ILFORD HP5+ shot at ISO 1600

[hiroh]

I've never shot HP5 higher than 800, usually pushing it by 1 stop in development. Once, I shot Tri-X at 1600 in less than ideal light conditions, pushing it by 2 stops, but the negatives turned out a bit too contrasty for my taste.

Today, I shot HP5 at 1600 on a bright sunny day (because I already had a roll of film loaded in the camera), using settings of f/16, 1/1000s or 1/500s when in the shade.

Currently I have Adox Rodinal, HC-110, and D-76 Stock at home. What development process would you recommend for achieving the best possible results? I'm thinking stand development, instead agitation, but not sure what developer, time and dilution. Any advice based on your experience would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Milpool]

Pushing in development gives higher than normal contrast so you’re not going to get around that.

Since you have D-76 that’s what I’d recommend, and the best advice I can give is to use Ilford’s suggested developing times for HP5+ shot at 1600. Refer to Ilford’s technical document for HP5+. It includes suggestions for both ID-11 and D-76. Since the suggested developing times are a little different even though ID-11 and D-76 are the same, I’d probably just split the difference - ie somewhere between 12 1/2 and 14 minutes. It’s not going to make much of a difference to the dark parts of the image either way.

Stand/semi-stand/whatever development is not going to help you with a general purpose developer (or most other developers either) and will just give you additional problems.

 

[loccdor]

A push to 1600 in sunny conditions is going to be contrasty no matter what. I think you would have been better off shooting the daytime shots on that roll at 800 even if you were going to push to 1600. The shadow detail will be faint.

Rodinal at 1:100 if you don't mind large grain. Time would be around 2 hours. Or use 1:50 at 20C and 24 minutes with light agitation every 3-5 minutes or so for a more even development.

HC-110 would have smaller grain but I haven't liked its results for pushing film.

D-76 stock solution has been good for me for pushing film, but it won't help with the contrast.

You were only using a 1 stop exposure difference for sunlight vs. shade? Usually that's at least a 3-4 stop difference in exposure. So another problem may be that metering was not that accurate. You needed an extra couple stops to get shadow detail.

Try the D-76 because it sounds like your sunlit shots are not overexposed, and your shade shots are underexposed, so you won't burn the highlights. You can try dealing with the contrast in post.

Luckily HP5+ has some of the most latitude of any film so you may get something good.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would not stand develop when push processing. That's just my personal opinion. I've shot HP5 a few times at 1600 (that's as far as I'll go and it gets ugly beyond that point), and extend development time in XTol. I have a video on my channel, by the way...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've never shot HP5 higher than 800, usually pushing it by 1 stop in development. Once, I shot Tri-X at 1600 in less than ideal light conditions, pushing it by 2 stops, but the negatives turned out a bit too contrasty for my taste.

Today, I shot HP5 at 1600 on a bright sunny day (because I already had a roll of film loaded in the camera), using settings of f/16, 1/1000s or 1/500s when in the shade.

Currently I have Adox Rodinal, HC-110, and D-76 Stock at home. What development process would you recommend for achieving the best possible results? I'm thinking stand development, instead agitation, but not sure what developer, time and dilution. Any advice based on your experience would be greatly appreciated.

I would use the massive development chart and take it from there. It reflects the sum of many pople's experiences.

 

[Agulliver]

I frequently shoot HP5+ at 1600 but in a jazz club. However, I have shot it at 1600 in sunlight where I was finishing up a roll or starting one that I knew I'd finish in dim conditions....or where I specifically wanted high shutter speeds.

I'd use D76 or ID-11 (essentially the same). Microphen if I had it. Contrast will be increased, there's really nothing you can do about that. It is in the nature of pushing film. I am unsure why you'd want to try stand development for this.

I use ID-11 stock, or currently a version of D76 stock. 12:30 minutes with agitation every 60 seconds, assuming 20C or thereabouts. I got this from a film developer app which I believe gets it's data from the MDC. While not infallible, it's always a great place to start and this regimen works for me.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

HP5+ is my go-to film for 1600, day-time natural light indoors or night shots outdoors. I always develop it, and like it a lot, with Ilfotec DD-X. Contrast is tamed through agitation. Ilfotec HC also works well, albeit with a grainier result. I would definitely avoid Rodinal.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, in some situations, HP5 at 1600, then developed appropriately, is shockingly good.

 

[hiroh]

Huh, lots of opinions, as expected

I did consult the Massive Dev Chart first, but there were also lots of variations, considering I have three developers to choose from. Sometimes I use this website to see examples of photos developed by other people with different recipes, but in this case, there weren't any using the developers I currently have, so I decided to ask here.

Several people suggested D-76, and I think I'll go with that. HC-110 would boost the contrast even more, which I don't want, and Rodinal will probably emphasize the grain even more, which I also don't want for this roll.

Stand development — something I've never tried before, but I thought it would slightly add shadow detail and reduce grain. Am I wrong?

@Andrew O'Neill Wow, it's surprising how well HP5+ holds up at these crazy high ISOs. I'm shooting 35mm though, so I expect the grain to be significantly larger than on your 4x5 negative.

 

[loccdor]

Stand development — something I've never tried before, but I thought it would slightly add shadow detail and reduce grain. Am I wrong?

With negative film, you have to expose for the shadows, and develop for the highlights. There isn't any development that can bring back shadows that don't contain information. Diluted, lower agitation development is meant to stop the highlights from burning too much.

 

[hiroh]

With negative film, you have to expose for the shadows, and develop for the highlights. There isn't any development that can bring back shadows that don't contain information. Diluted, lower agitation development is meant to stop the highlights from burning too much.

Of course, if they are not recorded, they are lost.

As I mentioned, I've never tried stand development, I've just read about it. For example, this Wikipedia article states: "It has a compensating effect in that the developer exhausts itself in areas which require greater development while remaining active in less-exposed areas, which has the effect of boosting shadow detail while preserving bright highlights", but I guess it means that it maintains the highlights while still developing shadows. I'll have to try it myself to fully understand it.

I just purchased ILFOTEC DD-X from a local shop, so I'll try that for this roll.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I just purchased ILFOTEC DD-X from a local shop, so I'll try that for this roll.

I always follow Ilford's agitation pattern for HP5+ @ 1600 in DD-X:

The following agitation is recommended for spiral tank processing with ILFORD chemicals; Invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds. Repeat these four inversions during the first 10 seconds of each subsequent minute of development.

I wouldn't agitate more for fear of increasing the contrast level.

 

[pentaxuser]

hiroh, perhaps when you do develop the film shot at 1600 you will show us the result and give us your opinion of what benefits and drawbacks resulted

pentaxuser

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

I have used (and still using) HP5 shot at EI1600 as I live in UK and generally use at least YG filter. I used to develop it with Rodinal at 1+50 dilution, then tried Microphen as well and also with XT-3 (XTOL) at 1+2 and 1+3.

I like the convenience of Rodinal as it is always in the bottle and ready to use however I will soon prepare a replenishment system for XT3 and process films which is EI400 and above with it and with Rodinal below EI400.

So go and try Rodinal, I have always liked my results, good contrast and grain

 

[hiroh]

Just scanned my roll. It turned out quite grainy, which I don't mind, but it seems underexposed, which is strange as I was shooting on a bright sunny day at f/16, 1/1000, and ISO 1600. I was hoping it would be overexposed. What do you think, is this underexposure or something with the development? The scanning shouldn't be an issue, as I used the settings that I always use for my scans with a digital camera.

 

[loccdor]

They aren't bad at all. Pushed film does tend to look underexposed. You are exposing the film at 4 times a shorter speed. When you push film the shadows won't increase in brightness as much as the highlights. You could try a milder 800 push next time and see if it's more acceptable to you.

 

[hiroh]

I like shooting at 1600 speed as it provides flexibility in different lighting situations. I just wanted to know if this is how it would look, or if I messed something else up. To me, it looks okay; maybe I'll need some time to get used to it.

 

[loccdor]

You can also try shooting at 1600 and developing as 400. The negatives will look thin but you may find the scan actually gives you a very usable image. The contrast will be lower. I once shot Fuji Neopan 400 at 3200 by accident with no change in development and was amazed that I got some great shots. It's just a little hard to see the frame lines where to cut the film.

Some of it may be down to how you handle the images in post.

 

[hiroh]

You can also try shooting at 1600 and developing as 400. The negatives will look thin but you may find the scan actually gives you a very usable image. The contrast will be lower. I once shot Fuji Neopan 400 at 3200 by accident with no change in development and was amazed that I got some great shots. It's just a little hard to see the frame lines where to cut the film.

Some of it may be down to how you handle the images in post.

Ha, I once shot Neopan Acros 100 at 800, and for some reason gav it to the lab to develop it together with a bunch of other rolls. I asked them to push Acros by 3 stops, but they said it wouldn’t be good, and the furthest I should go is 1 stop, so I let them do whatever they thought was best. I got such thin and flat negatives back that I simply couldn’t save them in post.

 

[pentaxuser]

So, hiroh, are these the scans from developing in DDX at the time given by Ilford for 1600 or DDX as stand development? If it's the latter what was the dilution, at what time and what was the source of information


The shadow detail doesn't look at all bad for 1600

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[hiroh]

So, hiroh, are these the scans from developing in DDX at the time given by Ilford for 1600 or DDX as stand development? If it's the latter what was the dilution, at what time and what was the source of information


The shadow detail doesn't look at all bad for 1600

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes, it’s DD-X, but I followed MDC, developing for 13 minutes at 20°C with a 1+4 dilution. I agitated for the first minute and then every minute for 10 seconds.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, it’s DD-X, but I followed MDC, developing for 13 minutes at 20°C with a 1+4 dilution. I agitated for the first minute and then every minute for 10 seconds.

Thanks for the reply It looks as if DDX may be the developer to use with HP5+ at 1600

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

or XTol...
Hiro, that is pretty much what HP5 looks like with scenes like that at 1600.

 

[hiroh]

I'd also mention that these images were not manipulated. I converted them with Negative Lab Pro, and it was automatically set to the Lab - Standard profile by default. I didn't even adjust anything further, so this is how they're supposed to look if developed with the method I mentioned above.

 

[Paul Howell]

When a working PJ in the 70s and 80s I pushed Trix and HP5 to 1600, on few occasions to 3200. D76 and TriX pushes well. When pushing film 2 stops let the shadows fall where they may and expose of the highlights, in zone terms zone VII, highlights with details. If you have time, I would hunt up a can of Acufine on Ebay, you can usually find a gallon size can for around $10.00 + shipping. Acufine will have a bit more grain, but pushes traditional grain film very well, when in the Air Force it was our goto push developer, on the other hand UPI did use D76.