to FP4 but I recently shot some Ilford Mk. V film tested in '73 (expired '79 at least), did a test roll and liked the results shot at 200 the most, but EI of 400 was not bad by any means. I developed it in HC110 (1+49) for 8 minutes, which is what I have been doing basically everything from Tri-X to PanF+ 50 at, and I've been very happy with it.

The Mk. V was reportedly a cine film rated at 400, so it may be similar in technology.

 

[pentaxuser]

Unless every frame is irreplaceable then cut the first film into sections, say three, and develop the first at Xto times for HP5+ and take it from there. In fact even if every frame is irreplaceable still cut it up and lose at least one frame. Not doing so may result in poorer negs from the whole roll than would otherwise be the case.

pentaxuser

 

[donkee]

I would load up a few short rolls and test, if you still have any in the bulk loader.

 

[xBaxterx]

Thanks heaps for all the replys!!!!

I have some more in the bulk loader, so I will make up some more test rolls and try some of the methods you have suggested.

Thanks again!!

 

[Regular Rod]

Thanks heaps for all the replys!!!!

I have some more in the bulk loader, so I will make up some more test rolls and try some of the methods you have suggested.

Thanks again!!

That's a very good plan. Then you will have a better idea of how to process your exposed films... Be sure to investigate the effect of stand and semi-stand development on some of the film exposed just as you exposed your travel photographs.

Best of luck.

RR