Pushing HP5+ to 3200

[eddie]

... so I'm trying to just get info before I go in completely blind...

But, your questions are always about going in completely blind... You want other peoples experiences, when the variables (how you meter/how you agitate/ what your water is like) negate any value to the information. YOU NEED TO DO THE WORK YOURSELF! Even if you're spoon fed what works for others, it probably won't work for you. For all of the times you've rejected the one film/one developer advice, it's really the only way to begin to understand the science of photography. It's only after you've worked within that limit that you'll be able to transfer that knowledge to other film/developer combinations. Until you decide to get serious, and do the work, your images will suffer. Do the work now.

 

[Nige]

I was looking for a simple answer like ...

"I've used HP5+ at EI 3200, and I dev'd it in DD-X and pushed to 3200 at 20 minutes and the negs were a little under exposed/thin/whatever your term is, so the next time I developed for 22 minutes and it came out much better, so now I use 22 minutes with DD-X shot at EI 3200 ... "

I'll be home in 1/2hr or so...

 

[StoneNYC]

But, your questions are always about going in completely blind... You want other peoples experiences, when the variables (how you meter/how you agitate/ what your water is like) negate any value to the information. YOU NEED TO DO THE WORK YOURSELF! Even if you're spoon fed what works for others, it probably won't work for you. For all of the times you've rejected the one film/one developer advice, it's really the only way to begin to understand the science of photography. It's only after you've worked within that limit that you'll be able to transfer that knowledge to other film/developer combinations. Until you decide to get serious, and do the work, your images will suffer. Do the work now.

I guess I just don't think people meter that wildly different that in terms of exposure it will be that horribly different. There's this consensus with people that if you shoot D3200 at 3200, you should develop for 6400 ... it's pretty much repeated by everyone ... no matter how they meter, that's what everyone says... so... it should be relatively the same with HP5+ when pushed ... if I got one or two people's consensus on things, that would be helpful.

I can't standardize on only one film, it's impossible, because I shoot on many different formats, and the films I enjoy using aren't available on all formats... if I'm shooting models, I like PanF+ but that's not available in 4x5.... if I'm shooting models but I want to use outside light as a balance, and have a great depth of field, I need to use something like TMY-2 @800 in order to balance the inside light and strobes and get a good depth of field, so that too I can't use JUST one film ... if I'm shooting all inside with no lighting, I need D3200 or P3200 (may it rest peacefully) so again I can't just use one film... and in this case, Rodinal won't do it, so I have to also use a different Dev (DD-X) ... if I'm shooting 4x5 inside with no strobes and the lighting is so low I need something that hits 3200 I will need HP5+ because that's all that's available in sheet film.... again different film, different dev...

So, yes I can do the work... but saying you should stick to one film, one dev... although repeated often, doesn't make ANY sense to me... in any way, and I think it's just ludicrous ... either that, or they specialize in one thing only, and so don't have this constant change in atmosphere to deal with, and so they don't understand or refuse to see it... but not everyone ONLY wants to shoot still life's in a studio...with one film, and one developer, for 20 years...

I'm not at all mad at you Eddie, I just wanted to elaborate...

Also, in this case, HP5+ is also the ONLY film available in 127(46mm special run thanks to Ilford's ULF special order) so it's relatively new to me, I've only shot it a few times in 120, and then the rest in 4x5, and haven't needed to push it yet, so this is a first time, and I was only looking to get some insight, use the info from what others have experienced to form a basis ... if 4 different photographers all said "well I found the listed ilford times to be a little short and had to go further by 2-6 minutes) then I have some BASIS to start with... so I don't have to start at 20 minutes and maybe start at 22... for example... the low end of the 4 photographers experienced time listings.... and go from there ... rather than go with ilford times which can be wrong for pushed films ... and completely have a botched roll ... why do that to myself when I can simply learn from those who have come before me ...

[h=3]"A Wise Man Learns by the Mistakes of Others, a Fool by His Own"[/h]

 

[StoneNYC]

I'll be home in 1/2hr or so...

haha thanks take your time, I have till tomorrow

And please drive safe!

 

[markbarendt]

I guess what I was looking for is too logical for most, or they haven't used the Dev/film combo which is fine...

I was looking for a simple answer like ...

"I've used HP5+ at EI 3200, and I dev'd it in DD-X and pushed to 3200 at 20 minutes and the negs were a little under exposed/thin/whatever your term is, so the next time I developed for 22 minutes and it came out much better, so now I use 22 minutes with DD-X shot at EI 3200 ... "

I've used HP5 at 3200, developed it in DD-X per Ilford's instructions and it was very workable but a bit too contrasty for my taste.

What you keep ignoring though Stone is that that type info is only relevant when you know what my taste is, know what I mean by a bit too contrasty, know what the subject matter was, know how I metered it, and know how I printed it, and you had seen the result, and you were printing with an enlarger.

You don't know any of that.

 

[MattKing]

So that time I mixed Rodinal and HC-110 just for the heck of it to see if I'd get sharper negs ... probably shouldn't do that? LOL

BTW they came out fine, I didn't notice any increase in finer grain or sharpness however. lol

"For the heck of it" is fine (probably), but only for fun, because unless you set up an informative test it won't tell you anything particularly useful.

Under exposing and then "pushing" has never suited my needs, because the under-exposure leaves out much of what I like in a negative, and of what's left, pushing often blocks out more.

But that is because of what I'm looking for. I've wandered through some of your work in the APUG gallery, Stone, and I'd guess some of what I don't like actually appeals to you. And that's entirely fine.

With respect to the roll you have already shot, the usefulness of any techniques available to you to deal with what may be three stops of under-exposure will depend on the nature, quality and quantity of light and the reflectance of the subjects when you took your shots.

 

[StoneNYC]

I've used HP5 at 3200, developed it in DD-X per Ilford's instructions and it was very workable but a bit too contrasty for my taste.

What you keep ignoring though Stone is that that type info is only relevant when you know what my taste is, know what I mean by a bit too contrasty, know what the subject matter was, know how I metered it, and know how I printed it, and you had seen the result, and you were printing with an enlarger.

You don't know any of that.

no, but you didn't say "it was under exposed" that's the only thing in the equation that counts for me... I want to avoid over exposure... and I want to avoid a negative so dense, I could look at the sun through it and be ok... LOL that's all I care about...

 

[StoneNYC]

"For the heck of it" is fine (probably), but only for fun, because unless you set up an informative test it won't tell you anything particularly useful.

Under exposing and then "pushing" has never suited my needs, because the under-exposure leaves out much of what I like in a negative, and of what's left, pushing often blocks out more.

But that is because of what I'm looking for. I've wandered through some of your work in the APUG gallery, Stone, and I'd guess some of what I don't like actually appeals to you. And that's entirely fine.

With respect to the roll you have already shot, the usefulness of any techniques available to you to deal with what may be three stops of under-exposure will depend on the nature, quality and quantity of light and the reflectance of the subjects when you took your shots.

This is NOT art ... this was HARDLY metered... it was just family stuff shot without a flash, metered each room with the Sekonic Studio Delux (original, not 2 or 3 versions) incident metering, and they all fell basically in the same spot, so each room had relatively the same light ... then I shot with my Yashica44 with family images or whatever, and so I just don't want their skin to be so black that they look like dead zombies... I just want the exposure to be good enough to see everyone ... I don't mind wrinkles which are bound to happen to them since they are old and the images will be undoubtedly contrasty, just figured it would help to have a good idea of others' experience with this film/dev combo to which I thought many would/might have used.

 

[MattKing]

This is NOT art ... this was HARDLY metered... it was just family stuff shot without a flash, metered each room with the Sekonic Studio Delux (original, not 2 or 3 versions) incident metering, and they all fell basically in the same spot, so each room had relatively the same light ... then I shot with my Yashica44 with family images or whatever, and so I just don't want their skin to be so black that they look like dead zombies... I just want the exposure to be good enough to see everyone ... I don't mind wrinkles which are bound to happen to them since they are old and the images will be undoubtedly contrasty, just figured it would help to have a good idea of others' experience with this film/dev combo to which I thought many would/might have used.

The film is almost certainly under-exposed. No developer is going to change that.

If the light was contrasty, then the shadows aren't going to be helped by pushing, and the highlights may be harmed.

If the light was even, the shadows were illuminated, and the contrast wasn't too high, then pushing may work well.

If the faces are bright enough and received enough light in the first place that with normal development they will look a bit dark but still show detail than pushing the development will lighten them a bit and increase the contrast of the detail - they will look better.

If they have dark complexions, or are partially shaded from the light sources, then pushing doesn't help.

How do the Ilford times for your developer and HP5+ work for you when you meter at EI 400 with the type of lighting you encountered for this roll? I would use that as a guide to using their times for a 3 stop push.

I would certainly avoid anything on the Massive Development chart - the numbers there range from excellent to weird, with little to tell you which is which.

 

[StoneNYC]

The film is almost certainly under-exposed. No developer is going to change that.

If the light was contrasty, then the shadows aren't going to be helped by pushing, and the highlights may be harmed.

If the light was even, the shadows were illuminated, and the contrast wasn't too high, then pushing may work well.

If the faces are bright enough and received enough light in the first place that with normal development they will look a bit dark but still show detail than pushing the development will lighten them a bit and increase the contrast of the detail - they will look better.

If they have dark complexions, or are partially shaded from the light sources, then pushing doesn't help.

How do the Ilford times for your developer and HP5+ work for you when you meter at EI 400 with the type of lighting you encountered for this roll? I would use that as a guide to using their times for a 3 stop push.

I would certainly avoid anything on the Massive Development chart - the numbers there range from excellent to weird, with little to tell you which is which.

Massive Dev Chart and Ilford times match for HP5+ in DD-X ...

Problem is, I normally don't push HP5+ ... so I don't use DD-X, I use Rodinal ... and all the times I have used HP5+ the lighting conditions were never this way... either outside on a diffused light day, or with studio lighting .... so, I can't really go on that at all LOL

Thanks Matt, I appreciate the thoughts and insight.

I'm aware at the fact the images will look contrasty and shadows will go black quickly, I've accepted that, I just want the mid tones to sort of be on target...

 

[StoneNYC]

Massive Dev Chart and Ilford times match for HP5+ in DD-X ...

Problem is, I normally don't push HP5+ ... so I don't use DD-X, I use Rodinal ... and all the times I have used HP5+ the lighting conditions were never this way... either outside on a diffused light day, or with studio lighting .... so, I can't really go on that at all LOL

Thanks Matt, I appreciate the thoughts and insight.

I'm aware at the fact the images will look contrasty and shadows will go black quickly, I've accepted that, I just want the mid tones to sort of be on target...

I would use DD-X if it were as cheap as Rodinal and the Dilutions were the same 1:50 generally speaking ... but they aren't, and my budget doesn't allow for being so generous that I can only use DD-X for everything... soooo that's that... lol

 

[markbarendt]

no, but you didn't say "it was under exposed" that's the only thing in the equation that counts for me... I want to avoid over exposure... and I want to avoid a negative so dense, I could look at the sun through it and be ok... LOL that's all I care about...

Exposure is controlled by the camera, development controls contrast rate. The density of every point on the film is a function of both. The usability of those points is determined by the output, the next step, not the film itself.

In an enlarger a denser negative, even one significantly denser, only means I need to use a longer print exposure, doesn't mean I can't make the same print. The exact density of a given point on the negative simply doesn't matter to my system that much. The print I make may start anywhere from 0-4 stops above the film's speed point, shadow point; any negative in that range is fine. Even though that range is 5 stops wide none are over or under exposed in my world.

I have no idea if you or your scanner/output system can adapt similarly.

 

[StoneNYC]

Exposure is controlled by the camera, development controls contrast rate. The density of every point on the film is a function of both. The usability of those points is determined by the output, the next step, not the film itself.

In an enlarger a denser negative, even one significantly denser, only means I need to use a longer print exposure, doesn't mean I can't make the same print. The exact density of a given point on the negative simply doesn't matter to my system that much. The print I make may start anywhere from 0-4 stops above the film's speed point, shadow point; any negative in that range is fine. Even though that range is 5 stops wide none are over or under exposed in my world.

I have no idea if you or your scanner/output system can adapt similarly.

Basically... yes it can, however you run into "weird things" at either end of the extremes ... strange "patterns" pop up on the scanned image if you've severely over exposed or under exposed the image ... looks like rice instead of grain ... hard to explain.

On the other hand, oddly enough, i've accidentally under developed a film that was exposed properly ... but I messed up the dilution... the time I developed for was the same as always, but the dilution of developer was cut in half... the image on the negative was very thin... however the scanned image looked normal... no weird patterns or anything ... I've never bothered to repeat this experiment, but figured it was worth mentioning ... I think given that the TIME I developed for was the same as normal, the silver all basically still was at the same amount in shadow and highlight as far as the overall difference between the two, just that there was less of it than normal because of the messed up dilution... so the scanner can handle thin negatives just fine, just not under exposed/over exposed images or poorly pushed/pulled negs. That's my take on it anyway....

 

[Nige]

I have done this once... ran out of D3200 (35mm) and since I was getting 1/30 @ f2.8 trying to shoot kick boxing decided HP5 @ 400 wasn't going to cut the mustard so decided to expose @ 3200. I'm pretty sure I processed both in DD-X. From memory... the HP5 came out ok. Would need to check my records for development times and eye ball negs to see if memory equates reality (it may not!)

These two pics were from the night... not sure what combo's (film/developer) they were.. would need to check!

home...

My memory did deceive...

1st pic was HP5 @ 3200 in LC29 (1:9) for 10mins @20.5 celsius

looking at the negs, contrast was high but mostly due to the thin shadow detail (yes, it's under exposed)

2nd pic was Delta3200 in DD-X (1:4) for 10mins @ 20 celsius looks a bit better but is still fairly contrasty with thin shadow detail.

I had two rolls of each shot at same event. I have another roll of HP5 shot in a Yashica zone focus compact that the negs 'look' better. I notice I proofed those negs on a grade harder paper than the others.

If I was to do this again, I'd probably develop similar, because although by sight my negs look a bit contrasty with minimal shadow detail, I used G1 & G2 papers for the prrof sheets which is on the low side. That may have been the enlarger I had at the time.

 

[StoneNYC]

home...

My memory did deceive...

1st pic was HP5 @ 3200 in LC29 (1:9) for 10mins @20.5 celsius

looking at the negs, contrast was high but mostly due to the thin shadow detail (yes, it's under exposed)

2nd pic was Delta3200 in DD-X (1:4) for 10mins @ 20 celsius looks a bit better but is still fairly contrasty with thin shadow detail.

I had two rolls of each shot at same event. I have another roll of HP5 shot in a Yashica zone focus compact that the negs 'look' better. I notice I proofed those negs on a grade harder paper than the others.

If I was to do this again, I'd probably develop similar, because although by sight my negs look a bit contrasty with minimal shadow detail, I used G1 & G2 papers for the prrof sheets which is on the low side. That may have been the enlarger I had at the time.

Hmm ok, well thanks for taking the time, it's appreciated ... Ilford lists times for LC29 to be 11 minutes for HP5+ at 3200, so you dev'd 1 minute slower than listed times and got decent results... at least with that Dev, ilford was on target-ish, and their time is 9 minutes and you did 10, but the images SEEMS just SLIGHTLY brighter on the skin than the first one, but still a tiny bit too dark, so it seems the times with DD-X are also SLIGHTLY off per various comments about D3200 in DD-X, so I think I'll Dev the HP5+ in DD-X for 22 minutes and see what happens

Thanks for taking the time, if you ever need the same I'll do my best, though I don't optically scan at all and still haven't really understood the whole paper grade thing... I assume that means the white is a different color white? or some such thing? I'm going to bed (I waited up for you since you took the time to wait up for me and all, but now I'm getting very sleepy). I'll try to pop on once more before the final rest (of the night).

Thanks again!

 

[MattKing]

Different paper grades give different contrast.

Speaking really simplistically, you increase grades to increase the darkness of the shadows, while leaving the highlights as they are.

 

[StoneNYC]

Different paper grades give different contrast.

Speaking really simplistically, you increase grades to increase the darkness of the shadows, while leaving the highlights as they are.

OH!! few! that's been kind of a big mystery for a while (but to be honest I didn't really read up on it as I haven't gotten my darkroom setup (and won't for a few years it would seem...) so I didn't want to fill my head with more stuff I couldn't make applicable currently, it tends to mess me up LOL

But that simple explanation is helpful and I'll do my best to retain it... increase grades to increase darkness of shadow..... higher number higher contrast (sort of...) that's the easiest for me to remember currently until I actually mess with the stuff...

 

[Xmas]

Hi
The simplest explain is a digital has a sharp cut off
...
00001
00000
for the deepest shadow it is going to represent

Film that has been pushed with a compensating dev spreads the 0-1 digital information using many slight variations of silver densities.

Pig to scan...

When wetprinting you print on a hard grade to get the clear parts of neg black and the darkest shade of neg white there need only be a vestigial difference to the naked eye.

If you have a high contrast neg but still want the shadow graduation you print twice with a mask or burning and dodging or all three.

A hard grade for underexposed shadows softer grade for less underexposed but in this case the underexposed shadows would range from black to dark gray to blend invisibly into the less underexposed softer grade parts.

Split grade printing - google and it is easy to do hard to describe... even simplified as above

Lastly I've never had a real darkroom.

At home I clamped my uncle's drawing board across the bath to set the enlarger on, the trays in bath below. The bath room still had a WWII blackout window blind. Removed the light bulb screwed in plug for safe light...

In my own house ditto cept I used a plastic tube for Cibachrome.

I use Leica cassettes with cine film or bulk loads and a changing bag.

A dedicated dark room would be paradise.

The first offer of a free enlarger snap it up.

 

[Truzi]

I just don't want their skin to be so black that they look like dead zombies...

You want them to look like live zombies?

I understand why Stone doesn't want suggestions for different developers. He can't get something new to him before he needs to do this. So, since he wants suggestions for a developer that he already has on hand, maybe I can poke the bear a bit... aren't the ingredients for caffenol readily available? LOL.

Stone, just take a best-guess based on info you've found here and elsewhere on the web. You will probably get useable negatives and things should be fine.

 

[markbarendt]

On the other hand, oddly enough, i've accidentally under developed a film that was exposed properly ... but I messed up the dilution... the time I developed for was the same as always, but the dilution of developer was cut in half... the image on the negative was very thin... however the scanned image looked normal... no weird patterns or anything

Stone,

What you did here was accidentally match you film to your "paper", your output/your scanner. This is one of the things we've been trying to get across for quite a while. The purpose of a specific development routine is to prep for the next step. It seems pretty obvious that for you that means less development is better for your system.

The Ilford instructions are based on using silver gelatin paper. The reason they work well for me is that I print on silver gelatin paper. You use a scanner, it sees differently than my paper so you need to develop differently than I might.

Camera exposure still controls the shadow point, development regime sets up the contrast rate to work with the "paper" or whatever.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ever notice how these threads always derail?

Stone, start with Ilford's recommendation. Adjust as necessary. There is no free lunch.

 

[removed account4]

Ever notice how these threads always derail?

Stone, start with Ilford's recommendation. Adjust as necessary. There is no free lunch.

dude

there is a free lunch

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi
The simplest explain is a digital has a sharp cut off
...
00001
00000
for the deepest shadow it is going to represent

Film that has been pushed with a compensating dev spreads the 0-1 digital information using many slight variations of silver densities.

Pig to scan...

When wetprinting you print on a hard grade to get the clear parts of neg black and the darkest shade of neg white there need only be a vestigial difference to the naked eye.

If you have a high contrast neg but still want the shadow graduation you print twice with a mask or burning and dodging or all three.

A hard grade for underexposed shadows softer grade for less underexposed but in this case the underexposed shadows would range from black to dark gray to blend invisibly into the less underexposed softer grade parts.

Split grade printing - google and it is easy to do hard to describe... even simplified as above

Lastly I've never had a real darkroom.

At home I clamped my uncle's drawing board across the bath to set the enlarger on, the trays in bath below. The bath room still had a WWII blackout window blind. Removed the light bulb screwed in plug for safe light...

In my own house ditto cept I used a plastic tube for Cibachrome.

I use Leica cassettes with cine film or bulk loads and a changing bag.

A dedicated dark room would be paradise.

The first offer of a free enlarger snap it up.

I have an enlarger, it's jut really massive (it's as tall as I am) with no base, so to use it I need to bolt it to something strong.

I'm not going to do darkroom stuff till I have a darkroom, I refuse to do anything until I do because I know myself and I won't enjoy printing in a closet.

But thanks.

 

[miha]

Stone, start with Ilford's recommendation.

+1

I did so many moons ago (in pre-D3200 and pre-photo forum days) while pushing HP5+ to EI 3200 and beyond in Microphen with good results. Trust the manufacturers as they have tested their products in many ways.

 

[StoneNYC]

+1

I did so many moons ago (in pre-D3200 and pre-photo forum days) while pushing HP5+ to EI 3200 and beyond in Microphen with good results. Trust the manufacturers as they have tested their products in many ways.

Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?