PMK is toxic, Pyrocat HD much less so.... but stopped mixing PMK from powder and eventually switched to Pyrocat in liquid form
I always avoided traditional pyro due to its toxicity. Again, never liked staining developers. Back in the day all of the Zone system nerds were just gaga reviving the old "grails" that could also kill you. I do believe it is an exceptional choice for alternative process negatives that also print well on silver. I believe the newer formulations (PMK, HD) are not nearly as toxic. Honestly, I don't play with lots of developers; I try to use one and develop my process around it. D-76 was my developer when I was really shooting a lot, but I switched to HC-110 as a single shot. Works better for my workflow. I was playing a bit with X-Tol (least toxic) way back in the early nineties, but I was just too comfortable with D-76 and didn't need to "improve" the developer portion of my process. I needed better compositions! I moved my film exclusively to medium and large format; when you do that you usually have so much better tonal gradation and fine grain that you don't need to chase the small gains (again, for my preferences). When you shoot small formats, small gains mean a lot more. I will say, when I was a student at RIT in the early 90's, we learned to eke out every possible bit of tone and grain we could from those little 35mm negs!
I can only agree with you on your opinion about HP5+ vs. TriX. Until I discovered however, that HP5+ needs at least 500 ISO. I don't know about 800, but the flatness disappears if you push at least a little, whereas TriX gets a little Jazz-pubby if you do that.
I'll use Xtol straight for the 800 ISO time. Ilford is telling me 11 minutes with that combo. I'll take Steven's request and shoot the film at both 400 and 800 ISO, alternating between each shot. This should give me a good idea of what will work for the look Im after. I do find Tri-X has really good tones (for a contrastier film) in the mid tones, so Im curious how HP5 will compare to that.
Sirius- what qualities do you like about HP5 with the way you use and develop it?
You might want to try a different developer combination -- and also keep in mind that a flat negative isn't all that bad.I normally dont like HP5+, as I find it produces results which seem somewhat flat to me, compared to my 400 speed favorite Tri-X (I also like TMAX 400).
Can anyone show some samples of HP5 shot at 800 ISO? How is the grain in comparison, especially compared to Tri-X shot at 400?
And that is the main reason that I use Tri-X. When I use HP5+ I add one minute to the 68°F time and adjust for the ambient temperature. However I only use HP5+ for 4"x5" because there is no Tri-X 400 in that size.
And that is the main reason that I use Tri-X. When I use HP5+ I add one minute to the 68°F time and adjust for the ambient temperature. However I only use HP5+ for 4"x5" because there is no Tri-X 400 in that size.
Tri-X 320 Professional is a VERY different film from TXT. Different (very) from pre-2007 Tri-X and even more different from modern Tri-X.https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html ...... i've got some in my fridge too....
You use Tri-X because you have to develop HP5+ a minute longer?
There is no Tri-X in 4x5 but there is TMY-2. Though I generally get along better with more conventional films I shot a lot of 4x5 TMY-2 (well, "a lot" as my 4x5 goes) before Kodak priced themselves out of the market for my tastes, and it's a fantastic film. It's just not fantastic enough for me to pay that much more for it.
I perfer Tri-X grain to HP5+ even after I developed the later longer. I am will to pay for the better product of me. Heck, gas and eggs have gone up in price more.
Tri-X 320 Professional is a VERY different film from TXT. Different (very) from pre-2007 Tri-X and even more different from modern Tri-X.
Yes it is, but it is still Tri-X and different enough from HP5. It was my standard film in 5x7 for the longest time.
I taught Ilford @800 develops the same @400.
I have not done it yet.
Just asking.
Backwards reasoning. Others already said why. What shooting HP5 at 800 does is simply shove the shadows even further down a long sweeping toe, creating more undiscernible mush down there, rather than improving crispness. You're just lopping off low value information, not improving it.
With HP5, I try not to shoot it in high contrast scenes; but do know how, if necessary, to apply unsharp masking to get the most out of that kind of situation. I rate it at 400 and process it in PMK pyro, but never shoot it in any format smaller than 8x10. In other words, my own interest in this film is not for sake of street shooting or photojournalism, but for sake of rich prints.
If people are afraid of pyro, that's fine. I have some more liquid A&B concentrate of PMK being shipped right now from Formulary. No need to fool around with powder. And nitrile gloves are routine in all my sink room activities. Most people have more dangerous chemicals under the average kitchen and bathroom sink, or out in the garage. Do you think all those home use herbicides and insecticides are safe? At least we don't go around spraying pyro.
Andrew, although I haven't shot HP5 for awhile, one of my preferred tricks was to go ahead and expose it at 400 (not 800 !!), and then counterintuitively overdevelop it, processing it in staining PMK. That expanded the midtone gradation wonderfully, and optimized the lovely almost etched edge effect this film is capable of. But it also created a very dense negative hard to print, especially with respect to the highlights. That's where the unsharp mask came in. It allowed me to have my cake and eat it too. Wonderful prints.
But shooting TMY400 instead is just so much easier.
Oh, I didn't know that. It's nice to know we have something in common. Now that I mainly use either TMax films, or sometimes FP4, I don't mask black and white originals as often as before; but it's still an excellent tool to have in the kit. Same with color;
back when I printed Cibachrome, masks were generated for every image; but now printing RA4 media, I don't need them nearly as often.
I have really enjoyed reading through this thread! I have been dabbling with B&W for a few years but so far I'm mostly a newb still. I have a bunch of 35mm HP5 FP4 and Tri-X in my stash and have been playing around with them. So far a friend has been developing for me but I have been recently been curious about trying Caffenol with the HP5. Does anyone have feedback on that?
I have really enjoyed reading through this thread! I have been dabbling with B&W for a few years but so far I'm mostly a newb still. I have a bunch of 35mm HP5 FP4 and Tri-X in my stash and have been playing around with them. So far a friend has been developing for me but I have been recently been curious about trying Caffenol with the HP5. Does anyone have feedback on that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?