Would you like cream with your HP5?

[aste]

Hi all,

I'm pretty new to film photography. Just got into it seriously around the first of the yea, when a family member donated her darkroom equipment and let me borrow her medium format stuff.

Getting to the point, I've done some film testing over the past few days trying to see which film gives the sharpest images. The results have been surprising. Film I thought was supposed to be the sharpest turned out to be just the opposite. But, that's not the point of my post. The test photos made with HP5 seem to have a smooth creamy look to them.

Am I seeing things, or is this a commonly recognized trait of HP5?

Thanks,
aste

 

[sandermarijn]

I'm seeing the same thing. Comparing HP5 to nearest neighbours Tri-x and Neopan 400, I find HP5 definitely more creamy. Some people say that HP5 makes everything look like England, which is another way of saying the same thing I guess.

The creaminess/dullness will not be to everybody's liking. Me, I like it for people and 'things'-shots, less so for landscapes. It's all personal of course, and your particular choice of developer/paper/etc makes a difference too.

A shot with typical HP5 creaminess (Hasselblad, 80mm, Ilfosol 3, negative scan):

 

[steven_e007]

Smooth and Creamy? That's a bit of a subjective description... I'm not really sure what you mean. HP5+ is usually regarded has having a fairly high acutance (edge sharpness) and crisp grain structure - I would say T-Max 400 or Delta 400 was usually be thought of as 'smoother' - maybe, but there are so many variables with developer, technique etc. How are you processing the film?

 

[pentaxuser]

Using other words admittedly but alluding to the same effect, I think, is the view of Roger Hicks. I'd say it is less contrasty than Neopan 400 and yes I can see the sense in the "its looks Like England" comment.

If this look suits your style then you've found your film. It pushes well in the right dveloper and is equally at home in a very fine grain developer like Perceptol but at EI 320 or maybe EI 250 if you are looking for grainless negs for larger prints

pentaxuser

 

[aste]

I hate using such subjective terms to describe it, but I can't think of any other way to put it.

The test subject was a woven wicker basket sort of thing with lots of little detail. The HP5+ photos seem to give the wicker a smooth-like-cream appearance. This is compared to the other films in the test. those other films being: Panf+, FP4+, TMX and TMY-2.

I used the same setup for all of them. Developed in D76 1:3 with minimal agitation to maximize edge effects (per Anchell). Times varied based on the film, of course. D76 because it is all I have at the moment. Otherwise I would have used Perceptol, or Microdol-x 1:3 (I still might, just to see if there is a discernable difference in sharpness between them and D76).

Anyway, I don't know about HP5+ being my film, but I do like the look of it enough to buy some more and get to know it better. Of the films tested TMY-2 gave the sharpest result, which is what I'm after, mainly. I still need to test Plus-x and Tri-x, though. And I keep forgetting about the Ilford Delta films.

At any rate, in case anyone is curious, the surprise was that the PanF+ was the worst of the lot. I was under the impression it was supposed to be one of the sharpest films around. Maybe it doesn't like D76. Are there "sweetspot" film+developer combos that bring out the best in different films?

 

[Tim Gray]

I'm not surprised TMY-2 is one of the sharpest films you've tested so far. To a certain extent, grain helps the impression of sharpness. Very slow fine grained films often resolve more detail, but appear softer. Obviously too much grain does get in the way at some point. TMY-2 is pretty much the most advanced B&W film out there...

 

[Hexavalent]

Love/Hate thing with HP5 here. Finally settled on Perceptol 1:1 followed by 5 min water bath - seems to 'punch it up' a bit.

 

[CBG]

Actual sharpness and perceived sharpness are two different beasties. I don't really care what actual sharpness I have if I can get the impression of sharpness when I want. A lot of fine grain films don't look very impressive next to faster bigger grained films. Beats me why.

 

[Tim Gray]

The larger grain gives the impression of sharper edges. Or something like that

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm just starting using HP5 after my favorite film Neopan 400 was discontinued. My first impressions of HP5 is that it needs more development than most films to create contrast. I think that may be the reason that many people find it "muddy" or "flat." It can handle quit a bit of development. So far I've even found shooting at EI 800 and developing for 25% more than normal helps to incrase contrast. As for overcast lighting, shooting at EI 800 and developing in Rodinal 1:25 produces beautiflul results, and not grainy as you would anticipate.

Overall though, I'm not as pleased yet as I was with Neopan. I'm thinking of giving Tri-x another try, I really wanted to support Ilford though.

As far as TMY-II, it is certainly the sharpest 400 speed film out there. That's the thing that blew me away with that film. Other than that, not much I can say about it. I'm not a fan of flat grain films.

 

[5stringdeath]

Tri-X developed in Rodinal makes you feel like your in England with a gorgeous French woman. (Given you're a heterosexual male)

 

[brian steinberger]

Tri-X developed in Rodinal makes you feel like your in England with a gorgeous French woman. (Given you're a heterosexual male)

Can you elaboate on Tri-X in Rodinal? Are you shooting in diffuse light or bright sunlight? And what's your development time?

Btw... I'm a heterosexual male

 

[5stringdeath]

Actually I was kinda being coy, but ....

This has been my fav film/dev combo for years. I've gone back and forth between 1:25 and 1:50 Rodinal dilutions, but have pretty much settled into 1:50 for longer times, when "the magic" happens.

I've always loved Tri-X grain .. love film grain in general, and its a big reason I'm only shooting film again and why I'm on this board now. Rodinal helps with the edge sharpness .. the more scientifically minded here can better explain its effect on the actual grain formation, etc. All I know is I get "sharp" negatives with beautiful tonal range. It also helps to have a really good piece of glass (always my fav combo with a piece of Leica glass)

With 35mm I shoot in all kinds of light. With my MF its more diffuse light.

I also shoot a bit of Plus-X still, also cooked in Rodinal. Been playing with some of the Arista films as well.

I never was and never will be a fan of the T-grained films. But that probably has to do with my non-interest in trying to eliminate grain, because for me its the wonderful quality of the film aesthetic - in my work anyhow.

So yea, its like I'm in England and its damp and cool, and the world looks grayscale like a print and the gorgeous french woman is just there because, well, who wants to be lonely?

 

[steven_e007]

I am a fan of HP5+ and have used it a lot. Recently someone gave me a huge box of TRI-X that was getting near it's sell by date. I'd not used it much before.

My initial experience was that the first few film I shot were so dense as to be unprintable! So yes, I concur with the statement that HP5+ needs more development than Tri-X - although I would have said it the other way around, Tri-X needs less, since HP5+ is my 'normal'!

Certainly the two films are very different. You can push HP5+ in a suitable developer to get more film speed. I know - you don't really get much more speed, but... no doubt someone who understands sensitometry much better than me will explain about the toe and the shape of the curve and such... but as I see it, soup Tri-X for extra time and you get lots more contrast, soup HP5+ for extra time and you seem to get more shadow detail without so much build up of density. Not saying whether one is better than the other - but if you want a punchy picture of a grey seal on a grey rock on a grey day - push Tri-X a bit. If you want to take a black cat in a snow storm at dusk - push HP5+ ;-)

The moral of the story is that many of these films behave differently and yes, definitely some developer combinations work better than others. I think maybe you have a good developer / time / dilution thing going on with TMX, but maybe a bad one for Pan 50 - which I think is a great film, but a bit unforgiving.

Not sure about French women in England - but when I visited the Yosemite one blazing hot summer, I over exposed everything! Just not used to the light with a cloudless sky at 10 000 ft...

 

[pentaxuser]

Tri-X developed in Rodinal makes you feel like your in England with a gorgeous French woman. (Given you're a heterosexual male)

OK but can you give the combination of film and developer that makes you feel you're in France with a gorgeous English woman. Or is this the combination that no-one on APUG has ever tried?

pentaxuser

 

[fschifano]

I don't know. I'd rather be in Paris with a gorgeous Parisian woman - one who knows her way around the town.

 

[jmcd]

"My first impressions of HP5 is that it needs more development than most films to create contrast. I think that may be the reason that many people find it "muddy" or "flat." It can handle quit a bit of development."

I have been using HP5+ for years, and while I expose most films near box speed and develop (after testing) close to official recommendations, I definitely give HP5+ substantially more development than officially called for—for instance, ei 400 in even light, HC-110 for 8 minutes at 68 degrees. I love HP5+.

 

[jmcd]

This is HP5+ with a harder edge, in HC-110.

 

[mcfactor]

Hp5 in Beutler's is my favorite combo, its probably the sharpest you can get with Hp5, but the grain really is not bad. It also has really nice tonality.

 

[bill spears]

At any rate, in case anyone is curious, the surprise was that the PanF+ was the worst of the lot. I was under the impression it was supposed to be one of the sharpest films around. Maybe it doesn't like D76. Are there "sweetspot" film+developer combos that bring out the best in different films?

Pan F is one of the sharpest films around ! Maybe a bit contrasty in some situations but can be tamed by the right developer and or dilution.
If you can't get sharp negs from Pan F in D76 somethings not been done right.

 

[aste]

Pan F is
If you can't get sharp negs from Pan F in D76 somethings not been done right.

I'm kind'a thinking the same. I plan to redo the PanF+ test. Although, I'm not sure what I'll try differently, aside from making sure I didn't screw something up somewhere along the line.

 

[aste]

BTW, Thanks everyone, for the replies

 

[Steve Roberts]

Pan F is one of the sharpest films around ! Maybe a bit contrasty in some situations but can be tamed by the right developer and or dilution.
If you can't get sharp negs from Pan F in D76 somethings not been done right.

Quite so, Bill.
To state the obvious, when using the slower Pan F with its consequent need for longer shutter speeds and/or wider apertures, there are many other factors that come into play apart from the "sharpness" (a dangerous term!) of the film. HP5 inevitably allows the use of faster shutter speeds/smaller apertures and unless both films are used side by side in very closely controlled conditions, one must be wary of drawing too many conclusions. The contrast of the finished print, lighting conditions under which it's viewed and even the very subject matter can all serve to create an impression of sharpness which may or may not be present.

Steve