Pushing HP5+ to 1600.

[rayonline_nz]

I have not yet played around with the recipes, just following what Ilford says. Ilford says that HP5+ can be pushed to 1600 and developed in ID-11 or Microphen both at stock. What is the differences I would likely see between these two?

As I am just average Joe here, it would be nice to stick with just one developer - one for my standard development and one also for the push development. I have a bottle of Agfa Rodinal already too yet to be opened.

There is Delta 3200 yes but I like to bulk load my film and it is cheaper. I have been given a loader and just been testing some very old Plus-X that was also given to me.


Cheers.

 

[hoffy]

I have pushed HP5+ to 1600 plenty of times. As a matter of fact, I LOVE it (but expect a lot of "better off using Delta 3200" replies).

I have found that I have gotten really nice results with D76 stock, as stated. Yes, there will be acres of grain, but that is half the fun of using this combo. Obviously, shadow detail is going to be minimal, but that is part of the trade off.

 

[MrBrowning]

First let me say I've only shot HP5+ a couple of times but never pushed it.

Do a search at filmdev.org and you can get an idea of a film with any given developer. It might help to see it. Yes I do know that manipulation can be done to the scan so the results are not 100% but it serves as a good starting point.

 

[winterclock]

I have used Edwal FG7 1+13 with 9 percent sodium sulfate to push HP5 to 3200 with reduced grain. If I remember correctly the developing time worked out to about 21 minutes but there was no other way to get the portrait I wanted in the low light of a night club. I shot it in 5x7 and there is no 3200 made in that size.
I suspect the microphen will give you finer grain, the ID-11 would be what to use if you want the grainier look.

 

[moltogordo]

I can actually address your questions directly, because I have pushed HP5 to 1600 with both developers.

Here is a shot (these are scanned 8x10 prints) with HP5 pushed to 1600, as a matter of fact, in Microphen in 1974. This is my violin teacher at UBC, John Loban, and the camera used was a Nikkormat Fn, with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor lens, studio lighting (there was a bit of natural light coming in out of the window) at f8. I don't remember the shutter speed but I would guess at about 1/250th or 1/500th because he was playing the Ysaye "Ballade" for me, and that bow was moving fast. I remember the aperture because I needed some depth of field because he was moving a bit as he was playing, and I wanted his plant in the background to be somewhat recognizable.

The next shot is my former piano teacher become accompanist, Robert Rogers, as we were rehearsing the Beethoven "Kreutzer" Sonata for an Art Gallery recital in Vancouver. This was pushed to 6400 (!) in ID11, and taken in 1986, Nikon F3, Nikkor 85mm f1.4 lens, 1/15th at f2.8.

You probably can't tell much from the pictures except you will lose your highlights (they'll be blown even at 1200 or so), and that the grain with Microphen is a bit mushier (that's why I switched to D76/ID11 for pushing) - better clarity in the grain. Also the tonal graduation will be nicer with ID11/D76 - it doesn't seem to build up the contrast in the midrange as fast.

I'd personally recommend ID11D76 for the job - it's usually the pushing developer of choice. Also, I'd use another film besides HP5 - it balks at a lot of pushing, although you can get an image even at 6400, as you can see. For pushing, I actually used Plus-X in Ethol Blue, and preferred the midtones to HP5 in ID11D76. But like huffy above, I don't mind HP5 pushed in ID11/D76 at all - a nice flat negative and it'll look fine.

I know that the current Tri-X pushes more readily than HP5, although I prefer the latter film for pictorial use personally.

I'd point out that the apparently sharper grain in the first picture is more due to a bit of unsharp mask applied to the scanned enlargement than the actual print itself, where the grain is definitely mushier.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Many thanks all

May go with ID11 and it keeps it simple with Delta 100.

Just also out of interest. I have a camera club senior and he prefers Delta 100 with Perceptol after trying ID11 - any comments? I am happy enough with ID11.

 

[summicron1]

i used to push HP5 plus to 1600 when i was shooting it in a Minox. Yes, a minox. 9 mm wide negatives. I thought I'd get grain the size of basketballs, but the prints were surprisingly smooth. HP5 is made to be pushed and does well.

Modern tri-x is amazing pushed to 1600 and developed in d-76 1:1. Haven't tried it in the minox yet.

 

[Xmas]

Microphen is 1/3 of a stop faster maybe but lower fog maybe.
You would need a step wedge. And I have used both with HP5+.
I cannot stand prints from pushed shots they looked pushed.

 

[moltogordo]

Don't confuse Ilford Microphen with Kodak Microdol-X. They are very different developers (and I wouldn't recommend Microdol-X as a push developer).

Microphen is formulated to give slightly higher emulsion speed than ID-11. Microphen might then normally be expected to give slightly better push results than ID-11. However once you get into pushing more than a stop or so, all bets are off and there likely aren't major differences among most general purpose developers. Rodinal likely wouldn't make a very good push developer.

You are quite right and I confess to having a brainfart. The picture #1 in my post WAS developed in Microphen, not Microdol-X, a developer I didn't use in the old days. Why I put down Microdol-X I don't know.

In the days of yor, I used only Ilford products with ilford films, and Kodak products with Kodak films. Thus I'd use ID11 with Ilford and D76 with Kodak. Id11/D67 are the same formula, ostensibly, except that Ilford packs the sodium sulfite separately in the small packet.

Sorry about that - I'll correct my post if I can.

I did (and still do) use HP5+ as my main B&W ASA 400 film. It is pushable, unlike some will say, but not, I find, to the extent of Tri-X, either old or new.

Also if you check out the chemical formulations of Microphen and Microdol-X, according to the Film Developing Cookbook, they are in the same (ultrafine grain) developing type and the formulas are not dissimilar. But whatever the case, I do my pushing with ID11/D76 for the reasons I outlined in my original post, preferring these to either Microphen or Microdol on their respective makers' films. I simply found the midtones nicer with ID11/D76, and the grain mushier (albeit finer) with Microphen/Microdol.

 

[ericdan]

I've pushed HP5+ in both developers to 1600. Mush prefer it in Microphen.
Here's it in Microphen:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericphoto2/14690053029/in/set-72157645113920379

Also note that it's hard to judge results by scans.
I prefer HP5+ from 200 - 800 in ID-11/D76
1600 - 3200 I shood Delta3200 and in Microphen

 

[NB23]

Hp5 pushes amazingly well to 800 and 1600.
It looks so good at 800 that it could well be used as its native speed.

 

[moltogordo]

Microdol X - (version of)

Water at around 40*C 750ml

Metol (Elon) 7.5 grams
Sodium sulphite, anhydrous 100 grams
Sodium metabisulphite 7.5 grams
Water to make 1 litre of stock solution.

Microphen:
Sodium Tripolyphosphate 3.4 gms
Sodium Sulphite anhyd 100.0gms
Sodium Metabisulphite 0.65 gm
Hydroquinone 5.0 gms
Phenidone 0.2 gm
Boric Acid 2.7 gms
Borax 6.8 gms
Potassium Bromide 1.0 gm
Water to make 1 Litre

Again, you're right. I need a holiday. Apparently Ilford wanted to use phenodone in their "version" of an ultrafine grainer, and had to make other adjustments to compensate such as the addition of hydroquinine, the elimination of metal and borax as a buffer to balance out the common amount of Sodium Sulfite anhydrous. Whatever. I don't use either of them after my original trials in the 70s, so I guess I'll pass on the torch and go make a sandwich.

 

[moltogordo]

Not sure where you're getting this stuff.

Microphen is was/is not intended to be an extra fine grain developer. It is actually slightly grainier than ID-11 but gives slightly higher emulsion speed. The exact formula is proprietary (not published), but it is said ID-68 is close.

The Kodak formula you posted above is not a version of Microdol-X, but rather a hybrid between D-23 and D-25. The formulas for Microdol and later Microdol-X are also proprietary but seem to contain sodium chloride.

Ilford's extra fine grain equivalent to Microdol is Perceptol.

Michael 3, Gord 0.

I'm thinking I've been confusing Microphen and Perceptol all along. I went into Anchel's book, and he used as examples of superfine grain developers, Microdol-X, Edwal 12, and Iford PERCEPTOL, just as you said.

The formula I put above for Microphen was taken from "film and darkroom user" forum, and was claimed only to be close to the original formula, but the concensus was that it seemed to work the same.

The formula I put up above for Microdol-X was taken from Anchell's book with directions "to USE" as Microdol-X.

Oddly enough, I did pass Chemistry 12 with flying colors. Think there's any hope for me? :confused:

 

[ME Super]

Developers know that there's math involved in music, just as there is in developing.