Took the HP5+ plunge.

[Mike Kennedy]

Just ordered a student pack (10 rolls) from Henry's and it will arrive next week.I've been searching the forum pages and on-line for a good film/developer combo. and am more confused that ever.Maybe I should stick with JBrunner's recommendation of HC-110 50:1 for 8 mins.
Would an Ilford developer give me better results?

 

[Nigel]

Just ordered a student pack (10 rolls) from Henry's and it will arrive next week.I've been searching the forum pages and on-line for a good film/developer combo. and am more confused that ever.Maybe I should stick with JBrunner's recommendation of HC-110 50:1 for 8 mins.
Would an Ilford developer give me better results?

Better is subjective. Different developers give different results, regardless of manufacturer. HC-110 is a fine choice. Very similar to Ilford's Ilfotec HC.

You are free to use Brunner's 50:1 dilution, but it does away with the fun of the mental gymnastics of calculating 1+31 or 1+47 in your head.

 

[pentaxuser]

DDX will give your full box speed and surprisingly fine grain, in my opinion, for a full speed developer. If you are a "grainophobe", Perceptol is very good but there's a small sacrifice in speed.

pentaxuser

 

[jmal]

Here are a few in Ilford DDX shot at EI 500:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22163194@N04/2893553957/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22163194@N04/2893553953/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22163194@N04/2838613914/

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Nice work jmal.

 

[eddym]

I process HP5 35mm and 120 in either Ilfotec HC 1:31, or 1:63 (half the first dilution), or in ID11 (same as D76), 1:1. All give good results.
As for times... years ago I did tests to determine the best development times, and in both developers, I came up with the times recommended by Ilford. You might want to start with their published times (pdf's available at their website) and adjust as you see fit. Or you could run your own tests...

I found DD-X to be OK with HP5, but no better than ID11. Try it and see for yourself.

 

[jmal]

Mike,

Thanks. As I mentioned in your other thread, I process for 7 minutes at 20C.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I've had great luck and great results with both D-76 @1:1 or DD-X.

 

[fschifano]

Assuming that your shutter, aperture, and meter are in spec and that your metering is correct, HP5+ will deliver box speed in nothing more fancy than D-76 or XTOL. Use either straight up, or diluted no more than 1+1. I've used HC-110 only on 4x5 sheets, and that was fine too, if 1/3 stop more exposure is given. I would not recommend that developer as a first choice for small format if you are considering scans or prints larger than 8x10. Rodinal was a big disappointment with this film for me, and I would not recommend it for any size. Grain was far too obvious, and I did not find the pattern pleasing. Ilford's suggested development times will get you very close to perfect development, if not spot on.

 

[Andy K]

Mike, it is amazing what you can stretch HP5+ to...

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

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would vote for .... pretty well any dev with this film.

It is slow but pretty with perceptol (about ei 200) and fast with DDX (about 500). D76/ID11 is in between and I would rate it at 250 in very edgy contrasty light with a std speed dev (such as D76/ID11/aculux) thru to 400 when the light is flat. With Xtol I would go 1/3 stop faster and with DDX another 1/3 stop faster. roughly - you need to test. HC110 I dont have much experience with.

Not having used any for 2-3 years, I used Xtol 1+2 and got lovely negs with great tonal separation. Seems to give marginally more crisp grain than 1+1 but really you are struggling to tell the difference (or at least I am) under a 10 x loupe. It has crisp noticeable grain which to my eye is more noticeable (less uniform) than TriX. It is of higher acutance, however, IMO.

 

[Simplicius]

This film is fast becoming my firm favourite, I have just done 4 rolls in the Ilfosol 3 @ 1+14 dilution and the results are superb - If i get those kinda results it means only one thing -- HP5+ is fairly bullet proof in any combo -- the nuances are a personal thing. Really excited by seeing it pushed to 3200 by AndyK and his cat (not suggesting the cat had any input into the development! )

 

[AlanC]

I recently tested 35mm HP5+ in ID11 1+3, Perceptol 1+3, and Xtol 1+2.
1. Xtol had the least grain but was the least sharp.
2. Id 11 was the sharpest, but had the most grain.
3 Perceptol came second on both counts.
BUT! None of these differences were visible on 11" wide prints from a normal viewing distance.

There were, however, big differences in the prints, all caused by differing amounts of tonal seperation in the highlights.I made straight prints - no burning in.

1. Despite using a yellow filter the perceptol print had a completely bald sky, and poor seperation of other highlights.
2. The Xtol print had a hint of tone in the sky and generally good seperation in main highlights.
3. The ID11 print had much more tone in the sky and good highlight seperation elsewhere.

Film speed. Judging by recorded shadow detail Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+3 were about the same. Xtol about a half stop faster.
So it was no contest for me. ID11 1+3 produced the sharpest negatives, that were very easy to print.

I did the test by exposing a roll of HP5 on the same subject - camera on tripod- in my favourite lighting _ slightly hazy sun. The lens was at f8, focussed on infinity throughout, so I could make meaningful sharpness comparisons, and I bracketed one stop either way by changing the shutter speed. Film was rated at 200.
I snipped short lengths off the exposed film and developed them in the three developers. My aim was to get negatives that would print on or close to grade 2.5. As Xtol and Perceptol were new to me I had to develop second strips in these to fine-tune the contrast. In short, I tried to keep everything as close as possible to my normal practice.

Alan Clark

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Your highlight density means that ID-11 is more compensating than the others. Does not mean that you can't use the others to produce highlight detail. It means you need to develop differently and possibly expose differently.
If you have enough shadow density at EI400, there is no point in shooting at EI200.

Basically, you should be able to produce a full range of tones with almost any developer out there, except high contrast stuff like the lith film developers, etc.

To the original poster: Some clarity. You can use Ilford HP5 with any available b&w film developer out there. All will produce a result. Whether you like it or not - well there are two things to consider:
1. It usually depends on your own skill with the given developer what the results are. It is a fact that you can tweak one developer to give almost any desired result. A lot depends on how you exposed the film, how you filtered your negs when you exposed them, how you agitate, developer temperature, developer dilution, developer temperature, your water quality, how you use your light meter, etc, etc, etc. The developer itself is just one small part of it. Seriously.
2. If you didn't like the results the first time, try again. It takes a good while to understand how film and developer and all the other variables work together. HC-110 is a great place to be. If you have some handy, go for it, use it, and tweak your skills. Print your negatives often. That is key to understanding what happens in the developer.

- Thomas

 

[AlanC]

Thomas,
Thanks for your comment, but I did develop and expose "differently" as you put it. Because I bracketed my exposures and developed different strips for different times I was able to select negatives for printing that were neither over-exposed nor over-developed - from all three developers used.
I am not saying that I did a definitive test. A different subject in different light may have given different results. But ID11 1+3 is my standard brew for HP5. and it has been my expeience that this combination is very easy to print most of the time.
I tested the other two developers out of curiosity, and because I happened to have been given some. But I will be sticking to ID11.

Alan Clark

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's understandable, Alan. It was generous of you to share your results. My point was that it takes a lot of time to intimately know what a film/developer combination does with variables such as dilution, temperature, etc included. Given enough time, I think highlight separation like you experience with ID-11 can be had with Perceptol and Xtol as well. That's the point I was trying to get across.

I think we understand each other.

- Thomas

 

[AlanC]

Thanks Thomas.
I am sure you are right. I know that some photographers have used Perceptol to great effect. I believe that James Ravilious used it in diluted form and not only did he produce wonderful photographs, his work has just the sort of open shadows and glowing highlights that I try to achieve myself.
I've also found that sometimes things that show little initial promise often end up giving great results. At one time I got only indifferent results from HP5, but now I think it is superb stuff and hardly use anything else.

Alan Clark

 

[nworth]

I've used HP-5 sheet film with both D-76 (ID-11) and Rodinal recently. In both cases the results were excellent. HP-5 gives outstanding tonal separation with D-76 (1+1). As far as I know, the !+3 dilution is not recommended for this film. In fact, I recall a line from a data sheet I saw not too long ago where Ilford recommended ID-11 (!+!) for best sharpness and ID-11 (undiluted) for best overall quality with this film.

 

[keithwms]

I use ID-11 1+1 with hp5+ most of the time; sometimes even 1+0. For better sharpness I have tried perceptol and don't see much change. Anyway you can do your own test and know in about an hour what you're going to like, this kind of thing is trivial as soon as you have your list of variables and a plan for how to check each of them out in a methodical way.

 

[AlanC]

Nworth,
Just to set the record straight, Ilford do recommend ID11 at 1+3 with HP5. At 1 + 3 they list it as the sharpest of all their powder developers.
Alan Clark

 

[craigclu]

If you have a stash of HP5+, give some a shot in PyroCat. Skin tones are especially good and print easily with an extra sense of depth to them. Highlights are well controlled and the combo seems to print with minimal manipulation. It is my "go-to" combo in medium and large format and quite good in 35mm, too. I just printed about 50 8X10's from a friend's reception and I don't recall any burning or dodging needed. I simply kept banging out paper and the stuff kind of printed itself and this behavior was greatly appreciated on a large (to me!) project.

I don't know if the site image size limitations allow a good example of tonal issues but I've attached an example. This couple is about 60 years old and a good example of how details hold up but seem to smooth skin tones with a nice glow....

 

[seawolf66]

Mike - I use ID-11 and I like its results for me :

 

[Ian Grant]

Another thumbs up for HP5 & Pyrocat. HP5 was the only 400 ISO 120 film I could find when I was in Chile this time last year, and I just dev'd it alongside my Tmax 400, same EI 200 etc. The results were excellent, I hadn't used HP5 for well over 20 years, certainly not since the release of XP1, but had always preferred it to Tri-X.

HP5 is now my fast film for hand-held 5x4 work, not really out of choice because I'd prefer Delta 400 but it's still an excellent film. It's also very good in ID-11 & Xtol.
Ian

Ian

 

[jim appleyard]

Craig & Ian,

Can you share your HP-5 times in P'Cat? It's a combo that didn't occur to me. I usually use D-76, 1+1 and there's never anything wrong with that. I'm also one of those who enjoys HP-5 in Rodinal!

Thanks, J

 

[Ian Grant]

All my films except Foma get 15 mins in Pyrocat HD 1+1 +100at 20°C in a Jobo or Paterson tank with inversion agitation, that was my test time for Tmax 100 and it's proved to be spot on for EFKE 25, FP4, Forte 200 and HP5.

Ian