Reversing HP5+

[SalveSlog]

I like the results I'm getting from reversal developing HP5+ in medium format. I find it is more easy when the subject is somewhat contrasty and when using ASA a little higher than 400. My first developer is Ilford PQ Universal (like Ilford recommends in their pdf: 1+5. (I know they don't recommend reversing HP5)). Constant agitation for 12 minutes. I reused it as second developer for 10 minutes. Which may be too long or wrong strategy?

Cause .. what I don't like is the rather heavy grain. I know HP5 is grainy and using a strong developer like PQ for a long time is obviously not going to make is fine. But looking at DR5s example (http://dr5.com/graphics/hp5-dr5-ns.jpg), there is not much grain. That scan is obviously not from 35 mm film - it might even be large format - but still ...

Can anybody help a relative newbie like me?

 

[trendland]

I like the results I'm getting from reversal developing HP5+ in medium format. I find it is more easy when the subject is somewhat contrasty and when using ASA a little higher than 400. My first developer is Ilford PQ Universal (like Ilford recommends in their pdf: 1+5. (I know they don't recommend reversing HP5)). Constant agitation for 12 minutes. I reused it as second developer for 10 minutes. Which may be too long or wrong strategy?

Cause .. what I don't like is the rather heavy grain. I know HP5 is grainy and using a strong developer like PQ for a long time is obviously not going to make is fine. But looking at DR5s example (http://dr5.com/graphics/hp5-dr5-ns.jpg), there is not much grain. That scan is obviously not from 35 mm film - it might even be large format - but still ...

Can anybody help a relative newbie like me?

The heavy grain is an ipact of your film as you said.There is nothing more to say.
Your developer increases the grain caused from method.
If you don't like it use Fp4 and you will see much less grain.Better is PanF but you will lost speed.
You can't have both ....that is a fact you should acept - it is no way to want ISO 1600 and smalest grain....

Witz regards

 

[SalveSlog]

Did you look at that dr5 picture?

 

[trendland]

Ok - on issue you mentioned could be made better. Don't use Hp5 with higher ISO ! Make it in the other direction.
E.I 200 for example.
Yes. ..yes...yes....I know : You are in concern of reversal developer - but try it
with lower E.I. (ISO 100 - 200).
Some say grain is more less with underexposure because you will have
reversal?
I am not sure but I would like to say thats
nonsense.I is a good idea in theory but it doesn't work.
So give your film more light and have a shorter developer time this should be correct in any case - also with reversal.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Did you look at that dr5 picture?

Sure I did but it could also be 4x5 but it looks more like 6x7.

with regards

 

[trendland]

To scans in general - it is no good reference.
You should inform a little aboud data reduction / compression. Here in the most cases you see jpgs.
Is the original simple and clear the jpg resolution can handle everything.
Do you have more grainy negatives you will also have less resolution but much much more information to jpgs algoritmics.
I have seen comercial prints from medium format film with heaviest grain -
like from minox .......
Notice : in most cases you don't see grain
you have digital artefacts CAUSED from
grain ( Not easy to handle from data compression.)
If you shoot a brown shoe in front of a white wall any compression is able.
So please don't care about scans - this is no reference. I can't say what is grain on a scan.

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The grain may be an artifact of the scanning. Be sure to turn off all autocorrect features of the scanner software.

 

[SalveSlog]

I have no scanner. I watch my film through a 3x loupe.

 

[vdonovan]

I think you might be underexposing and over-developing. I get good results reversing HP5 with PQ universal. I expose at EI 200, develop for 8 minutes in PQ 1/5 for both first and second developer, agitating five seconds out of every thirty. The resulting film has normal grain.

 

[SalveSlog]

I might try that. My reasoning for underexposing and seeking contrasty situations may be wrong. Hmm ... But DR5 push this film with good results.

 

[jvo]

The grain may be an artifact of the scanning. Be sure to turn off all autocorrect features of the scanner software.

how did you upload your image? didn't you use a scanner?

 

[miha]

DR5 is using a proprietarty process.

 

[vdonovan]

... But DR5 push this film with good results.

I've had film developed by DR5 and it truly is great, but he has been researching and refining his process for years. Not only that, he uses a real film processing machine where he can accurately control temperatures at all stages.

 

[SalveSlog]

how did you upload your image? didn't you use a scanner?

I didn't upload the image. I linked to an example picture on the Dr5 website.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Having had 120 Delta 400 run in the Scala process at Photostudio 13, it is somewhat grainier than 'normal' negative development - not drastically so, but nevertheless noticeable if enlarged or scanned (on a high-end scanner, not an Epson!). Obviously Delta is rather less grainy than HP5, but HP5 should hold a 3x enlargement without drastic amounts of grain.

What silver solvent are you using in your first developer? If you are running the reversal process correctly, you should not be re-using the first developer as the post-reversal redeveloper.

 

[flavio81]

But looking at DR5s example (http://dr5.com/graphics/hp5-dr5-ns.jpg), there is not much grain.

The grain should be a result of the second developer. You can always reduce grain by using a solvent developer, to the detriment of acutance.

 

[SalveSlog]

Lachlan,
my reasoning for exposing at 600 or 800 ASA and picking contrasty subjects is to try to avoid a silver solvent.

flavio,
Yes, I know the grain is the result of the second developer.

So my question is really: which developers are strong enough for slides without producing excessive grain?
I would probably not like totally loosing acutance if that's the price to pay. But it might be less important.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Hello SalveSlog

When using BW materials, you should keep in mind that granularity increases with density. Denser positives means coarser grain. Now, if you don't use any silver solvent, you will normally get denser results. If you also underexpose, then you get even denser results. You can reduce the effects of underexposure with increased development, but you can't totally eliminate that effect. What's not recorded on film is practically gone and shadows will suffer and look too dark.

Lachlan,
my reasoning for exposing at 600 or 800 ASA and picking contrasty subjects is to try to avoid a silver solvent...

No, that's the other way around. If you don't want to use a silver solvent, then you'll have to increase exposure in order to get a normal, clean looking result. By doing so, you'll get finer grain too. If I were you, I'd add either sodium thiosulfate, or potassium thiocyanate to my first developer, shoot a test roll and bracket every scene at different exposure levels. Don't be afraid to overexpose shots, it can only teach you some things.

Hope it helps

 

[Anon Ymous]

Oh, and just to show you what I mean about decreasing granularity when density decreases, have a look here. This is the datasheet for Tri-X reversal 7266 film. On page 4 you'll see a nice graph explaining what I mentioned earlier.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think you'll have an easier time of it (& probably better grain) if you use DTOD in your first developer (if you're using permanganate as the bleach) - you've proved that the process works for you, but to make it better you'll have to follow the full process, not a compromised version. One alternative to buying the DTOD might be to try out the Bellini Foto kit - about the same price as 25g of DTOD & it seems to be a pretty fully specified kit, not just with a stannous chloride reversal bath, but with different 1st & 2nd developers too. I'd not be surprised if it followed Kodak's cinema BW reversal process pretty closely.

 

[SalveSlog]

Thank you all. (Though I'm not sure I understand.)

But if the final grain has little to do with the first developer, I'm actually quite happy with my exposure and first developing. Here is a jpeg from my Canon Powershot G15, unedited. The film was developed as per my original posting.

My primary dissatisfaction is, as I wrote, the final grain. Which I've been told is rather undependent on the first development(?)

 

[destroya]

how does it look when you project it? I have done a few rolls of HP5 reversal and never found the grain objectionable.

 

[SalveSlog]

A good question. I don't think I have projected HP5 in medium format yet. Under my Schneider 3x loupe it makes me want to do better. But it's not like the grain makes the photo unusable.

I think the first thing I will try is to just reduce the time for the second development. Maybe 10 minutes is more than needed for reaching dmax, and the last minute or two just builds up grain with no real gain in darkness?