javimm
Established
I've been shooting Tri-x since I bought my M6 in june. I liked what I got from those rolls, but there was something that didn't make me go wow.
I decided to give Ilford HP5+ a try. My workflow is develop at home, using HC-110, 5 mins as Ilford states and then scan using my Epson V700 scanner.
Just after scanning I hated the way the negatives looked. Gray all over the place, no contrast... So I decided to start editing in Photoshop. Well, just using autolevels and a little Curves, and the results are AMAZING. I love the grain it gives, the detail, the tonality... Everything can be brought to live in those gray and "boring" unmodified scans.
The Tri-x negs were contrasty, even lowering development times to 5:45. Tri-x is "dirty" and gritty to my eyes compared to HP5+, and it took me a lot of work to get what the negative had to give. With HP5 it's there and the detail is easier to get. HC-110 and HP5+ work great together.
Anyone noticed this difference?. I read that HP5 gives the feeling to every pic, as it has been shot in rainy London
, but I like the tonality a lot more than the one from Tri-x.
Anyway, I'm going to stick to HP5, and why not, to Ilford films because of their support for film.
I decided to give Ilford HP5+ a try. My workflow is develop at home, using HC-110, 5 mins as Ilford states and then scan using my Epson V700 scanner.
Just after scanning I hated the way the negatives looked. Gray all over the place, no contrast... So I decided to start editing in Photoshop. Well, just using autolevels and a little Curves, and the results are AMAZING. I love the grain it gives, the detail, the tonality... Everything can be brought to live in those gray and "boring" unmodified scans.
The Tri-x negs were contrasty, even lowering development times to 5:45. Tri-x is "dirty" and gritty to my eyes compared to HP5+, and it took me a lot of work to get what the negative had to give. With HP5 it's there and the detail is easier to get. HC-110 and HP5+ work great together.
Anyone noticed this difference?. I read that HP5 gives the feeling to every pic, as it has been shot in rainy London
, but I like the tonality a lot more than the one from Tri-x.Anyway, I'm going to stick to HP5, and why not, to Ilford films because of their support for film.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Ive mainly shot with Tri-X but I have gone through a few rolls of HP5 and found it to be similar to what you described. It has this softer/creamy definition to the contrast through I havent photoshopped any of my images yet, I think I'll give it a try.
If the contrast of Tri-X is a little too strong you can try shooting it at EI 200 and adjust development accordingly. I believe subtracting 10% from standard Ei400 time is a good place to start.
I alternate between shooting Tri-X at 200 or 400. Depending on how I want the contrast to turn out.
Just to make it clear though, I have a 100ft roll of Tri-X which I use regularly and have only used 5-6 rolls of HP5. So I dont have a whole lot of experience with HP5, though Im looking forwared to picking up a 100ft roll sometime soon.
If the contrast of Tri-X is a little too strong you can try shooting it at EI 200 and adjust development accordingly. I believe subtracting 10% from standard Ei400 time is a good place to start.
I alternate between shooting Tri-X at 200 or 400. Depending on how I want the contrast to turn out.
Just to make it clear though, I have a 100ft roll of Tri-X which I use regularly and have only used 5-6 rolls of HP5. So I dont have a whole lot of experience with HP5, though Im looking forwared to picking up a 100ft roll sometime soon.
oscroft
Veteran
To tame the contrast I sometimes shoot Tri-X at ISO200 and develop in HC-110 dil-H for 20% less than normal (12 mins instead of 15 mins)
Ororaro
Well-known
oscroft said:
Wooow! I'd go something like 8 minutes instead of 12 (and 15 is frankly too much for iso 400)!
Ororaro
Well-known
javimm said:
Why is that? Kodak announced a new TMAX film lately.
javimm
Established
And why not?. Ilford supports film officially. Not that I'm not going to buy any Kodak product again. I use HC-110 and Kodak Hipo Clearing, but I feel better supporting a company that has stated his commitment to film.
I'm planning to make a b&w darkroom someday. Which Kodak paper can I buy?. They discontinued them. I don't feel comfortable thinking that one day somebody at Kodak could decide to give up film completly. This issue has been discussed a lot and won't go further.
Next time I buy Tri-x I'll try the suggested settings.
ARCHIVIST
Well-known
Try It Ast 800 Iso!
Try It Ast 800 Iso!
Javimm,
If you liked HP5 at 400 ISO you will love it at 800 ISO!
Some say that 800 is HP5's 'sweet rating' point.
The grain is fine / medium and the shadow detail excellent.
I have only used ID-11 at 1:1 when pushing to 800.
How it will react in the thick soup that HC110 is I do not know.
At 800 I agitate for the first 15 seconds and then 5 sec every 30 sec.
Leave the tank to sit for the last two minutes of the process. This will keep the contrast from becoming too pronounced.
Regards
Peter
Try It Ast 800 Iso!
Javimm,
If you liked HP5 at 400 ISO you will love it at 800 ISO!
Some say that 800 is HP5's 'sweet rating' point.
The grain is fine / medium and the shadow detail excellent.
I have only used ID-11 at 1:1 when pushing to 800.
How it will react in the thick soup that HC110 is I do not know.
At 800 I agitate for the first 15 seconds and then 5 sec every 30 sec.
Leave the tank to sit for the last two minutes of the process. This will keep the contrast from becoming too pronounced.
Regards
Peter
javimm
Established
Have to try that. Let's see if I have a chance. ISO 400 is sometimes a lot shooting in the bright light street conditions I usually shoot. I've got a family event coming in May that takes place inside a church, so maybe that's my opportunity to push it to 800. There will be an official photog there, so I have the freedom to shoot the ceremony without having the pressure on myself.
HC-110 is very dependent on agitation. Shooting HP5 with the recommended Ilford times seems to work fine. I used a bit less agitation though. I Haven't had the chance to develop a second roll. Probably this weekend.
Cheers,
Javier.
semrich
Well-known
When i started shooting film almost a year ago I posed the question here for which 400 film people liked and it was said I couldn't go wrong with HP5, so I bought a 100 rolls when I went back to the State for a visit.
I have an Ilford dealer here in Istanbul and bought my chemicals and kit there when I began developing my own film.
I was using ID-11 1+1 but decided to give Ilfotec HC 1+31 a try with a roll of HP5 120 I shot with the Zeiss Super Ikonta that I pushed to 1600. Here is one of the shots I developed this weekend.
I have an Ilford dealer here in Istanbul and bought my chemicals and kit there when I began developing my own film.
I was using ID-11 1+1 but decided to give Ilfotec HC 1+31 a try with a roll of HP5 120 I shot with the Zeiss Super Ikonta that I pushed to 1600. Here is one of the shots I developed this weekend.
Attachments
Last edited:
topoxforddoc
Established
I must say that I prefer HP5 too. I soup mine in XTOL and rate it anywhere from 400-1600. It pushes well in XTOL. I've used Tri-X too, but prefer the tonal balance of HP5.
Charlie
Charlie