Ilford HP5+ at 1600?

Hi all - how is the HP5+ rated at 1600 like? I am in little New Zealand so we don't get that much developers to choose from. Ilford Microphen seems to do it. What about @3200?

I tried HP5+ @400 with Ilford ID-11 at 1+1 and I liked it very much. I just tried Delta 100 and Tmax 100 both @100 with Ilford ID-11 and prefer the HP5+ look. Should I bother about rating Delta 400 or Tmax 400 @ 1600?

Many thanks.

how is the HP5+ rated at 1600 like?

Click to expand...

Ans. #1: Underexposed.
Ans. #2: Why not try and decide if the look suits your subjetc and your taste? Make sure to du(tri)plicate each shot with same scene @800 and 400ISO. Then you know what you gain or lose, rather than looking at pic and mumbling "not so bad".
Ans. #3: ID-11 (or D-76) 1+1 is maybe not the best choice for pushing; from interner rumors, microphen might be better.

I'm interested in why you would want to push HP5 so much. Isn't Delta 3200 a better option at those speeds?

Years ago I have pushed HP5 to EI 1600/3200 & beyond in various developers, including Microphen, works a treat.

Hi

If you wet print, HP5 in Microphen is ok at 800 if you meter carefully.
At 1600 you will need to split print burn and dodge.

Noel

I have tried T-max 400, it was accepable.

Jeff

rayonline_nz said:

I (snip...) prefer the HP5+ look.

Click to expand...

You are essentially answering your own question. Our opinions about the look you or your audience want or like are irrelevant.

When comparing the characteristics of various films though it is worthwhile to define specifics that you expect from the print.

At what print enlargement? What's the subject matter? What lighting? What camera? What film format? Etcetera... Every criteria you add will narrow your search and should affect the choices you make.

For example:

For me, most any well shot frame printed 5x7 from 35mm HP5 looks quite nice. If though I intend to print at 11x14 (my favorite size) or 16x20, from a 35mm HP5 frame the main subject (say, a face) needs to be large in the frame for me to like it, say just head and shoulders reaching clear across the short width of the film. IMO subject matter that is fairly small in the frame ends up losing out visually to the grain, and the grain is never my subject. Shooting and developing for EI1600 or 3200 instead of 400 makes this problem worse for me since the grain tends to pop visually even more.

If though I use my RB 67 instead of a Nikon, I find HP 5 printed at 11x14 or 16x20 is pretty nice for most subjects. Switch up to 4x5 film and HP 5's grain is generally so small in relation to my subjects, that it is no longer of any concern to me.

If I use my Holga the calculus changes again The Holga lens produces low contrast negatives so some extra development generally helps.

Because of my printing and subject preferences I prefer Delta 400 when I need a fairly fast 35mm film and FP4 the rest of the time.

HP5+ pushes to 1600 easily (and I find its contrast blocks up less than other 400 films) and Microphen is an ideal developer to do it with.

It's worth a try at 3200 although you'll lose a lot of shadow detail (assuming you find a developing regiment that works for you).

HP5+ is a versatile, quality film -- back in the old days of film at newspapers, etc. it was standard practice to push it 2 stops.

I'm a heavy HP5 400+ user and it is constantly in my fridge or on my desk or in my cameras.
I shoot it consistently at 800ASA and do a 1-stop push in development. I also push it to 1600ASA and do a 2-stop push when developing. I develop with Ilford DDX but I think my lab uses Kodak Developer (Tmax Dev I think?).
In both cases, I find I like the look. I like the extra contrast associated with pushing the film and, in some situations, even the grain. It suits me and the way I like my photographs.
Strangely, the grain doesn't tend to be all that distracting to me in most cases as I'm normally pushing to 1600ASA when there is dim lighting (I don't like HP5 at 1600ASA and pushed two stops in development in bright day light though... in this case, I look for a more smoother look... but really, it's all preference).

HP5 is quite a flexible film and I really like it's "pushed" qualities. I have yet to try it at 3200... that would be interesting.

I actually also like TMAX but more when it's pushed 1-stop and rated at 800ASA (same methodology as when shooting HP5). It's a little different in some ways but I find it fits my art It's a bit "cleaner" than HP5 in my own opinion. Results may vary for you.

I think the best way to think about the different films is the difference in "tones" (someone correct me here if I speak blasphemy!) and look. I like the look I get from HP5 400+ and TMAX400 ... when shot at 800ASA and pushed +1 stop in development. The "tonality" with Delta, and even Tri-X for that matter, appears different to me. Not particular to my liking... but sometimes it is

One other thing to consider is the lenses. Certain lenses have a look that affects the final image when used with different films. I'm presuming you're using one lens to check these films out but just thought I'd put that out there.

Just use delta at 1600 or better 800

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk