Ilford HP5+ - uneven development results

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have successfully developed three more rolls of film, where areas of continuous tone are perfectly even.

Before that I developed one roll of HP5 using my old technique with no change in developing process whatsoever. Everything the same, and that roll came out perfect.

The three rolls I processed now were done according to Shawn Dougherty's and Bob Carnie's technique of using a tank with more capacity than I need, so I ran three rolls in a four reel tank, with an empty reel on top, and more than enough chemistry to cover the three reels that had film on them. Agitation full first minute, and 5s every 30s. No presoak.
Three 100% A-OK perfect rolls, or essentially no change compared to before the change, except denser negatives (due to the increased agitation activity I'm sure). I did dial back one minute for that reason, but need to dial back one more and I think I have a winning way of doing this.

Thanks everybody for chiming in. No matter how much we do this, we can always learn more.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Cool. I also solved the issue I mentioned above with uneven Delta 400. I tried 10 s of gentle agitation each minute instead of 5 s. Great result. It's per Ilford's data sheet, of course. But with other films, I normally get the results I want with 5 s. Not a biggie for sure, and quite nice to get those great tones and fine grain. (I kept the presoak).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I processed three more rolls, and from a third batch this time, along with one roll of 35mm, from yet another batch, and the negatives are perfect, even in areas of perfect uniformity, like a blank blue sky, there is nothing uneven whatsoever.

Since last message I have eliminated the presoak, because I can't see a difference between using it and not. I started agitating every 30 seconds for normal contrast, which seems to give HP5+ a kick in the highlights that it appears to need. Overall I'm a very happy camper with the HP5+ and D76 combination. Really wonderful results, with prints that are as beautiful as any other combination I've ever used.

I attached two pictures which are basically straight scans with no dodging/burning, and with only overall contrast adjusted and dust spotting. One shows clearly in the sky area that the negs are perfectly uniform. The other, well, made me laugh. 'Stop Strippers'.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

They look good, Thomas, a lot better than some HP5 exposures that I have seen. I'm normally not a fan of this film for its murky qualities.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Looks good Thomas

That sky in the first image is what I am talking about and it looks very even to me with zero blotchyness.

Bob

I processed three more rolls, and from a third batch this time, along with one roll of 35mm, from yet another batch, and the negatives are perfect, even in areas of perfect uniformity, like a blank blue sky, there is nothing uneven whatsoever.

Since last message I have eliminated the presoak, because I can't see a difference between using it and not. I started agitating every 30 seconds for normal contrast, which seems to give HP5+ a kick in the highlights that it appears to need. Overall I'm a very happy camper with the HP5+ and D76 combination. Really wonderful results, with prints that are as beautiful as any other combination I've ever used.

I attached two pictures which are basically straight scans with no dodging/burning, and with only overall contrast adjusted and dust spotting. One shows clearly in the sky area that the negs are perfectly uniform. The other, well, made me laugh. 'Stop Strippers'.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

They look good, Thomas, a lot better than some HP5 exposures that I have seen. I'm normally not a fan of this film for its murky qualities.

Sorry, just saw this comment now.

HP5+ murky? That doesn't sound right to me. The final contrast of the negatives you make is in your control. You make that happen with your exposure and processing.

I find that if I shoot HP5+ at a normal EI of about 400 to 640 I end up with negatives that have just the amount of depth and richness in the shadows that I want, and then I process the film long enough, and agitate enough, to get some intensity in the highlights. When I shoot Tri-X I have to shoot at 320-400 for similar shadows, and then I have to be a bit calmer with agitation. But it's possible to make negatives that makes prints that are confusingly similar from the two emulsions. You just have to work it a little.