Orange filter and pushing ilford hp5+

[Iodosan]

Good morning everyone.
I just terminated a roll of hp5 on my rollei 35. Taking into account that I used an orange filter (-1.5 / - 3) and set an iso 400 on my external light meter, to develop the roll at 1600 iso now I just need to isare the exact times for the process at iso 1600, right? Have I compensated in the right way the absorption of the stops from the filter?

 

[pentaxuser]

An orange filter usually means about a 2 stop reduction in light so whatever your external light meter says you need to compensate for the filter by decreasing the stutter speed by 2 stops. So if the meter says 1/1000th sec then you need to set your camera to 1/250th. I'd try 2 stops and see how the negatives turn out The film speed you set does not affect how many stops of light compensation the orange filter needs

As far as the correct exposure goes then look up Ilford times for 1600 and for the developer you are using. If you cannot find the times for the developer you are using try the Massive Development Chart

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

Wouldn't metering at EI 400 for a ISO 1600 film result in the same exposure as "decreasing the stutter speed by 2 stops"?

 

[Iodosan]

Wouldn't metering at EI 400 for a ISO 1600 film result in the same exposure as "decreasing the stutter speed by 2 stops"?

Exactly what I was going to write. By doing so, I should have already compensated for the two stops. Or am I wrong?

 

[BrianShaw]

Exactly what I was going to write. By doing so, I should have already compensated for the two stops. Or am I wrong?

You are correct. I wrote that and deleted it because I thought I misunderstood the question being asked.

 

[MattKing]

I particularly like your describing finishing a roll of film as "terminating" it.
Don't worry, your English is excellent, it is just that this phrase makes me smile.
What you are telling us is that you metered using an ISO of 400, but under-exposed the film by ~ 2 stops because you used an orange filter.
You can partially compensate for that under-exposure by increasing ("pushing") the development. A 2 stop under-exposure would indicate that a 2 stop "push" development is in order - in other words, developing for exposure at an EI of 1600.
Your shadow detail will be very poor, but the push development will give you increased contrast, which means that the mid-tones and highlights will render better.

 

[Pieter12]

I would suggest the next time you just open up by 2 stops-- either actual stops or a compination of shuuter speed and f stops. My logic is that if you are in a situtaion where you want or need an orange filter, there is enough light that you can use the normal ISO for HP5+ and the filter compensation is easy to deal with.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Just to be clear, the orange filter was used for every shot on the roll, right?

If I understand, correctly, all you need to do now is to determine the correct development time for HP5+ push processing at EI 1600 (2 stops) and the developer you want to use.

Do you already have a developer in mind? I believe some developers may be better for push processing than others? Especially so, if you are using HP5+ in 35mm and you don't want a lot of grain(?) More experienced members can probably advise better than I can.

 

[M Carter]

Your shadow detail will be very poor, but the push development will give you increased contrast, which means that the mid-tones and highlights will render better.

I hear this repeated often, but isn't the goal of pushing to place the highlights and upper mids in the same range they'd be when exposing and developing normally? If I expose a 400 film at 1600, and push development 2 stops, I'll find times via testing to get the highs properly placed - not to be more dense than with normal ISO and development.

The negs will still have more contrast due to reduced shadow detail, but not due to brighter highlights. This has been my experience with whatever B&W development mods I've done; get the highs where I want them.

 

[Iodosan]

I particularly like your describing finishing a roll of film as "terminating" it.
Don't worry, your English is excellent, it is just that this phrase makes me smile.
What you are telling us is that you metered using an ISO of 400, but under-exposed the film by ~ 2 stops because you used an orange filter.
You can partially compensate for that under-exposure by increasing ("pushing") the development. A 2 stop under-exposure would indicate that a 2 stop "push" development is in order - in other words, developing for exposure at an EI of 1600.
Your shadow detail will be very poor, but the push development will give you increased contrast, which means that the mid-tones and highlights will render better.

Ahahah sorry. I probably got the term terminated because exhausted from this roll! I used hp5@1600 with the slr that has shutter speed up to 1/2000. For this reason, since the rollei 35 only reaches up to 1/500 And wanting to try hp5 at iso 1600 I used an orange filter. Maybe I did something wrong.

 

[Iodosan]

Just to be clear, the orange filter was used for every shot on the roll, right?

If I understand, correctly, all you need to do now is to determine the correct development time for HP5+ push processing at EI 1600 (2 stops) and the developer you want to use.

Do you already have a developer in mind? I believe some developers may be better for push processing than others? Especially so, if you are using HP5+ in 35mm and you don't want a lot of grain(?) More experienced members can probably advise better than I can.

Exactly. All shots were taken with the orange filter. I usually use rodinal or hc-110 for hp5 and trix. I just have to understand that mk just follow the times of a normal development "hp5@1600" or I have to make some precautions.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Develop as if it were an ISO 1600 FILM. HP5 is a remarkable film, when it comes to pushing.

 

[MattKing]

I hear this repeated often, but isn't the goal of pushing to place the highlights and upper mids in the same range they'd be when exposing and developing normally? If I expose a 400 film at 1600, and push development 2 stops, I'll find times via testing to get the highs properly placed - not to be more dense than with normal ISO and development.

The negs will still have more contrast due to reduced shadow detail, but not due to brighter highlights. This has been my experience with whatever B&W development mods I've done; get the highs where I want them.

I think we may be using "contrast" differently.
When I use "contrast", I am referring to how similar but slightly different tones are differentiated - essentially the slope of the characteristic curve at the point on the curve you are examining.
I believe what you are referring to as "contrast" is the difference between the densities at or close to the extreme edges - how the densities compare between the shadows on one hand, and the highlights on the other.
In my experience, a "push" development that leaves the highlights within easy printing range (moderate density) often results in mid-tones that are low in contrast - they render quite "blah".
I tend to put more weight on how the mid-tones render than on other parts of the scene, because for most photographs that is where the most important visual information resides.
I believe that consideration of mid-tone rendition is how manufacturers like Kodak come to their recommendations on "push" development times.
That is essentially the analysis that is use for expansion development as well, although with expansion development, there isn't the same loss of shadow detail.

 

[Helge]

It’s basically contrast with contrast on top.
I take it that it’s outdoors midday photos?
All shadows has blueish light in them, from the ambient blue in the sky or the diffuse cool from a cloud cover.
That is filtered out almost completely by an orange filter.
Pushing as well, will accentuate what is highlights and upper mid tones.
Small grains with many image centers gets worked on by the developer faster and harder.

The result will be very contrasty.

You can negate that by various compensating actions. Such as latensification, watery development, stand development etc.

In fact, personally I think I’d use 1+99 dilution of Rodinal for two hours, with agitation for only the first minute.
Some might balk at this, but I have actually had good results from this combo.
Fortunately HP5 is a relatively low contrast and very forgiving film.

I once exposed a whole 120 roll with bulb flash (exceptionally bright over a 1/25 shutter) at modest apertures, then developed the whole roll at 1600 by accident.
The negatives was very, very dense, but there was perfect full photos in there, with enough scan exposure.
HP5 almost never blocks up.

 

[jeffreyg]

You didn't mention the subject matter of the photographs. The orange filter will affect different colors differently. Since you are experimenting, why not cut the roll and develop half as pushed and half as you would for ISO 400. The film has good latitude and I suspect there won't be enough difference so you could make decent prints either way.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Helge]

You didn't mention the subject matter of the photographs. The orange filter will affect different colors differently. Since you are experimenting, why not cut the roll and develop half as pushed and half as you would for ISO 400. The film has good latitude and I suspect there won't be enough difference so you could make decent prints either way.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

He’s guaranteed to cut through the best frame.
At least it will be when he has done it.

 

[cliveh]

Good morning everyone.
I just terminated a roll of hp5 on my rollei 35. Taking into account that I used an orange filter (-1.5 / - 3) and set an iso 400 on my external light meter, to develop the roll at 1600 iso now I just need to isare the exact times for the process at iso 1600, right? Have I compensated in the right way the absorption of the stops from the filter?

Why are you using an orange filter? And why are you developing 400 ISO at 1600? With out knowing this, no one can can give you a sensible answer.

 

[pentaxuser]

Why are you using an orange filter? And why are you developing 400 ISO at 1600? With out knowing this, no one can can give you a sensible answer.

I am not clear why we need to know the answers to these 2 questions to help him with his questions ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

From the sounds of of it he regularly develops hp5+ at 1600 and was using a camera that has too slow of a shutter speed for that to work for him. I would say he has done the correct thing and is now worried that he did no. Develop as you normally would for 1600 and see what happens. Absolute worst case scenario it doesn’t work and you learn. Most likely, it works. Film is great fun, use and trust your intuition, and learn from any mistakes you make along the way.

 

[Pieter12]

From the sounds of of it he regularly develops hp5+ at 1600 and was using a camera that has too slow of a shutter speed for that to work for him. I would say he has done the correct thing and is now worried that he did no. Develop as you normally would for 1600 and see what happens. Absolute worst case scenario it doesn’t work and you learn. Most likely, it works. Film is great fun, use and trust your intuition, and learn from any mistakes you make along the way.

To me, it reads like the opposite. He wanted to shoot HP5+ at 1600, and used an orange filter because he felt that was the best approach to being able to get a proper exposure with what he deems is his camera's shortcoming of only going to 1/2000s shutter speed. But the question he has is how should he now develop the pushed film, indicating this is not what he ordinarily does.

 

[Iodosan]

From the sounds of of it he regularly develops hp5+ at 1600 and was using a camera that has too slow of a shutter speed for that to work for him. I would say he has done the correct thing and is now worried that he did no. Develop as you normally would for 1600 and see what happens. Absolute worst case scenario it doesn’t work and you learn. Most likely, it works. Film is great fun, use and trust your intuition, and learn from any mistakes you make along the way.

You understood my dilemma. I have already tried to expose hp5 and tx400 to 1600 iso. I tried to expose to 1600 with a pentax slr with 1/2000 shutter limit. Then I tried a roll on a Russian rangefinder exposing to 800 iso and then in development I developed it at 1600 and with the last roll I wanted to find a way to use the rollei 35 (which is my favorite camera) with hp5 at 1600. Precisely because at 400 it is too flat for my taste. So in the next few days I will develop with rodinal semistand mode or hc110 and post the results here. So if someone wants to give me some advice for the next rolls.
Someone had asked what time I take the photographs. I usually do them early in the morning and in the evening. That's why I like to have iso above 400.

 

[BrianShaw]

Looking forward to your results I rarely shoot film faster than 200, and never faster than 400. Maybe I’ll see some incentive to try something new.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Definitely looking forward to seeing some pictures! Next time if you don’t want have the altered appearance that the orange filter results in you could use a neutral density filter instead. Then you can just pick how many stops of push you want with less altered contrast and spectral response.

 

[Pieter12]

Definitely looking forward to seeing some pictures! Next time if you don’t want have the altered appearance that the orange filter results in you could use a neutral density filter instead. Then you can just pick how many stops of push you want with less altered contrast and spectral response.

I haven't done side-by-side comparison, but I think the orange filter might give you a brighter viewfinder image.

 

[Iodosan]

as promised I am attaching two photos developed from the test roll.
rollei 35 tessar with orange filter, ilford hp5 pushed to iso 1600 and developed with rodinal. scanned with vuescan and epson v500. no lightroom or post production.