Taming the HP5 highlights with ID11

Greg Krycinski · May 19, 2021

Hi there,

long time lurker, first time poster so please forgive if I break a rule and/or etiquette.

I've had quite an extensive search through google and these forums with little to no luck, but if there's something I missed I would appreciate a pointer.

I've recently exposed two rolls of HP5+ (rated a 250) in a relatively high contrast scenario, about 9 stops difference between the deepest shadows and brightest highlights. I've exposed the shadows at zone 4 (one stop under from the meter reading) which puts my highlights at zone 14. Now, having limited developers to choose from (currently only ID11 and Super Prodol, about which I can find very little info) I'm trying to work the math with the little knowledge I have, so please tell me if my understanding here is correct.

I'm planning to go with ID11 at 1+3, which as per Ilford, normal development would be 20 minutes. As per my understanding this would already yield less development in the highlight area (due to dilution). If I were to cut the development by half, to 10 minutes, this would further bring the highlights down by two zones (basing this on Bruce Barnbaum's book). If I decide I need even more reduction in contrast, I could then do less agitation.

Since I'm sitting on two rolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to treat one as a guinea pig, but at the end of the day it would be great to have a solid starting point to adjust from there rather than mess it up completely and shoot in the dark for the second time.

Is my understanding here correct?

I've only previously developed HP5 in Ilfosol 3 at 1+9 and have lost the highlights at that time (or could simply just be the scans, but then again, I can't see much detail in the negative either...). I've also tried SPD with similar results, so naturally I'm a bit worried when approaching this, especially that I believe I got some of my best images this year (both rolls are quite similar).

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

bernard_L · May 19, 2021

Greg Krycinski said:
about 9 stops difference between the deepest shadows and brightest highlights. I've exposed the shadows at zone 4

You mean the deepest shadows? At zone IV? For what purpose?
Quoting from memory: "shadows so deep you might drown in them"

Craig75 · May 19, 2021

Your highlights shouldnt be zone 14. If you metered for darkest shadows no detail then you over exposed 3 stops so 9+3=12, If you meterd for darkest shadows with some detail in then you over exposed 2 stops so 9+2 =11

Not the best idea to over expose a highcontrast scenes - you are going to end up with some really grainy highlights.

Sounds like the scenes will all fit on film before you hit the shoulder without doing anything special with developers though.

next time i'd bracket a high contrast shot at box speed so you can compare and contrast the scene at different exposures

radiant · May 19, 2021

Maybe underdevelop to decrease highlight density and to tame the contrast would be good idea?

Greg Krycinski · May 19, 2021

Craig75 said:
Your highlights shouldnt be zone 14. If you metered for darkest shadows no detail then you over exposed 3 stops so 9+3=12, If you meterd for darkest shadows with some detail in then you over exposed 2 stops so 9+2 =11

Not the best idea to over expose a highcontrast scenes - you are going to end up with some really grainy highlights.

Sounds like the scenes will all fit on film before you hit the shoulder without doing anything special with developers though.

next time i'd bracket a high contrast shot at box speed so you can compare and contrast the scene at different exposures

Cheers Craig.

I have actually bracketed each shot to be on the safe side, both 2 stops under and 2 stops over, so in the worst case scenario I still have exposures with shadows -3 stops from the meter reading, which as I understand will put them in zone 2 with normal development.

I think I'll still try pulling the development back a tad, just to be on the safe side...

Greg Krycinski · May 19, 2021

vedostuu said:
Maybe underdevelop to decrease highlight density and to tame the contrast would be good idea?

Yeah that's my plan, as outlined above. I just wanted some input whether my math checks out....

radiant · May 19, 2021

Greg Krycinski said:
Yeah that's my plan, as outlined above. I just wanted some input whether my math checks out....

Yes; if your scene brightness range (SBR) is more than 5-6 you should underdevelop.

RalphLambrecht · May 19, 2021

Greg Krycinski said:
Hi there,

long time lurker, first time poster so please forgive if I break a rule and/or etiquette.

I've had quite an extensive search through google and these forums with little to no luck, but if there's something I missed I would appreciate a pointer.

I've recently exposed two rolls of HP5+ (rated a 250) in a relatively high contrast scenario, about 9 stops difference between the deepest shadows and brightest highlights. I've exposed the shadows at zone 4 (one stop under from the meter reading) which puts my highlights at zone 14. Now, having limited developers to choose from (currently only ID11 and Super Prodol, about which I can find very little info) I'm trying to work the math with the little knowledge I have, so please tell me if my understanding here is correct.

I'm planning to go with ID11 at 1+3, which as per Ilford, normal development would be 20 minutes. As per my understanding this would already yield less development in the highlight area (due to dilution). If I were to cut the development by half, to 10 minutes, this would further bring the highlights down by two zones (basing this on Bruce Barnbaum's book). If I decide I need even more reduction in contrast, I could then do less agitation.

Since I'm sitting on two rolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to treat one as a guinea pig, but at the end of the day it would be great to have a solid starting point to adjust from there rather than mess it up completely and shoot in the dark for the second time.

Is my understanding here correct?

I've only previously developed HP5 in Ilfosol 3 at 1+9 and have lost the highlights at that time (or could simply just be the scans, but then again, I can't see much detail in the negative either...). I've also tried SPD with similar results, so naturally I'm a bit worried when approaching this, especially that I believe I got some of my best images this year (both rolls are quite similar).

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Your understanding is correct but let me add:rather than reducing agitation wouldit not make sense to cut dev further? Clearly, you need an N- developmwnt to tame contrast.to exactly what time I can't say without looking into my test data but, I remember that ID11 1+1 can be used for development fromN-3 to N+3; the bigdev chart may also provide a starting point. Other than that, You should be OK because, HP5+ is already a soft film and your exposure of EI250 leaves room for N- development;good luck.

Greg Krycinski · May 19, 2021

RalphLambrecht said:
Your understanding is correct but let me add:rather than reducing agitation wouldit not make sense to cut dev further? Clearly, you need an N- developmwnt to tame contrast.to exactly what time I can't say without looking into my test data but, I remember that ID11 1+1 can be used for development fromN-3 to N+3; the bigdev chart may also provide a starting point. Other than that, You should be OK because, HP5+ is already a soft film and your exposure of EI250 leaves room for N- development;good luck.

Thanks Ralph,

I might just try 1+1, should give me enough time to cut down from.

Saganich · May 19, 2021

What everyone else said, you'll need to contract development 2 stops at least and would estimate at 1:1 20C time reduction of 5-6 minutes total. My take for the future...If your shooting HP5 at 250 you very likely can expose shadows (with detail) at Z3 or even Z2 with an N development time and your highs will be in the ballpark.

Lachlan Young · May 19, 2021

Greg Krycinski said:
and have lost the highlights at that time (or could simply just be the scans, but then again, I can't see much detail in the negative either...).

There's your problem. Bad scanning is not helping any assessment you are trying to make.

It's actually very difficult to really get a truly unprintable highlight on normal BW films - but if you jam your exposure up on to the shoulder, the highlights may not be what you want in terms of tonal separation - by the sounds of it, you've given the neg about 2 stops more exposure than necessary. HP5+ in ID-11 is very well behaved/ predictable, though there's little point in going to 1+3 unless you are getting extremely short times at 1+1.

Taming the HP5 highlights with ID11

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency