Stock D-76 and Ilford HP5 @ box speed, 18 minutes development time, densitometer results

Found an HP5 curve. Not sure whose data it was (Someone like ic-racer with a Wejex).

It’s got long toe and sag in midtones. So Drew’s probably not wrong on that description.

But thanks for helping with the story here, it’s an honest team mistake that we didn’t catch the procedural issue at first.

Hi, Bill. First of all, it depends on what dilution of D76 is involved. But 18 minutes sounds like an awfully long time for HP5.

Now per Lachlan - I have multiple binders filled with densitometer plots, all on classic translucent Kodak plotting paper. My transmission densitometer has seen a LOT of use, including plotting the characteristics of D76 on multiple films. And there is no way on earth that an HP5 or TX toe profile is going to match what you get with TMax film unless you specially tweak the development for an odd sag. That's sheer nonsense. Even the first few pages of any late classic Kodak b&w film guide spells out that categorical distinction.

TMax films were indeed designed to be relatively malleable depending on development in order to replace multiple films destined for the chopping block, including Plus X pan, Tri-X 320 (which survived), and most notably Super-XX with its "straight line" classification. But you're NEVER going to get that kind of steep toe out of the characteristic curves of Tri-X or HP5. That's why people are forced to significantly overexpose those in order to push the exposure further up the curve. That comes with side effects.

Did you ever hear of anyone trying to make serious quality color separations using Tri-X or HP5? Of course not. That's because neither can achieve a decent straight line long enough. Don't believe me? Even Ilford implied the same, and recommended only FP4 for that application among their own film selection. Kodak had Super XX and a similar special Color Separation Film, and then switched to TMax 100 for that application, which was once a significant part of the industry. Those varieties of color printing have diminished, but the characteristic curve of TMax hasn't changed except with an improvement on the shoulder of the curve between the original and latter versions. All this is common knowledge which anyone can read for themselves if they take the time to look it up.

Bill Burk said:

Found an HP5 curve. Not sure whose data it was (Someone like ic-racer with a Wejex).

It’s got long toe and sag in midtones. So Drew’s probably not wrong on that description.

Click to expand...

Firstly, that's for a 1.1 CI, so of course on initial visual inspection, the curve shape looks a little off kilter. Secondly, if you properly normalise the data against other 400 speed general purpose B&W films (e.g. 400TX, TMY-II, Delta 400) you'll find that they all have very similar (to the point of near identical) toe shapes, which are regarded across the industry as 'short toe' for these purposes (if not in Drew-world). If your sensitometry is up to scratch, you should find that 400TX's toe will plot in line, if you allow for the shadow speed differences. They also have similar mid-tone characteristics, with HP5+ tending to sit in the middle between 400TX's slightly bumped up mids and TMY-II's slightly darker mids - if anything, HP5+ plots a straight line between them - this is also clearly obvious if you print them in the darkroom. Finally, D-76/ ID-11 seems to still be the reference developer that was used for these materials, so it should deliver the optimal results that the materials were designed to deliver. And finally, much as it will shock those who are desperate to clutch their pearls, Pyrocat HD is effectively a D-76 derivative too, so there are no excuses allowable in that direction either.

These films are all general purpose materials, and despite errant claims from Drew, Ilford did actually publish extensive reference data for the standard separation filters and the use thereof (and were quite big players in the print world, which was probably why they were merged with Anitech (Ansco) by International Paper). Extrapolation from what elements of a very small part of the industry did (aka late era dye transfer) need to be informed by the fact that an awful lot of that specific published advice is essentially a dressed up form of 'push the timer start, let Kodak do the rest'. At the end of the day, they chose what the main process supporter told them to use. There were many separation processes and essentially it all boiled down to general purpose films and general purpose film developers, be it Kodak, Ilford, Du Pont, Ansco, etc, etc. And finally, HP5+ is effectively supposed to be a 400TX competitor, thus the similar toe/ curve, with better shadow speed and highlight gradation - both of which trip people up in different ways.

Found another HP5+ curve, a little low of normal and toe data was lost (I exposed the test strip a little into the leader and wiped out some steps.)



13:30 at 1:1 is a good time though.



Here’s a print from that roll.

Believe it or not, films and papers are designed to be used without detailed measurements. These are completely unnecessary. One simply adjusts developer dilution and time to make negatives that print properly. The "test" of a development scheme is whether it makes good prints on "normal" grade paper. (With 35mm, this should be closer to a grade 3 than grade 2.) Nothing else matters.

Augustus Caesar said:

With 35mm, this should be closer to a grade 3 than grade 2

Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear the reason. Or is just an empirical result based on a panel of viewer ratings?

bernard_L said:

I'm curious to hear the reason.

Click to expand...

Because it's sometimes convenient to trade one dogma for another, if you happen to believe the new dogma is better than the old. We sometimes need to re-dogmatize. It keeps things fresh and edgy.

bernard_L said:

I'm curious to hear the reason. Or is just an empirical result based on a panel of viewer ratings?

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with Augustus Caesar. Most of the old textbooks I learned from gave this advice and I think it is wrong. I would class grade 2 paper as soft, it usually kills midtowns. If you try and tailor film development to get a good print on grade 2 you will end up developing too much as you are trying to get those important midtones to print nicely. Better, imho to develop negs that print well on G 2 1/2 or 3.

Also at grade 3 VC papers tend to be a bit more linear.

bernard_L said:

I'm curious to hear the reason. Or is just an empirical result based on a panel of viewer ratings?

Click to expand...

I believe this is an old wives tale based on the theory that negatives lose contract as they are enlarged more. I've never in 40 years of photography seen this.

Augustus Caesar said:

Believe it or not, films and papers are designed to be used without detailed measurements. These are completely unnecessary. One simply adjusts developer dilution and time to make negatives that print properly. The "test" of a development scheme is whether it makes good prints on "normal" grade paper. (With 35mm, this should be closer to a grade 3 than grade 2.) Nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

I think the point of testing is to determine what the normal developer dilution should be for a grade x paper. Papers and films are pretty darn consistent from the manufacturer. It is the process, procedures and other user variations that need to be tested and normalized. The detailed measurements show the result of what the user is doing, not the paper and film.

Lachlan - the first HP5 plot Bill posted (the smooth professional looking one) looks exactly like what one should expect. It's even how the published curve would look if it was bigger and if Ilford didn't lop off the shoulder in those tiny graphs. Less development would further exaggerate the sag and the toe length. Otherwise, the proof is in the pudding. I've simply printed way too much HP5 to a very high level of success to be fooled by certain rants.

You are pushing the envelope by making certain comments about past color printing techniques which were in fact very fussy when it came to film choice. Just how many actual matched tricolor film plots have you actual done? Any of all?

These curve profile have real-world consequences. They tell you a lot about how a film will perform under a particular scene contrast range. Results in printmaking predictably confirm this. But one needs to learn the basics of sensitometry to properly understand the implications. Several intermediate posts are highly questionable in this regard.

One does not necessarily need to learn instrumentation in order to make good negatives and prints. Many have mastered specific films and papers through sheer trial and error experience. But often they end up doing things the hard way because they do not in fact understand the specific parameters of their chosen products; or if they switch to something else, and still stick to their old one shoe size fits all formula, then they complain. Films aren't all the same, nor are papers.

john_s said:

Also at grade 3 VC papers tend to be a bit more linear.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Based on my measurements for Ilford MGIV and Foma Variant 111.

On the other hand. Also based on my measurements, grade 5 is... mostly aspirational. Grade 4 is essentially the end. So, assume I calibrate my dev time so the typical sunny or mixed sun-and-open-shadow scene prints on grade 3. Wat do I do when on the same roll (remember, we are talking about 35mm) there are some shadow-only or dull-weather scenes that I would like to print with some vibrancy?

It actually makes some sense to aim for 35mm negatives that print better at grade 3.
The rationale flows from the fact that higher contrast in a negative means negatives that are more dense, and dense negatives tend to exhibit more grain.
With a small negative, and the resulting greater magnification at the printing stage, grainier small negs result in grainier appearing prints.
A lot of the choices made when using 35mm are oriented toward minimizing the appearance of grain - this is one of them.
Naturally, this makes more sense with a film like Tri-X than it does with a tabular grain film, and for that reason is somewhat dated.

What are you really talking about here? - certainly not about real graded paper grades, but about alleged grade approximations on variable contrast papers which differ from one another. MGIV is itself obsolete; and when it was around, was rather anemic in terms of full contrast potential anyway.

Back when actual graded papers were the norm rather than the exception, quite a few of us standardized on Gr3 rather than Gr2, despite the advice of certain geezer-gurus. Now that I'm a geezer myself, I wish some of those wonderful old graded papers were still around. But now there are some excellent VC papers instead, I see little utility in still trying to make a segmented arthropod out of what is really a continuum of contrast potential.

MattKing said:

It actually makes some sense to aim for 35mm negatives that print better at grade 3.
The rationale flows from the fact that higher contrast in a negative means negatives that are more dense, and dense negatives tend to exhibit more grain.
With a small negative, and the resulting greater magnification at the printing stage, grainier small negs result in grainier appearing prints.
A lot of the choices made when using 35mm are oriented toward minimizing the appearance of grain - this is one of them.
Naturally, this makes more sense with a film like Tri-X than it does with a tabular grain film, and for that reason is somewhat dated.

Click to expand...

This! It’s the “Leica”-centric advice to lean towards the thinnest, flattest negative that can make an excellent print, to aim for the best resolution and least graininess.

Now if you mean Grade 3 diffusion enlarger, see my print. That’s what you get with 0.5 Contrast Index.

If you mean Grade 3 Condenser Enlarger, I would have qualms about mottling or uneven development unless diluted or otherwise soft-working developer were used, because now you’re aiming for 0.38 Contrast Index. You need to be careful under 0.4 CI

As a multi-format practitioner, shooting everything from 35mm to 8x10, I have my own take on this. And different people have different grain expectations, what they like or dislike in that respect. One can't make a stereotype of 35mm shooters as demanding the finest grain; but sometimes people shoot 35mm for sake of deliberately exaggerated grain.

Bill Burk said:

This! It’s the “Leica”-centric advice to lean towards the thinnest, flattest negative that can make an excellent print, to aim for the best resolution and least graininess.

Now if you mean Grade 3 diffusion enlarger, see my print. That’s what you get with 0.5 Contrast Index.

If you mean Grade 3 Condenser Enlarger, I would have qualms about mottling or uneven development unless diluted or otherwise soft-working developer were used, because now you’re aiming for 0.38 Contrast Index. You need to be careful under 0.4 CI

Click to expand...

This is why I use condenser, and gentle but frequent agitation (two inversions with twisting, once per minute).

I use T-Max 400 type II, FX-21 developer, and my results are to die for! Multigrade V seems to have more contrast than IV did.

Lachlan is correct, and this is all quite silly. HP5 is not a long toe film, nor is there a “sag” in midtones.