Stand developing HP5 @ 3200, 6400

[Aron]

Boris, the problem could be that you are looking at charts with dev times for D-76, XTOL, etc. These developers normally don't get diluted beyond 1:3. For the dillution of 1:100 you have to look for other developers, most probably Rodinal (R09).

 

[Rlibersky]

Rather then stand developement has someone tried HC110 with HP5? The Ilford data sheet gives a time of 9.5 minutes at 1:15.

 

[thicktheo]

Well, took me some time to catch up with this thread, but here I am... I developed an Ilford HP5+ shot at very low light levels (night, indoors, low wattage floor lamp) and I can't say I'm thrilled with the results:

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

Okay, the good thing is that I got results, however I feel that's not enough. It seems that HP5+ doesn't like being pushed more than 1600.

Yesterday I developed a 35mm HP5+ that I used for a simple test - exposing the same scene at different ASA - I developed this by a crazy stand development method: Rodinal 1:80 (~8ml in 600), agitation every 10-15 mins for the first hour and then a 3 hour total stand (they were expecting me in a bar and I didn't have time to rinse, fix, rinse, hang )

Looking at the negative, it seems that HP5+ works fine up to 1600 but fails to gather enough light at 3200. Interestingly, the first half of the film that was shot at ASA 800 seems to have developed just fine. I'll be sure when I scan, though. The good thing is that I don't see any bromide drag or other defects.



PS: the sharpness of the attached image seems a bit too much - blame the resizing software.

 

[2F/2F]

EI ratings that much higher than box speed simply mean gross underexposure; nothing else. You can't actually ever achieve those film speeds this way. So, what you are really developing for is the desired contrast, not the desired film speed. Stand development can raise the tone of areas that were exposed below the threshold of texture, but will never add detail or texture that was not exposed there in the first place. What it will do is maximize what you get out of whatever slight bit of texture and detail were exposed onto your film. You can do this with normal agitation as well, but what it does is increases the contrast so much that a negative can become unprintable. That is why you stand develop: To both provide a boost in shadow density while simultaneously preventing the more exposed areas of the neg from becoming too dense. Therefore, with stand development, it is hard to really apply a development time based on the EI at which the film was exposed. The way that push times are usually figured is: How long do you leave it in there before the midtones and highlights become too dense? There is no way to figure this with such a special process but by trial and error. What is the perfect amount of developer activity to give you both the low-toned and high-toned densities that you want? It will depend on the contrast of the composition, the way you metered, and many other factors. What I can tell you is that if you are using an in-camera reflected meter, and metering the entire composition, you have no real idea how much over or underexposure you are getting, as it will change depending on where various design elements and their corresponding luminance values fall within the composition.

In short....YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Ha! You just have understand your materials and understand metering and exposure enough to take an educated guess your first time.

Personally, because of all these snags, I use a two-developer method when I want stand development and push development. I use stand development to reinforce the low tones, while keeping the mids and highs moderate...then I do push development to jack up the mids and highs (and pull a little more out of the lows). I use HC-110 for both baths (high dilution first bath, about 1:99, and dilution B second bath, at about 1/2 to 3/4 the normal push time, since the film has already been developed). However, I am starting to experiment with using dilute D-23 as the first bath, and possibly full strength or 1:1 for the second bath as well. It is always a constant experiment in photography.....

If you want to get as close as you can to truly getting those high film speeds, a low contrast film is the best bet. (As a rule of thumb, the higher in speed a film is, the lower its contrast is.) Lower contrast means that when you underexpose, shadow density is dropped less severely than with a higher contrast film, so these films allow you to "dig" the most out of the shadows with special methods. My personal favorite for "no light shooting", as I like to call it, is Ilford Delta 3200, using the aforementioned double development in a low contrast situation, and just a stand in a high contrast situation.

 

[Athiril]

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"..?

Really? I woulda gone with a glass of single malt whiskey