Ilford HP5+ At 800 ISO

[braxus]

I saw a video which showed some HP5+ shot at 800 ISO and developed in Pyro. I rather liked the results I saw with that combination. 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). I like Tri-X's punch and deep contrast. It looked to me like HP5 shot at 800 speed got closer to that look. Can anyone concur with what I saw? What kind of results would I get if I used Xtol straight or 1:1 instead of Pyro?

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?

 

[Radost]

Its strange. I never got good “TRIX like” results with HP5+ before I started using deluted Xtol.

 

[Steven Lee]

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?

These are meaningless terms. As I move my spot meter across the scene, "shot as 800 ISO" means absolutely nothing. And you control contrast during development and scanning.

[EDIT] Here's a full-sized scan of HP5+ pushed one stop to boost contrast. I used Xtol 1+1 datasheet time.

 

[250swb]

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?

It is one of the wonders of the English language that as a rule people generally 'know what you mean' without you having to write a technical pamphlet just to ask a question. There are exceptions to the rule of course but I know what you mean, but unfortunately I don't have any examples to show what HP5 shot at 800 ISO looks like.

 

[Radost]

I have one bulk loader with HP5+ will shoot some hp5+ @800

 

[otto.f]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I saw a video which showed some HP5+ shot at 800 ISO and developed in Pyro. I rather liked the results I saw with that combination. 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). I like Tri-X's punch and deep contrast. It looked to me like HP5 shot at 800 speed got closer to that look. Can anyone concur with what I saw? What kind of results would I get if I used Xtol straight or 1:1 instead of Pyro?

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?

You said; my experience is also that Ilford HP5+ is a bit flat(lacking contrast) this can be somewhat compensated by raising box-speed and increasing development time. I do it with D76 1+1 and it should work with other developers.

 

[snusmumriken]

You said; my experience is also that Ilford HP5+ is a bit flat(lacking contrast) this can be somewhat compensated by raising box-speed and increasing development time. I do it with D76 1+1 and it should work with other developers.

What is the theoretical basis here? By increasing ISO (ie giving less exposure), you are presumably shunting shadow values down into the toe of the characteristic curve, where they will be more compressed. At the same time, you fit all or most of the mid and light tones onto the straight-line section, whose slope/contrast you increase by longer development. Is that right?

I wonder whether @aparat could oblige us with comparable curves of Tri-X and HP5+ in the same developer, so we might see what the difference is?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Braxus, you need to learn how to use HP5, if you feel it gives you flat results. These examples here are all on HP5, exposed at EI 250, and developed in Xtol 1+1. HP5 is a more versatile film that Tri-X, in my opinion. Even at EI 800, it looks great. Tri-X does give brilliant highlights (so can HP5 in the right conditions), but it's shadows are flat... And if you want to push, HP5 rules.

Go towards the end of my video for some examples of HP5 shot at EI 200, and higher...
Even at EI 1600, the result was stunning.

 

[aparat]

What is the theoretical basis here? By increasing ISO (ie giving less exposure), you are presumably shunting shadow values down into the toe of the characteristic curve, where they will be more compressed. At the same time, you fit all or most of the mid and light tones onto the straight-line section, whose slope/contrast you increase by longer development. Is that right?

I wonder whether @aparat could oblige us with comparable curves of Tri-X and HP5+ in the same developer, so we might see what the difference is?

I only have direct comparison, i.e., exposed for the same amount and developed in the same tank, in ID-11, but D-76 should be similar. The HP5 Plus is noticeably faster and doesn't build up contrast as rapidly as 400TX, therefore, it should, in theory, be a better choice for pushing. I am not sure if that helps, but here are the curve families:

HP5_ID11 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

400TX_ID11 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[snusmumriken]

But if you want to contemplate the punchiness of Tri-X well handled, take a look at the Arthur Steele Archive. Wish I knew the secret!

[Sorry, this got out of sequence, was in reply to @Andrew O'Neill’s post.]

 

[snusmumriken]

I only have direct comparison, i.e., exposed for the same amount and developed in the same tank, in ID-11, but D-76 should be similar. The HP5 Plus is noticeably faster and doesn't build up contrast as rapidly as 400TX, therefore, it should, in theory, be a better choice for pushing. I am not sure if that helps, but here are the curve families:

HP5_ID11 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

400TX_ID11 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Many thanks, Nick!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

But if you want to contemplate the punchiness of Tri-X well handled, take a look at the Arthur Steele Archive. Wish I knew the secret!

[Sorry, this got out of sequence, was in reply to @Andrew O'Neill’s post.]

That so called "punchiness" is easily achievable with HP5... with finer grain, too.

 

[pentaxuser]

Andrew, your conclusions from your video on pushing HP5+ were exactly as mine. I have never shot HP5+ at less than box speed and based on my kind of photography I never will now having seen your 200 v 400 shots

The biggest comfort for me was that in the sort of light conditions that are there in the grandson's football matches it would seem that I can capture almost any motion speed I need to and still get plenty of what I need in terms of shadow detail even at 1600

Your efforts are much appreciated

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Andy,

Its not that I dont really know how to shoot HP5, its just I dont love its look. As mentioned I like the contrastier grittier look of Tri-X, especially with its deep blacks. I never really got that look out of HP5+ shooting it at box speed. Crushing the blacks may be what Im after with pushing the film. I may just do a video doing this and comparing it against Tri-X that way. I have stock of Tri-X at the moment and can easily get some HP5+ at London Drugs here down the road.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andy,

Its not that I dont really know how to shoot HP5, its just I dont love its look. As mentioned I like the contrastier grittier look of Tri-X, especially with its deep blacks. I never really got that look out of HP5+ shooting it at box speed. Crushing the blacks may be what Im after with pushing the film. I may just do a video doing this and comparing it against Tri-X that way. I have stock of Tri-X at the moment and can easily get some HP5+ at London Drugs here down the road.

Then why don't you just stick with Tri-X then if you like the look?

 

[braxus]

Here is my Avatar shown bigger, shot on 2003 Tri-X. Yes his hair has no definition or detail, but I love its inky blackness. And this shot shows Tri-X still has decent tones, yet still retain the gritty look and punchiness I love about Tri-X.

 

[braxus]

Then why don't you just stick with Tri-X then if you like the look?

Thats what I have been doing, but after I saw samples shot of HP5+ at 800, I thought maybe I should try that combo to see if I like its look. Getting Ilford here is cheaper and easier, as they dont always have Tri-X available.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thats what I have been doing, but after I saw samples shot of HP5+ at 800, I thought maybe I should try that combo to see if I like its look. Getting Ilford here is cheaper and easier, as they dont always have Tri-X available.

Yup. Zero Kodak B/W films at Kerrisdale here... mind you, Ilford stock is quite thin, including other brands. I asked them to bring in some TMY-2... that was several months ago. Still waiting...

 

[cptrios]

Then why don't you just stick with Tri-X then if you like the look?

Well, here 36exp Tri-X is around 40% more expensive ($13 vs $9) at B&H. There's a smaller difference in 120, but still a difference!

 

[Radost]

Then why don't you just stick with Tri-X then if you like the look?

HP5+ $5 a roll bulk loaded
Trix $8.30 a roll bulk loaded

 

[logan2z]

Hopefully not taking this off topic, but I rarely (if ever) see a recommendation to shoot HP5+ at less than box speed, which is common with Tri-X (I shoot Tri-X at EI200). Is everyone pushing HP5+ or shooting it at box speed? I recently picked up several rolls and wondering where to start rating it (in lieu of testing, which I'll probably do at some point).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hopefully not taking this off topic, but I rarely (if ever) see a recommendation to shoot HP5+ at less than box speed, which is common with Tri-X (I shoot Tri-X at EI200). Is everyone pushing HP5+ or shooting it at box speed? I recently picked up several rolls and wondering where to start rating it (in lieu of testing, which I'll probably do at some point).

For all of my work, I shoot HP5 at EI 250... and adjust EI according to subject brightness range. HP5 at box speed looks great in some circumstances, though. Probably if I shot only 35mm, handheld, I would stick with box speed...maybe.
To stay on topic, if Braxus push develops HP5 to 800...or maybe even to 1600 (don't know what look he's after other than he likes the look of Tri-X), he might be pleasantly surprised. The shadows will be more compressed (like Tri-X), with increased contrast (like Tri-X), but not with as noticeable grain (unlike Tri-X)...in my opinion And you can do that with Xtol, not just Pyrocat-HD (one of my main developers)...

 

[npl]

Hopefully not taking this off topic, but I rarely (if ever) see a recommendation to shoot HP5+ at less than box speed, which is common with Tri-X (I shoot Tri-X at EI200). Is everyone pushing HP5+ or shooting it at box speed? I recently picked up several rolls and wondering where to start rating it (in lieu of testing, which I'll probably do at some point).

Did it once at EI 200, developed in HC-110 (h). I quite liked it, very smooth. I can recommand trying that on a bright sunny day if you have several rolls to play with.

 

[Craig]

I use Xtol and I struggled with HP5 until I did testing. It seems to me that the 400 speed developing times are inaccurate, and when I used the 800 speed times my negatives got much better. Currently I'm using a 9:30 developing time for Xtol-R in a Jobo at 20°C.

When I did the testing with using the datasheet times I was getting a contrast index of 0.5.