Ilford HP5+ At 800 ISO

[GregY]

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!

PMK is toxic, Pyrocat HD much less so.... but stopped mixing PMK from powder and eventually switched to Pyrocat in liquid form

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

"Push" as in develop longer. You don't need to expose less.

If HP5+ is too 'flat" then increase development time. This is somewhere below "Photography 101," maybe a pre-requisite. Development controls contrast. It has minimal "real" effect on film speed. "Pushing" (with conventional developers, dang I loved pre-2007 Tri-X in Diafine though, sigh) generally just means exposing less and sacrificing shadow detail while developing more to restore contrast in the midtones and highlights. If you don't expose less then you don't lose the shadow detail. Theoretically this could push the highlights up onto the film shoulder and lose highlight separation but with modern films this doesn't happen until development is increased considerably more than we're talking about here.

 

[braxus]

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 Glass]

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.

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.

 

[braxus]

Sirius- what qualities do you like about HP5 with the way you use and develop it?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius- what qualities do you like about HP5 with the way you use and develop it?

I found the HP5+ and FP4+ need that extra minute to give me the contrast that I want.

 

[Autonerd]

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).

You might want to try a different developer combination -- and also keep in mind that a flat negative isn't all that bad.

I've found (and this is entirely subjective) that HP5+ can be a bit thin with HC-110 dilution H if there isn't enough developer in the tank, and I prefer the results with D-76. HOWEVER -- Keep in mind that Back In The Day, the negative wasn't supposed to carry the contrast of the final image. The job of the negative, like a .RAW file in digital, is to carry as much information as possible -- in other words, shades of gray. Obviously, you want to get some nice dark darks and light lights in the negative; still, the contrast of the final image would be determined in printing by your choice of paper or filtering.

Nowadays we can do that easily with our scans. There's nothing wrong with bumping up the contrast (at the expense of some grayscale) in post-production; that's how the process is meant to work.

A tangent, I know -- hope it was useful.

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?

For the pedants: I'm going to assume you mean HP5+ push processed one stop (i.e. underexposed 1 stop (i.e. shot at 800 ASA)) and overdeveloped accordingly. (If you just shot it at 800 and developed normally, all the images would look a little dark. *g*)

I can't, but I can show you a bunch pushed two stops (shot at 1600) -- it's my go-to for low-light photography. Check them out here. All of these were developed in D-76, stock, using the time specified in the HP5+ data sheet. Scans are pretty much unedited. Compared to regular HP5, I see bigger grain and more contrast. For comparison, here are a bunch of my HP5+ shots at box speed. Most, if not all, were developed in D-76 (usally 1:1) and possibly some in HC-110, Dilution B or H. They may have some contrast adjustment in post-production.

I don't shoot much Tri-X because the film base curls and that makes it more difficult to scan in my Epson V550. When I was introduced to HP5+ back in the early 90s, I was told to treat it like Tri-X and it would respond accordingly. I found that to be largely true.

HP5 was my favorite-ist film in the world, 'till I moved out West where the sun always shines -- so now it's FP4+, with Kentmere 100 a close 2nd.

Aaron

 

[GregY]

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.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html ...... i've got some in my fridge too....

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html ...... i've got some in my fridge too....

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

Ok got it.

I can buy whatever film I want too, but in 4x5 I just refuse to pay Kodak's prices when there are such good alternatives for less (Ilford) and I prefer to standardize my films as much as I can so I use Ilford in 120 as well. I almost never shoot 35mm black and white anymore (aside from half frame in the little H35.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

(@braxus )... and HP5's shadows are more "open" than Tri-X's. That is one quality that I like. If I want Tri-X-like shadows, I'll expose it at 800, and extend the development time.

 

[GregY]

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

It's definitely different from HP5+ as well, granted. With all the long straight line films now I don't think there's anything else quite like TXP anymore, unless it's one of the small custom coated brands.

 

[Radost]

(@braxus )... and HP5's shadows are more "open" than Tri-X's. That is one quality that I like. If I want Tri-X-like shadows, I'll expose it at 800, and extend the development time.

I taught Ilford @800 develops the same @400.
I have not done it yet.
Just asking.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I taught Ilford @800 develops the same @400.
I have not done it yet.
Just asking.

Similar, but not the same. There is a bit more snap when exposed at EI 800 and push developed. After doing the tests to see how far I could push develop HP5 (in Xtol-R), I was quite surprised with the results, even out to EI 1600 push dev... but 1600 is the limit for me, as shadow detail is quite thin.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Yes, exposing HP5 at 400, then extending the development time usually yields excellent results. For my personal work, I like the look at EI 250 and develop accordingly in Pyrocat-HD. When I was doing only gel silver printing, I routinely printed with an unsharp mask.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

...and I did it without any pin registration system... although I always wanted one. I just registered them with +4 glasses, on the light table, and taped together. I learnt how to make unsharp masks from Howard Bond's articles back in the 90's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh my, that must have been torture. I was lucky that Warren Condit was still alive when I geared up. But I have made some of my punch and register gear myself. I have one Ciba color image which stands up nicely on 30X40 inch scale that took 13 different registration steps, and each one of them had to be precise - no, not each time I printed it, but necessary to generate the final printing master 8x10 piece of film itself. But heck, lots of dye transfer printers routinely used 15 or more steps, not including the registration of the dye matrices themselves. Film ain't that cheap no more. Time ain't endless either. Or maybe I'm just getting lazy as well as poor.

 

[Trevor Sowers]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[MattKing]

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?

Welcome to Photrio.
That question sounds like a good one for its own thread.
Go right ahead - don't worry about getting your feet wet - dive right in!