What's the [recent?] scoop on HP5+?

[Colden]

I recently noticed several sources suggesting that Ilford's HP5+ @ 800-1000 may be the film to use unless one absolutely requires the low-light capabilities of the "big 3" (TMZ/D3200/Neopan1600). The claims seem reasonable, given that the big 3 are not much faster than 800 (and in the case of Neopan, perhaps, 640). Indeed, I had always thought that the smaller grain of Tri-X/HP5+ when underexposed at 800-1600 comes at a considerable cost of shadow detail and that the shadow detail is the justification for the big 3 high-speed films. So, when exposing at 800-1600, one may achieve either the smaller grain size or the better shadow detail, but not both. With that in mind, I initially dismissed the claims as yet another "Tri-X @ 1600 in Diafine" story (no disrespect implied), but, perhaps, it's worth looking into. So, what's the scoop? Is HP5+ closer to the big 3 in terms of shadow detail than I had previously thought? Is HP5+ indeed capable of... oh, I don't know... 640? 800? with better grain than the big 3 and *comparable* shadow detail? (What? Really? How exciting that would be!)

I have (as I am sure everyone else has here) reviewed long ago the claims of the "Tri-X @ 1600" crowd's results and compared them against the high-speed films and have drawn my own conclusions. I was also aware of the similarity of results when using HP5+ in the same process. But this seems to go beyond what I have already encountered.

In other words, are the HP5+ claims due to an unknown-to-me and recent change in the emulsion? In which case, why is this capability not being marketed? If no change took place, I would like to ask for the opinions of the APUG users regarding the HP5+ situation, and, if you have noticed anything recently.

 

[Paul Howell]

I did a fair number of tests for pushing HP5, Tri X, and TMax 400 as opposed to using TMAX 3200 or Delta 3200. I agree that up to 800 HP 5 and Tri X are very good, but at 1600 both TMAX and Delta 3200 appeared to have better grain, but shadow detail which falls off at 3200. I have not tested TMAX or Delta 3200 in Dinafine as Dinafine is scare in my market. Overall I found Tmax 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in DDX 1:5 and developed at box speed for 3200 to be excellent and 35 prints up to 16 X 20. At 3200 or 6400printable but as with most pushed speeds shadow details suffer. I would like feedback for TMAX or Delta in Dinafine.

 

[DrPablo]

For these more extreme pushes could you preserve shadow detail by pre-exposing the film on zone 3? Intuitively it makes sense that you could gain a couple of stops worth of shadow detail through a pre-exposure, then use the push exposure/development for the midtones and highlights.

 

[eddym]

I use HP5+ to shoot dance and theater, and my normal rating for it is 1600. I process it in Ilfotec HC, 1:31. If I need more speed, I will shoot Delta 3200 at 3200, or if necessary, 6400. I process Delta for both speeds in DD-X, 1:4.
As for shadow detail, well, that depends on the contrast range, of course. And in the theater, the lighting is usually pretty contrasty (dare I day, "dramatic"?), so of course shadow detail is lost with both these films, more so with the Delta at 6400. But the alternative is not getting the shot at all, or shooting at a shutter speed that is not hand-holdable. In the case of dance, 1/125 is my usual minimum, but I have shot slower at times. A full tonal range negative is not the highest priority in the theater.

 

[hywel]

I just ran some film tests for EI1600, of the boring kind and also shooting a couple of rolls of real pictures in a real environment, using both hp5 and delta3200, rolls cut in half and processed in different developers. I think that ddx 1+4 is clearly better for both films than id11 (hp5) /perceptol (delta32).

I don't have a fancy densitometer just a cheap, not very accurate meter, but at best as I can tell both films in DDX at Ilford rec'd times were very similar at Zones 0, I & II. Although in the midtones the hp5 had a much higher gamma, so if choosing paper grade for the midtones the delta32 should have more differentiation in the shadows.

To date I've only done some quick, guess an exposure, prints of the real pictures. The best cf I have on the two films suggests that the above comment is correct. Grade 3 print from delta32 and Grade 2 from the hp5 have very similar skin tones but the delta32 has significantly better shadows.

At 6x9 inches from 35mm the grain from the delta32 isn't noticeable but when compared side by side with the hp5, the hp5 looks noticeably 'sharper' to my eye.

I think you'd have to try both for yourself and see what you prefer and what would suit your subject better. I went with the hp5 for last weekend's shoot. Negs look good but still awaiting the printing stage.

Hywel