Ilford HP5+ and Xtol: Images as flat as can be

I've spent the last six months trying to nail that one film/one developer thing. Since I had a freezer full of HP5+, I decided to concentrate on that. Also, I've been using Xtol as developer.

However, no matter what I do (increase/reduce developement), shoot it at ISO 200, 400 or 800: The negatives come out very flat. I'm able to increase the contrast through other means, but I'm not really liking what I'm seeing.

Before I throw the rest away, I'm open to suggestions - but I have been thinking about doing the same thing with Tri-X, to see if that has more of the "gritty" feel I'm after.

So, calling HP5+ experts out there: What is your recipe to success?

Mix your Xtol and Rodinal.

Profit.

pour your xtol down the drain

simple

hp5+ looks IMHO best in rodinal 1+25, fx-4 1+1, dd-x 1+4 and d-76 1+1

I use Prescysol for everything now but I used to use Ilford DD-X for HP5.

Xtol should work fine but there are reports of it going off early so if yours is not too new, that could be the problem.

I would try changing just one thing at a time and in this case, I would shoot a roll the same way you are doing now but develop in something else to see if there is a difference.


Steve.

wordpress said:

...The negatives come out very flat. I'm able to increase the contrast through other means, but I'm not really liking what I'm seeing.

Before I throw the rest away, I'm open to suggestions - but I have been thinking about doing the same thing with Tri-X, to see if that has more of the "gritty" feel I'm after...

Click to expand...

Wait, flat is usually associated with contrast; flat negatives -> low contrast negatives. If it's grain that you want, Xtol is a poor choice. It's a fine grain developer, it wasn't meant to give a gritty look. Rodinal on the other hand is the obvious choice.

I use Xtol 1+1 with HP5+ and don't have any problems. When you say that your images are flat, are you talking about contrast or something else? If the problem is contrast, then increasing the developing time should have helped, but you say that you have already tried that.

Thank you all, I appreciate it. I have tried Xtol in different solutions: Stock, 1+1, 1+2 and 1+3. It's the contrast that is flat, so I will try to get hold of some Rodinal and try that. At the moment I have ID-11, Microphen and Rodinal Special (which I understand is basically Studional). So all filled up with the wrong developers

How much did you increase the developing time with the Xtol? I don't understand why you didn't get increased contrast. Changing the dilutions wouldn't have helped much.

I've been through the list in the Massive dev chart: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search

And, the contrast did change - but much less than I thought it would. It may be that I'm expecting miracles, I'll try to post samples later today.

Well, if adding, say 15% to the developing time didn't work, I would have gone up and up until I finally got the contrast I wanted. Changing to a different developer won't help you. You'll just have to start from scratch with determining developing times again.

wordpress said:

Before I throw the rest away, I'm open to suggestions -

Click to expand...

It's trash, I'd be happy to "dispose" of it for you, might even pay the shipping.

I went through the same thing see this (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I shoot HP5+ in 120 format, mainly in a Bronica 645RF, at 250 asa.

Souped it in Xtol 1:1 at 20degC, Patterson tank for 12 minutes; negatives are 90% of the cases printed on MG grade 2 1/2 (condensor enlarger)without serious problems, I have never seen contrast problems other than operator/exposure errors..

Best,

Cor

Chazzy said:

I use Xtol 1+1 with HP5+ and don't have any problems. When you say that your images are flat, are you talking about contrast or something else? If the problem is contrast, then increasing the developing time should have helped, but you say that you have already tried that.

Click to expand...

Chazzy is absolutely correct. Here is a curve from Foto Import which demonstrates what Xtol does with HP5... nearly linear response over a 14 f/stop range. HP5 is NOT by nature a gritty, harsh film... nor is Tri-X. You want NASTY, you must shoot in extreme contrast lighting.



BUT you can raise the contrast considerably. BELOW is the Kodak XTOL data. IF you've already tried the 3200 time (CI ,85 is VERY contrasty) then what you want is not CONTRAST, but a film response which DISTORTS the tonal relationship of your scene.

Having survived the 1960s.... for GRIT, forget any film developer. Even in 1968, if you wanted grit and distortion you turned to Dektol or Bromophen. Try 1+10 for whatever the D-76 time is for HP5, for a starting point.

Another vote for HP5+ & Rodinal. Here's an example souped in Rodinal 1:50 per the massive dev chart.

(click image for larger view)

I suspect this is related to the 'look' of HP5+. FWIW I find this film beautiful when shot in high contrast conditions and developed gently. I find it horrible when shot in low contrast conditions no matter what I do. I NEVER use this film in flat light, which is why I gave up on it most of the time in the UK! I found that TriX gave me a much more agreeable look in flat light. However, when things are contrasty, downrate HP5+ and pull it and you will be amazed at the beautiful tonality this film offers. It really is special, with loads of sparkle.

Aculux kills the speed (I rate at 160-200) but results in very nice negatives with a much better tonality than Xtol in lower contrast conditions IMHO.

I use Xtol in high contrast conditions with most films as when diluted 1+2 or so and developed gently highlights are nicely controlled.

DDX is super all round developer with HP5+ and is able to generate good contrast (and good speed) with shorter dev times than dilute Xtol, but for me, I just stay clear of HP5+ in flat light as the image may have contrast at the extremes but as one person once said, 'it makes everywhere look like England on a grey day.'

A film that works beautifully with Xtol? Neopan 400. Wonderful.

Strange I shot HP5 when in Cornwall on last year's APUG gathering there in very flat light, well raining actually as it does in England No problems, I used Pyrocat HD.



What I would say about HP5 is negatives do look visually flatter but they print fine.

Ian

Hi Wordpress! I have always used DDX for HP5+, I love the results.

Ian - that is magnificent. Of course, personal taste here, I love flat lighting it creates tension and mood. I have always wanted to try Pyrocat HD. Very nice. What a beautiful coast, Cornwall.

I find HP5+ is very fast in Xtol, so much detail that there is not much shadow, which reduces overall contrast. My negs from this combo print easily, but they also lack the biting look I am looking for. More of a glow to the HP5+ images with Xtol, and I don't quite like it.

I also think Rodinal is a good choice for this film if you are looking for strong contrast. Film speed will be lower, I find around 200 for my meter.

For what you have, try ID-11 ei 240 in normal light with contrast, develop 9 minutes in stock solution, no dilution. For flatter light, try doubling the film speed with a general reading and develop 12 minutes in stock.

Add: While I have read many times that ID-11 and D76 are identical, I get very different results with these two and HP5+.

wordpress said:

Thank you all, I appreciate it. I have tried Xtol in different solutions: Stock, 1+1, 1+2 and 1+3. It's the contrast that is flat, so I will try to get hold of some Rodinal and try that. At the moment I have ID-11, Microphen and Rodinal Special (which I understand is basically Studional). So all filled up with the wrong developers

Click to expand...

**********
ID-11/D76 cannot be "wrong." that is, it is the benchmark against which all film developers is compared.