Ilford HP5+ At 800 ISO

[Ian Grant]

I really like HP5 as a sheet film, it always gives excellent results and is perfect in Pyrocat HD, a developer it pushes well in surprisingly. For some reason I seem to have quite a lot of it in 5x4. I mainly use it (well up to now) for hand held LF work with a Super Graphic.

What is a film's look ? That's more about how we as photographers use a film, particularly in terms of exposure and development, and also our interpretation in the darkroom, or when scanning.

Now I want the opposite of the gritty look the OP @braxus is after, but it is possible to get that gritty look with HP5 you just need to fine tune the EI and development time, try Microphen/ID-68 and 640-800EI.

Ian

 

[braxus]

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.

Craig. Did you still shoot the film at 400 ISO when using the 800 ISO times for developing? Wouldnt that make the blacks more grey as a result, or would it just increase contrast overall?

 

[Craig]

Yes, I shot it at 400. The testing revealed that I was underdeveloping the film, so I had very weak shadow detail. The contrast was also too low for most scenes, so often I was printing at grade 4 or 5 to make a print that should have been a grade 2 print. Extending the developing time brought the negs into the normal contrast range and also brought up the shadows.

Previously the shadows were thin, so I was holding back the exposure. Rather than getting nice black shadows, everything went muddy to get midtones that were right.

The times I am referring to are from the Kodak Xtol data sheet. I'm using the replenished, rotary processing tables.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Craig. Did you still shoot the film at 400 ISO when using the 800 ISO times for developing? Wouldnt that make the blacks more grey as a result, or would it just increase contrast overall?

It would increase the contrast, because you are increasing the development time. It would be like giving the film N+1 development.

 

[Craig]

It would increase the contrast, because you are increasing the development time. It would be like giving the film N+1 development.

Although in my case it was more bringing the negs from N-1 to N. When I did the testing on Delta 100 my results matched both Kodak and Ilford's recommended times in Xtol, but the HP5 times didn't match. I had to bump my HP5 developing times to get normal negs.

 

[braxus]

So what would you suggest in my case? Shoot at 400 ISO and develop for 800? Or shoot at 800 and develop for 800? I will probably use Xtol straight just to keep blacks black.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So what would you suggest in my case? Shoot at 400 ISO and develop for 800? Or shoot at 800 and develop for 800? I will probably use Xtol straight just to keep blacks black.

Try both.

 

[Craig]

I'd try the expose at 400 and develop at 800. In my tests, it came out as about a 500 speed film anyway. I've always used the replenished developer, so I can't say what the straight XTol would be like.

The tech sheet says 8:30 (min:sec) for full strength at ISO 400, and 10:30 for ISO 800, all at 20°C in a small tank, 6:15 and 7:30 for rotary processing.

 

[braxus]

I would Andy, but I only bought the one roll today. And I dont want to break the roll in half just to get the same shots taken at different values. I'll try the 800 ISO shooting option as originally planned.

 

[Steven Lee]

@braxus I believe you're misunderstanding something. You can expose any frame on a roll differently. Pushing happens during development. Just keep playing with that exposure compensation dial, expose for highlights, mids, and shadows. This "shoot at 800" language doesn't make any sense unless you're shooting a 18% grey card.

 

[braxus]

Steven. I get what you are saying. I tend to use my Elan 7s light meter, as it is very accurate for most of what I shoot, and really has never let me down. So I set the ISO to rated speed, and let the camera do what it needs to to get the correct exposure. Most camera light meters used in film cameras the last 20 years are accurate to the point to not worry about it. I trust the meter in that camera. So this is why I keep bringing up "shooting at 800 ISO". I let the camera worry about exposure. Only time I often second guess the meters, are when the camera is old enough, to not be so accurate. I do have a Sekonic, but I only use that with cameras that have no meter at all. I haven't learned the Zone System enough, to get more accurate meter readings to expose film to the degree to perfect the shot. Maybe one day Andy will go more into it with me, but until then, I rely on the camera meter. And to do that, you need to set the ISO on the camera.

 

[Steven Lee]

@braxus sure, but I was referring to your last comment about having a single roll. what stops you from exposure-bracketing from -2 to +2 every shot and then pushing 1 stop in development to see what happens?

 

[braxus]

Steven. Thats a really good point. Since both rolls will be developed for 800 speed, I guess your suggestion would technically work. Thank you. I'll try doing that. Of course it means I'll only have half the shots on the roll as a result. I'd have to figure out what to do with the other half of my Tri-X roll. I'll wait to test this until I shoot something more interesting. Getting bored with shooting the same stuff here in town. I wish I could get someone to pose for me lately, as I'd love to test film on some portraits. All my friends are tired of me asking them.

 

[Steven Lee]

All my friends are tired of me asking them.

Do they have kids aged 3-5? That's my film testing squad

 

[braxus]

No. Kids from my friends are all pretty much in their late teens or in their 20s. I use the pics for videos, so I can't put kids in the video. Against Youtube rules or at least not in the families interest to post such stuff. I can't post one families pictures at all, as they requested nothing goes online that I shoot. So kinda stuck there.

 

[john_s]

No. Kids from my friends are all pretty much in their late teens or in their 20s. I use the pics for videos, so I can't put kids in the video. Against Youtube rules or at least not in the families interest to post such stuff. I can't post one families pictures at all, as they requested nothing goes online that I shoot. So kinda stuck there.

I don't post family pics these days. However, one advantage of photographing people, other people's kids especially, with film is that it's less amenable to posting on line.

And on topic, I've never had trouble getting contrast with HP5+, and I've never understood why it's problematic for some.

 

[brian steinberger]

I shoot HP5 at 200-250 (depending on camera) in bright sunny conditions and develop about 20% less than recommended time. I shoot 400 in hazy or bright overcast and develop near recommended time. And I’ll shoot 640-800 in dark overcast and develop for the 800 time.

I would recommend the OP simply shoot at 800 and develop near the 800 recommended time. That should boost contrast and “grit.” But in sunny scenes the shadow detail will drop out quick unless developed in XTOL, DD-X, microphen….

 

[grain elevator]

I shot 3 rolls of HP5+ at 800 almost a year ago, out of similar considerations but also lack of light. I haven't gotten around to printing them yet, if I do soon, I'll report back.
However I want to add I don't understand the talk about deep or not so deep blacks. No matter how the film was exposed, one can always print down or crush blacks in pp after scanning. The only time that's difficult is actually when trying to get as much shadow detail as possible out of underexposed film.

 

[Anon Ymous]

However I want to add I don't understand the talk about deep or not so deep blacks. No matter how the film was exposed, one can always print down or crush blacks in pp after scanning. The only time that's difficult is actually when trying to get as much shadow detail as possible out of underexposed film.

Me neither...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's al just robust film exposure and development. Increased development time will result in increased film contrast

 

[Steven Lee]

And on topic, I've never had trouble getting contrast with HP5+, and I've never understood why it's problematic for some.

I am puzzled too! My two theories regarding this property of HP5+ are:

• It is actually faster than ISO 400 in some developers, so people who enjoy deep shadows, especially if their meter is a bit pessimistic, may get disappointed.
• Its toe is short and the curve is straight, and if you develop it in a speed-boosting gamma-1 developer like DD-X you're not getting the S-curved look.

These are just my theories though. Just having a hard time imagining someone thinking that HP5+ is flat in Ilfotec HC or even Xtol, if you give it more time.

 

[sunbeamland]

The curves say it all. I used T-Max and Tri-X forever but moved to HP5 recently because of cost and availability. I will be breaking out the densitometer and fine tuning my process soon. HP5 is incredibly versatile. I always had to give the Kodak emulsions an extra stop to get the look I like. I don't think they push that well. HP5 is great at 800! In fact, I see no limitations when shot at 800 or issues with grain (I shoot medium and large format). But the original post mentioned pyro; wouldn't a staining developer flatten it more? I am no fan of staining developers. No judgement: unlike C41 there is no right or wrong; there are preferences. I guess I like contrast.

 

[pentaxuser]

. But the original post mentioned pyro; wouldn't a staining developer flatten it more? I am no fan of staining developers. No judgement: unlike C41 there is no right or wrong; there are preferences. I guess I like contrast.

Andrew O'Neill's video in this thread on pushing HP5 and his "More 510 Pyro Adventures may be instructive. I found them useful

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Thanks guys. I did mention to Andy that in his one video, I liked the 1600 ISO shots quite a bit. I dont think I'll shoot mine that high though. When the weather gets better here, instead of constantly raining all the time, I'll get out with my 2 rolls and do a comparison. I never used Pyro before, but really no interest in it either. I believe it is also toxic isnt it? I have Xtol and HC-110 here I can use. Not sure how well my HC-110 has held up though, as I haven't used it now for a couple years (its the newer stuff before Sino Promise took over).

 

[sunbeamland]

Thanks guys. I did mention to Andy that in his one video, I liked the 1600 ISO shots quite a bit. I dont think I'll shoot mine that high though. When the weather gets better here, instead of constantly raining all the time, I'll get out with my 2 rolls and do a comparison. I never used Pyro before, but really no interest in it either. I believe it is also toxic isnt it? I have Xtol and HC-110 here I can use. Not sure how well my HC-110 has held up though, as I haven't used it now for a couple years (its the newer stuff before Sino Promise took over).

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!