time adjustment for kodak agitation (vs ilford)

[pierods]

What is the time compensation for agitating the kodak way (5 times in 5 seconds every 30 secs) given that I know the dev time for Ilford agitation (4 times in 10 secs every 60 secs) ?

I am doing hp5 in id-11 stock and also hp5 in perceptol stock.

 

[synj00]

I thought Kodak was agitate for first 30 seconds then 10 seconds every minute. Works out for me - 12 inversions to begin and 4 inversions every minute. For Ilford I've been trying first 10 seconds and 10 seconds every minute as directed on the film box. Are you not getting what you want out of the film?

 

[gainer]

Here again is a use for that test roll. Two or three tests of three or four frames each should give you a better answer than any of us can, simply because we are not you, and you would have to test our suggestions anyway to be sure you will be satisfied when you do something you can't do over. Besides, changing agitation often changes other things than time to attain a given contrast index.

 

[Neal]

Dear pierods,

The times given by the manufacturers are starting points. Expose, develop, print adjust.

Enjoy the process, it's half the fun.

Neal Wydra

 

[pierods]

I thought Kodak was agitate for first 30 seconds then 10 seconds every minute. Works out for me - 12 inversions to begin and 4 inversions every minute. For Ilford I've been trying first 10 seconds and 10 seconds every minute as directed on the film box. Are you not getting what you want out of the film?

Indeed.

Check out these pictures:

HP5: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2667862327/

tri-x: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2713591772/

They are same everything (camera lens developer fix etc) except for:

- film
- agitation

There is a 15 seconds difference in dev time, I don't think it's meaningful.

I am consistently getting better results with tri-x. Smaller grain size (in this case i prefer it), better resistance to high lights, smoother tones.

What's especially troubling is hp5's "greyness" that I cannot seem to lift in any way:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2709073917/

It's kind of I'm taking pictures through mud, it's so upsetting.

Today I'll try kodak agitation with hp5, just to see.

I just might switch to tri-x.

Opinions?

 

[Akki14]

What was the lighting like for the HP5 roll? It looks like it was overcast rather than direct light like with the tri-x photo (sharp shadows in that one). It might not be the film but the lighting conditions.

 

[pentaxuser]

Opinions? I prefer the print done on HP5. The tri-X looks too contrasty to me although the light seems harsher so you might expect a higher contrast. Films and prints from any of the many films that exist, are are like the saying: " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" In other words if you find that tri-X consistently and in every situation produced a "better neg" than HP5+ then go with tri-X. You could attempt to replicate the tri-X look in HP5 but it sounds as if you may have done that and failed so why bother? If I prefer a Ford Focus to a Vauxhall Astra then I should buy a Focus. This is more likely to bring me what I want than trying to convert my Astra to a Focus.

pentaxuser

 

[Akki14]

Opinions? I prefer the print done on HP5. The tri-X looks too contrasty to me although the light seems harsher so you might expect a higher contrast. Films and prints from any of the many films that exist, are are like the saying: " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" In other words if you find that tri-X consistently and in every situation produced a "better neg" than HP5+ then go with tri-X. You could attempt to replicate the tri-X look in HP5 but it sounds as if you may have done that and failed so why bother? If I prefer a Ford Focus to a Vauxhall Astra then I should buy a Focus. This is more likely to bring me what I want than trying to convert my Astra to a Focus.

pentaxuser

Oh you clever men with your car analogies

 

[Arvee]

Agree with Pentaxuser. I prefer the HP5 print by a bunch.

-Fred

 

[BradS]

Indeed.

Check out these pictures:

HP5: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2667862327/

tri-x: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2713591772/

They are same everything (camera lens developer fix etc) except for:

- film
- agitation

There is a 15 seconds difference in dev time, I don't think it's meaningful.

I am consistently getting better results with tri-x. Smaller grain size (in this case i prefer it), better resistance to high lights, smoother tones.

What's especially troubling is hp5's "greyness" that I cannot seem to lift in any way:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierodesalvia/2709073917/

It's kind of I'm taking pictures through mud, it's so upsetting.

Today I'll try kodak agitation with hp5, just to see.

I just might switch to tri-x.

Opinions?

but, but, but....the difference due to film is much, much, MUCH greater than any effect due to what are really very slight differences in agitation regimen.

Comparing Tri-X to HP-5+ is kinda like comparing Oranges to Basketballs. Yeah, they're both round and orange but...
Both films are 400 speed film but....their characteristics are completely different.

I think your missing the forest for the lady bug on the leaf on the tree...

 

[pierods]

What was the lighting like for the HP5 roll? It looks like it was overcast rather than direct light like with the tri-x photo (sharp shadows in that one). It might not be the film but the lighting conditions.

Well Heather, that's the problem, direct sunlight for both. But since you guys say that the hp5 looks better, well...

 

[pierods]

but, but, but....the difference due to film is much, much, MUCH greater than any effect due to what are really very slight differences in agitation regimen.

Comparing Tri-X to HP-5+ is kinda like comparing Oranges to Basketballs. Yeah, they're both round and orange but...
Both films are 400 speed film but....their characteristics are completely different.

I think your missing the forest for the lady bug on the leaf on the tree...

Well Brad, that's very clever of you, the balls, the oranges, the forest, the tree, wise words indeed.

In other words, when I pick up a roll of HP5, I see that it says, Ilford, HP5, the cassette is white and green, and when I pick up a roll of tri-x, it says Kodak and so forth, so yes, they are different, I confirm.

But HOW, in your experience?

 

[BradS]

Well Brad, that's very clever of you, the balls, the oranges, the forest, the tree, wise words indeed.

In other words, when I pick up a roll of HP5, I see that it says, Ilford, HP5, the cassette is white and green, and when I pick up a roll of tri-x, it says Kodak and so forth, so yes, they are different, I confirm.

But HOW, in your experience?

disclaimer: this is all my opinion. I do not have any empirical data to support these claims. Only my own negatives and prints.

First off, I'll admit to loving both of these films dearly. I have used way more Tri-X than HP-5+ however. In fact, untill I tried HP-5 in D-23, I had all but dismissed it as...well, not good for me.

In my experience, HP-5+ really cna be rated at EI-400 (in fresh D-23 or D-76/ID-11), it can easily be rated at EI-800 in ID-68 or Microphen. Tri-X doesn't even come close. I rate Tri-X, somewhat optimistically, at EI-250 in HC-110, D-76/ID-11 and HC-110. It takes a lot of exposure to get Tri-X up off its long toe.

Tri-X looks good in HC-110 - every time. HP-5+ always looks like fecal matter in HC-110 (yeah, I know, this is highly subjective...whatever...see disclaimer above). Both are kinda nice in Accufine but, Tri-X (EI-500 to 640-ish) still does not manage the speed that HP-5+ does (more like EI-800 to 1000). Honestly though , if not for D-23, I wouldn't even bother with HP-5+. In D-23, HP-5 is just magical. I've not found anything quite like it.

The characteristic curves of the two (three if you count both 400TX and 320TXP) films are different. The spectral sensitivities are also subtly different.


As others have already said though, you have to try these things yourself. Nobody can tell you what you like. What fits your style. What works for you. I happen top be a very...ah, shall we say..."carefree" practitioner of the craft. I guess exposures about half the time. I rarely can be bothered to measure the temp of the developer. I re-use a liter of D-23 until it looks so ugly that I cannot stand to look at it anymore - never replenished and really not thinking too much about compensating for number of rolls processed. I like tri-x in HC-110 because it forgives me all these sins. It just works. Same thing with HP-5 and FP-4 in D-23. It just works. I don't really even have to think too much about it anymore. Incidentally, I've tried lots of film/developer combinations. None of them work for me. I keep coming back to my trusty old friends.

 

[pierods]

disclaimer: this is all my opinion. I do not have any empirical data to support these claims. Only my own negatives and prints.

.

thanks, i'll give d23 a shot.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't think viewing on a monitor can tell you much. If you told me that both of those images were from the same roll of film I would have believed you. Any difference is very subtle.

Obviously, actual prints may tell a different story.



Steve.