Stand developing HP5 @ 3200, 6400

[thicktheo]

I've tried stand developing Tri-X (120) @ 3200 and it came out great, very fine-grained and easy to scan. I'm becoming a big fan of stand development for high speed films, but I can't seem to find any info on HP5 pushed to 3200/6400 with stand development.

Do I use the same process (Rodinal 1:100, 2hours)..?

How good is the result, compared to Tri-X..?

Does it go up to 6400 or not?

Generally, which 3200/6400/12800 films have you stand developed in 120 format, and what were the results like?

 

[:Francis:]

I have seen examples of TriX @ 6400 processed using the Rodinal Stand method with 36mm film that looked amazing.

I believe it was P. Lynn Miller that posted them on Nikoncafe.

Francis

 

[thicktheo]

I've seen P. Lynn Miller's examples of Tri-X, followed his instructions for my medium format Tri-X and am quite happy about it. However, I want to see if anybody has tried this technique with Ilford HP5 (or maybe Fuji Neopan), pushed to 3200/6400.

edit
Tri-X stand-developed gave me results such as this:


...but I can get HP5 or Neopan 400 cheaper, so I want to know how well these films stand-develop.

 

[:Francis:]

Great pic thicktheo! I would have chosen a different beer though .

Francis

 

[vet173]

Throw some film in the soup at different times, presto, answer. Since times will be fairly long I would recommend upping the developer to 72. Take your normal time and factor 1.4 time for each stop as a starting point to bracket times. Check charts to see what time change would be from your normal. Long times increases the propensity for drag to become visible. Avoid clear sky. Agitation I recommend would be at least once every five minutes to avoid drag. Agree, it would be at the expense of a little micro-contrast. I have some fantastic micro-contrast negs that are unusable because of drag. My developer of choice is Pcat-P.

 

[thicktheo]

Francis, I don't really drink beer - still, a bottle of beer is a better model than a glass of gin/tonic.

vet173, what do you mean by saying "upping the developer to 72"..?

 

[Anon Ymous]

...vet173, what do you mean by saying "upping the developer to 72"..?

Increasing the temperature to 72 degrees Fahrenheit. In other words 22 deg C.

 

[thicktheo]

Increasing the temperature to 72 degrees Fahrenheit. In other words 22 deg C.

Ahhh... who'd have thought it?

Anyway, I will test that HP5 @ 3200 during the next few days, we'll see the results.

 

[manfromh]

I have some Neopan 400 at 3200 in the gallery. Developed in Fomadon R09 for one hour, with one slow twirl at 30 minutes.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And this one was fully stand developed without any movements after the initial agitation: http://www.flickr.com/photos/matisl/3870330253/

The grain is very weird and huge on the whole roll. That slow twirl on the other roll, seemed to make a huge difference

I have a roll of HP5 shot at 12800 just to see what happens, but I haven't developed it yet.

 

[thicktheo]

manfromh, nice result from the 3200, although the highlights are blown a bit on the first one. I guess stand-development needs careful exposure.

Fomadon R09 is Rodinal, yes? how much did you dilute it?

 

[manfromh]

manfromh, nice result from the 3200, although the highlights are blown a bit on the first one. I guess stand-development needs careful exposure.

Fomadon R09 is Rodinal, yes? how much did you dilute it?

The R09 I used is the older version of Rodinal. The new R09 is the same as current Rodinal. I diluted it at 1:100

Rodinal should give the same results.

 

[thicktheo]

so, 1:100 for one hour with one twirl at 30mins gave you a 3200 Neopan? have you tried leaving it two hours? for the Tri-X 3200 I normally do 2 hours with three twirls every 30mins.

 

[manfromh]

I haven't yet. Those two rolls were the only ones so far that I have pushed.
I will leave the HP5 at 12800 for several hours without any agitation.

 

[thicktheo]

I haven't yet. Those two rolls were the only ones so far that I have pushed.
I will leave the HP5 at 12800 for several hours without any agitation.

Mmmmm that'll be nice - I'll be waiting for the results.

 

[manfromh]

Okay, here they are. Hp5 shot at 12800. Developed in the new Fomadon R09 1:100 for about 3 hours and 30 minutes. Good, bad, and the worst.
I measured the light with a Canon SLR set at 6400 and took off one additional stop, to make it 12800. I think the worst image shows what HP5 at 12800 actually is, and the others look better because of the "brighter" light available. Someone smarter can say what exactly is happening. I shot this roll almost 2 years ago.

I will add, that I first agitated for about 40 seconds, and at about 2h45min mark I made a slow and gentle half-twirl.

 

[thicktheo]

I will add, that I first agitated for about 40 seconds, and at about 2h45min mark I made a slow and gentle half-twirl.

So you didn't agitate at all between the first minute and the 2h45min mark?

The last one is quite good.

I will test my HP5 at 6400 by bracketing shots and I'll see what that gets me. It seems that there has to be a minimum amount of light available to the film before stand development can bring out the best of it.

 

[Steve Smith]

Tri-X stand-developed gave me results such as this:

I don't know the answer to your question but I just wanted to mention how good the image you posted looks. Even at the small size shown here it seems to have a 3D look to it.


Steve.

 

[manfromh]

So you didn't agitate at all between the first minute and the 2h45min mark?

The last one is quite good.

I will test my HP5 at 6400 by bracketing shots and I'll see what that gets me. It seems that there has to be a minimum amount of light available to the film before stand development can bring out the best of it.

Nope, at the agitation.

And I have had the same idea. Its like reciprocity failure kicking in, and demanding a longer exposure.

 

[Anon Ymous]

So you didn't agitate at all between the first minute and the 2h45min mark?...

(Some of the following are facts and some speculation. Read at your own risk.)

Some things have to be taken into account. As you probably know, bromide drag is the biggest problem with stand development; you'll see how bad it is when it happens. The higher the bromide content in the developer, the higher the risk. A developer may or may not have bromide in it, Rodinal has. The film itself also has bromide, in the form of silver bromide, and it is released during development. If you don't provide enough agitation there will be high bromide content locally and it can cause problems.

So, it seems to me that the lower the EI you use, the higher the risks involved. The more exposure your film gets, the more development will progress, so more bromide will be released. If you exposed at 1600, 2h 45min would probably be excessive, not so for 12800.

 

[timk]

I've had a couple of rolls of HP5+ shot at 3200 that I haven't developed yet, and the reason is that I haven't had satisfactory results with microphen in the past with HP5+ shot at faster than 1600 and I'm searching & experimenting for something that will work for me.

So, after reading this thread I shot off some test shots on 35mm metered at 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and developed in rodinal 1+100 for 2 hours 1 agitation every 10 mins, fairly high temp (26C)

I can't really draw any definitive conclusions without going and printing them or getting hold of a densitometer, but... The scene had about a 7 stop range, 400, 800, 1600 are all fine, 3200 is where the shadow detail goes and both 3200 and 6400 are very thin. I'd estimate that I'd get good prints with this development at 400, 800 and 1600, getting a good print at 3200 would be touch and go and I wouldn't get a usable print at 6400. I'm going to run the same test tomorrow but with longer development... Will see if I get any difference!

I'd love to be able to post some results but I don't have a scanner

 

[Rhodes]

manfromh, I like the resaults! The middle one has that retro look, wonderfull!

 

[manfromh]

A developer may or may not have bromide in it, Rodinal has.

I remember reading on several occasions that bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal.

Post #65 here mentions it: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61643&page=3

And it refers Apug as the source.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I remember reading on several occasions that bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal.

Post #65 here mentions it: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61643&page=3

And it refers Apug as the source.

I can assure you that bromide drag is possible with Rodinal. I have seen it.

 

[erikg]

Bromide drag is certainly possible with Rodinal. I have seen it as well. Bromide is a byproduct of development and so will be present with any developer. If there is drag, it will show up in areas of smooth tone, like sky, and then you will know why its called (a) drag.

 

[Boris Mirkov]

Could someone write developing times for HP5@3200,6400 and more if possible? I want a dillution of 1:100 and I always find chart for stock or up to 1:3.