Ilford HP5+ At 800 ISO

[MattKing]

Even the title of this thread is wrong and ambiguous. It is wrong because HP5+ is not an ISO 800 film and nothing can made it so. (ISO has a meaning!) And it is ambiguous because it can mean three completely different things: HP5+ under-exposed by one stop, or HP5+ pushed by one stop, or HP5+ under-exposed by one stop and then pushed by one stop.

Yep - should be HP5+ rated at an EI of 800. And there should also be a reference to the development used.
But at least with respect to the development, that was made more clear as the thread evolved.
And as for your options, I would add a 4th: HP5+ metered at 800, because of the metering technique I prefer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...or the title could say, HP5-Plus at EI 800.

 

[grain elevator]

Another misleading term is "rating film". I believe the quality of discussions would have been much higher if we all simply said exposure compensation

The phrase "exposure compensation" is already taken, sorry, you can't have it. It generally refers to compensating for reflective meter readings when pointed at something that doesn't average out to mid grey.

 

[Steven Lee]

@grain elevator well... in that case I give up. It's mind blowing how we managed to build so much obscuring complexity on top of a fairly simple exercise of dosing light and chemical exposure to silver salts to convert just the right amount into metal.

 

[albada]

Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no posting here that defined push the way most of us mean it:

A push is an attempt to extract additional shadow detail from the toe by increasing its slope by means of increasing development time.​

Mark

 

[Roger Cole]

I think it is important to have some language around film speed, as it chanages with the film + developer combination. Develop the same film in Rodinal and Microphen and you will get different speed points at the same contrast index.

That's a good point. While it's "mostly true" that "pushing" doesn't change the actual speed of the film, different developers WILL, within limits. Most developers don't change it by a lot, but will change it somewhat.

Shoot pre-2007 Tri-X at 400 and develop it in Diafine (used to be my absolute favorite for EI 1600) and I guarantee you won't care for the results and they will look a couple of stops overexposed, not overdeveloped - flat and dense, not contrasty. It doesn't do anything as effective with any modern film, but does still get some increase.

 

[braxus]

Im rewriting my post here. I dont know why some on this thread are trying to complicate a matter, which is basically a simple principal and use of a camera. There is nothing ambiguous about setting a camera to a given speed (in this case - 800 ISO), to underexpose it to deepen the shadows and give more blacks with deeper contrast in the image. I will be developing it for the 400 ISO speed time. My intentions, as stated before, was to see if I could get a look for HP5 that is closer to Kodak's Tri-X film. As Matt pointed out, this is not pushing the film, but underexposing it. That is why I stated the 800 ISO in the threads heading. Please dont try to make more inflamatory posts saying we dont know what we are talking about, and trying to complicate this thread and its intentions, as this is not rocket science. It was only pointed out that I wasn't completely clear on my intentions of why.

 

[aparat]

Im rewriting my post here. I dont know why some on this thread are trying to complicate a matter, which is basically a simple principal and use of a camera. There is nothing ambiguous about setting a camera to a given speed (in this case - 800 ISO), to underexpose it to deepen the shadows and give more blacks with deeper contrast in the image. I will be developing it for the 400 ISO speed time. My intentions, as stated before, was to see if I could get a look for HP5 that is closer to Kodak's Tri-X film. As Matt pointed out, this is not pushing the film, but underexposing it. That is why I stated the 800 ISO in the threads heading. Please dont try to make more inflamatory posts saying we dont know what we are talking about, and trying to complicate this thread and its intentions, as this is not rocket science. It was only pointed out that I wasn't completely clear on my intentions of why.

Well said. I understand your frustration, but I also understand the people who disputed some of what, otherwise, appear to be simple facts. If you look through the literature on the topic of N-development, pulling/pushing, effective film speed, etc., you will see that, going back to Jones in the early 1940s, through Adams (1948), Dunn & Wakefield (1958), Picker (1974), White, Zakia, Lorenz (1976), Graves (1982), Henry (1988), Stroebel, Compton, Current, Zakia (1986), Woods (1993), Davis (1993), Hicks & Schultz (1997), Schaeffer (1998), Lambrecht & Woodhouse (2003), and others, while most of them agree on some of the fundamental concepts regarding these issues, they each offer their own interpretation. This is why, the details tend to differ across these accounts. Plus, a lot of discerning photographers have established their own processes and they often firmly stand by them. It's no surprise that there is so much potential for debate.

 

[Craig]

You don't need to underexpose, just extend the development. It sounds like what you're really after is higher contrast, and extending the development does that. If you want empty shadows, Rodinal is a good dveloper choice for that too.

 

[braxus]

The reason I was doing it this way was because of a few videos, including Andy's shot at 800 ISO on one test. I don't know which of my two rolls I shot strictly at 800, so I can't push the developing on it.

Unless I push both rolls in development, including the one partially shot at 400 ISO.

 

[Mark J]

Has anyone got a time for an N+1 dev in PMK for this that uses a slightly stronger mix ? Gordon Hutchings gives 16min in the normal dev, I found that 13 mins for 400 EI was already a bit of a yawn .... plus like the O.P., found it's fairly flat at 400, I would like to get a bit more gamma for diffuser printing and it would be handy for hand-held GW690 shots.

 

[grain elevator]

The reason I was doing it this way was because of a few videos, including Andy's shot at 800 ISO on one test. I don't know which of my two rolls I shot strictly at 800, so I can't push the developing on it.

Unless I push both rolls in development, including the one partially shot at 400 ISO.

Yes, why not? If you usually find it too flat, develop both longer! You've been told essentially this over and over in this thread, I not let us know what seems to be holding you back

 

[MattKing]

Yes, why not? If you usually find it too flat, develop both longer! You've been told essentially this over and over in this thread, I not let us know what seems to be holding you back

And of course, print the resulting negatives darker/adjust the resulting scans to display darker.

 

[braxus]

Yes, why not? If you usually find it too flat, develop both longer! You've been told essentially this over and over in this thread, I not let us know what seems to be holding you back

Because my memory failed me this week with all the info I have read on this thread. I got my thoughts backwards in what I was intending on doing. I re-read my earlier responses and confirmed this. I was intending on shooting at both 400 and 800, and developing for 800. This week I got it backwards, shooting for 800 and developing for 400. Since I haven't developed the rolls yet, I can still correct this mistake. I will develop (essential push the film) for 800 speed times.

 

[braxus]

If you underexpose but do NOT extend development you will get low contrast, muddy images, NOT deep blacks. Or rather, you can print the shadows as black as you like of course but the rest of the midtones will still be flat and muddy, as well as probably darker than you like. Scanning - well I don't know. Maybe you can "fix that in post" but it seems like more work than it would be to just develop more.

Tri-X doesn't look like that description, unless treated similarly. To make HP5+ look more like normally exposed and developed Tri-X you probably just need to expose normally and develop a bit more than you have been, if you find HP5+ otherwise lacks enough contrast.

My mistake. I have only been developing my own films in recent years and never varied from spec times and settings. I didn't know this is what the result would be. I will try pushing HP5 in the developing stage and see what my results will be. I will most likely be doing my rolls this weekend. When I scan them up, will depend on time. I have 7 rolls to do, plus an 8th roll for testing a camera. So my plate is full.

 

[braxus]

Well I had time to do 4 of the 8 rolls tonight, as I wanted to get on it. I did my 2 rolls of HP5+, 1 roll of Tri-X, and 1 roll of Plus X. One of the two rolls of HP5 had duplicate shots on half of the Tri-X roll. I noticed the HP5 rolls were quite dense, and the Tri-X less so. So I wonder what kind of results I'll end up getting seeing this? I assume the HP5 rolls will be more contrasty. I'll scan them up in the next few days and show some results here. Here is a shot of 3 of the 4 rolls drying. The Tri-X was on the left, and HP5 in the middle and right. My times were reduced in the developer, because the room temp and developer temp was 72 degrees F. I used Xtol straight.

 

[braxus]

Well I spent the better part of almost all day scanning 3 36 exposure rolls. Two were HP5+ and 1 was Tri-X 400. All in 35mm. Scanned on my Primefilm XAs at 5000 dpi. Basically 3 1/2 hours per roll to do. I developed all rolls in Xtol straight, and the 2 rolls of HP5+ were done together at the 800 ISO time. 1 roll of HP5+ was shot at both 400 and 800 ISO, alternating between shots, and doing a duplicate shot per ISO speed. To start off I'll show my samples of HP5+ shot at 800 ISO on my Canon AE-1. I used my Elan 7 for the meter, as that camera had the Tri-X roll in it. I didnt take a deep look at all my shots yet to get any idea of the differences, but I'll do that soon. I do like the look of pushed HP5+ though. Whether it equals or not the look Im getting out of Tri-X at 400 speed, I'll look at that soon. I didnt show any shots of HP5+ shot at 400 ISO (and developed for 800) here.

 

[braxus]

Here's more at 800 ISO.

 

[braxus]

Here's Tri-X 400 shot at 400 and developed for 400 in Xtol straight.

 

[braxus]

Here's the shots of HP5+ at 400 ISO and developed at the 800 ISO time.

 

[albada]

On the technical side, you're doing fine.
On the artistic side, you have good perception of good subjects and composition, so your photos are interesting.
You are good at both the technical and artistic, which is unusual.

Mark

 

[braxus]

Thanks Mark.

Ive always been somewhat good at finding the shot, whether by composition, or with people, finding an interesting pose, etc. But for the most part, it took me years to get as good as I am. But I have a long way to go to get to professional results that could sell photos. I've alway been a techie, and I do have a good eye for details. When I worked in a photolab, I picked up color and color correction, quite quickly. I find a lot of shots Youtubers put online, are rather ordinary or boring. I tend to pass on shots like that. If it doesnt look interesting to me, I don't take it, for the sake of doing a shot. But again I have a long way to go. Depends how trained your eye becomes. Im just exercising my God given abilities.

 

[Steven Lee]

@braxus I think your scans prove that both films are extremely versatile and similar to each other. One stop exposure variations for most scenes can easily be compensated for during scanning too.

 

[Craig]

Are you happy with these results?

 

[braxus]

Are you happy with these results?

Yes actually. It convinced me enough to buy 4 rolls of HP5+ in 120, for when I dont want to shoot Tri-X. Here in Canada, Tri-X is almost double the cost of HP5+. Hence the main reason for doing this experiment. I still need to look at the photos closer to see if I can tell differences between the two. Im not sure the tones are as good or better than Tri-X to me yet though. But its close enough to merit me using more HP5+. As for only getting 4 rolls, if you guys saw my film freezer, you'd know I dont need more film!