Ilford HP5+ At 800 ISO

[braxus]

@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.

I dont think the results would have turned out as good as they did, if the films werent as you say. Ive heard of people pushing these films way higher than what I did with them. Im such a shoot by the box setting, that all of this deviates from what I normally do. Learning more of what pushing and pulling film does.

 

[braxus]

What would be my result if I just used a yellow or red filter on HP5+ to get that Tri-X look? Or should I just stick to modifying development?

 

[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?

HP5+ shot @800 and developed N+1 in anything will give more of a TriX punch but may be a bit grainier; shot @400 and developed N is indeed a bit flat but has a full tonal range.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What would be my result if I just used a yellow or red filter on HP5+ to get that Tri-X look? Or should I just stick to modifying development?

Never change more than one or more than one variable at a time!

 

[Radost]

Never change more than one or more than one variable at a time!

I think filters that reduce light are counter productive for pushing film. I like how HP5 looks @1600 in xtol 1:1

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What would be my result if I just used a yellow or red filter on HP5+ to get that Tri-X look? Or should I just stick to modifying development?

Their spectral sensitivities are very similar, so you want to try to manipulate HP5's characteristic curve, by using a fast working developer, such as DK-50, or even better, a high contrast developer such as D-19 (it provides high contrast, and low fog...I've used it to make HP5 print in carbon transfer). D-19 cannot be bought anymore, but all you need is Metol, Hydroquinone, and Sodium Sulfite to mix up your own.
But I think at the end of the day, no matter what you try, it won't be HP5. Just bite the bullet and buy/use Tri-X.

 

[kennethwajda]

I routinely shoot HP5 with a stop or two over exposure so effectively ISO 200 or ISO 100. Develop normally five minutes at 68° in HC110. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/longmont-lake-project/

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I routinely shoot HP5 with a stop or two over exposure so effectively ISO 200 or ISO 100. Develop normally five minutes at 68° in HC110. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/longmont-lake-project/

I work pretty much within those EI's as well... but braxus is trying to find a way to make HP5 mimic Tri-X. Adding exposure only shifts the curve to the left. I think it more effective to push develop the film in D-19 1+1, or weaker.
Excellent images on your website, kennethwajda!

 

[pentaxuser]

I work pretty much within those EI's as well... but braxus is trying to find a way to make HP5 mimic Tri-X.

And good luck to you, braxus. As long as you are not trying to make it mimic Tri-X's price

pentaxuser

 

[bernard_L]

to underexpose it to deepen the shadows and give more blacks with deeper contrast in the image

To the contrary. If you underexpose, you are pushing the shadow tones into the toe, where contrast is less.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To the contrary. If you underexpose, you are pushing the shadow tones into the toe, where contrast is less.

True, but over all contrast with push development will increase.

 

[Steven Lee]

I am a bit puzzled by the need to expose HP5+ at EI 100-200. I think HP5+ is the only film that may actually be faster than its box speed. I never over-expose it and the shadows are never crushed. Maybe this has something to do with a choice of developer & metering technique? Most of the time I rely on an ambient reading and develop in Xtol.

 

[kennethwajda]

It's been said that Avedon overexposed his 8x10 negatives to ensure he had something on the film. I scan my film and like to make sure my shadows have detail, and then the highlights can't be too blown out. They hold fine and the dense negative works fine with a DSLR and lightbox copy stand scan setup. Avedon's negatives were so dense, a retoucher said he used to shave the highlights with a razor blade. I've always been fascinated by the fact that shaving emulsion to thin it out is possible.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am a bit puzzled by the need to expose HP5+ at EI 100-200. I think HP5+ is the only film that may actually be faster than its box speed. I never over-expose it and the shadows are never crushed. Maybe this has something to do with a choice of developer & metering technique? Most of the time I rely on an ambient reading and develop in Xtol.

HP5 is very good at box speed, especially when a developer such as Xtol (and others) is used. I usually expose at EI 250, but sometimes push processing at 800 is what I need to do!

 

[Sirius Glass]

HP5 is very good at box speed, especially when a developer such as Xtol (and others) is used. I usually expose at EI 250, but sometimes push processing at 800 is what I need to do!

I never saw a reason to automatically derate HP5+ to less than box speed. Use at box speed and then adjust for the Zone System exposure and or the filter factor and one can get as much or as little shadow as they want. Beside XTOL and replenished XTOL provide a boost to the box speed which will automatically bring out more shadow detail.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I never saw a reason to automatically derate HP5+ to less than box speed. Use at box speed and then adjust for the Zone System exposure and or the filter factor and one can get as much or as little shadow as they want. Beside XTOL and replenished XTOL provide a boost to the box speed which will automatically bring out more shadow detail.

To each his own. HP5 can look absolutely gorgeous at EI 800, all depending on subject lighting of course.

 

[kennethwajda]

I work pretty much within those EI's as well... but braxus is trying to find a way to make HP5 mimic Tri-X. Adding exposure only shifts the curve to the left. I think it more effective to push develop the film in D-19 1+1, or weaker.
Excellent images on your website, kennethwajda!

Thanks For the compliment on my work, Andrew!

 

[Radost]

@1600 1:1 xtol

 

[Stealth3kpl]

I'm not convinced of the need to do this, nowadays. If it's the only way to get a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate motion blur, that's fair enough, but most people have a hybrid workflow so my feeling is it's better to expose correctly to get the scene's tonal range on the film, then scan to get all those tones in a digital file. You can then moriyama the heck out of it in post processing. That way, if your taste changes in the future, you'll have a negative you can revisit.
Perhaps, it's different for a wet darkroom, but I don't know.
Pete

 

[Radost]

I'm not convinced of the need to do this, nowadays. If it's the only way to get a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate motion blur, that's fair enough, but most people have a hybrid workflow so my feeling is it's better to expose correctly to get the scene's tonal range on the film, then scan to get all those tones in a digital file. You can then moriyama the heck out of it in post processing. That way, if your taste changes in the future, you'll have a negative you can revisit.
Perhaps, it's different for a wet darkroom, but I don't know.
Pete

You can never get the same feeling and look with digital.
And I am not some screw digital fan boy,
When it comes to sound Vinyl sounds like shit compared to a CD. I understand the technology.
With pictures digital pretty much looks the same with different cameras. And you always have to edit.

 

[Stealth3kpl]

You can never get the same feeling and look with digital.
And I am not some screw digital fan boy,
When it comes to sound Vinyl sounds like shit compared to a CD. I understand the technology.
With pictures digital pretty much looks the same with different cameras. And you always have to edit.

But you can create a digital negative and wet print it.
"With pictures digital pretty much looks the same with different cameras." - Isn't that more to do with modern lenses having their character removed?
"And I am not some screw digital fan boy" - I am , but then I see some incredible images formed digitally and realise I have a lack of imagination and skill.
"And you always have to edit" - if you're not editing, there's no hope. If you're not at least split grade printing at least sometimes, or dodging and burning, or choosing the best images to work on, well....
Pete

 

[snusmumriken]

You can never get the same feeling and look with digital.
And I am not some screw digital fan boy,
When it comes to sound Vinyl sounds like shit compared to a CD. I understand the technology.
With pictures digital pretty much looks the same with different cameras. And you always have to edit.

It’s difficult to evaluate the photos you posted above, without knowing how you metered them. The shadow areas in all three are relatively unimportant, so if you rated the film at 1600 ISO (ie under-exposed by two stops relative to box speed) and metered for the dominant mid-tones, one would expect the film (in fact any decent film) to have coped with the situation easily.

 

[Radost]

It’s difficult to evaluate the photos you posted above, without knowing how you metered them. The shadow areas in all three are relatively unimportant, so if you rated the film at 1600 ISO (ie under-exposed by two stops relative to box speed) and metered for the dominant mid-tones, one would expect the film (in fact any decent film) to have coped with the situation easily.

Rated at @1600 using Minolta A7 meter.
I have tried to push bunch of films and even developed tmax3200.
HP5 has really good resolution and dynamic range @1600
I have never tried triX at @1600 but I loaded some with my Leica CL.
Interested to see the result.

 

[snusmumriken]

Rated at @1600 using Minolta A7 meter.

Ah, ok, so that’s a multi-point metering system, yes? I understand now where you are coming from.

 

[Radost]

But you can create a digital negative and wet print it.
"With pictures digital pretty much looks the same with different cameras." - Isn't that more to do with modern lenses having their character removed?
"And I am not some screw digital fan boy" - I am , but then I see some incredible images formed digitally and realise I have a lack of imagination and skill.
"And you always have to edit" - if you're not editing, there's no hope. If you're not at least split grade printing at least sometimes, or dodging and burning, or choosing the best images to work on, well....
Pete

Wet print… no thanks.
Not sure I will blame the lenses.
Maybe it is just me but clicking 200 times on a digital cameras i barely have 1 or 2 good once. Nothing to do with imagination.
Usually half off a film its good pictures. More when it comes to medium format “where i am a lot more selective” 70% are good.
I don’t edit. But I develop. And the being away from the wife and the kids locked in my bathroom by myself developing is how I stumbled in to meditating. The clock, the times, the chemical temperatures clear my mind. The best thing about film photography is my meditation while developing.
I have friends who spend half a lifetime and a fortune, went to India to learn how to mediate.
I just do it in my bathroom for… almost free.
I try to take a good picture, develop, scan and print “I like digital printing of negatives”.
I have no interest in using “ND Grads” or dodging and burning. Way easier to analyze a place and come back in the right lighting conditions.