Ilford HP5 Plus in D76 1:1

F

Film explorer

Member
Local time
6:56 AM
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
34
Hello,

I recently posted a question in this same category about Ilford HP5 in HC-110. Well I exposed some photos and then developed the rolls in this developer but had some problems with consistency. Probably due to my inexperience with accurate pouring/agitation and temperature control (yes, Im a beginner)

I would post the photos if I could, but I don't have a scanner yet as I'm saving for one.

So, I did a lot of searching around on the net and many people recommend D76 diluted 1:1 because it is nearly 'fool proof'.

Tom. A on this site has posted a real cache of information pertaining to this developer.

Now, I realise that I have to test, but to just get me in the ball park, does anyone have times for Ilford HP5 Plus in D76 1:1 at 20C?

The Ilford box says 11 minutes but there are other different times posted on the net. I heard that this a lovely combination.

Any help for this beginner greatly appreciated ^!^
 
Go with the Ilford times for ID-11 as this is Ilford's near identical version of D76. HC-110 should also work well. consider using HC-110 at 1:63 dilution as this is double the dilution from the normal dilution B. This results in developing times that are twice as long and less prone to inaccuracies creeping in.
 
I follow the devchart (link above) (13min at 20C 1:1) and am happy with the results. A bit grainy, actually, but given the current subject matter it works quite well.

1202-FogoDog11.jpg
 
I use 11 minutes at 68 degrees for HP-5 Plus in D-76 1+1.

grandma_8-31-08.jpg



I like this film better in PMK Pyro, but that's not a good 'beginner' developer.
 
I'm a beginner also, this is my 2nd roll developed. I used 11 minutes with D76 1+1. I'm thinking I shot this over exposed and when I pulled the midrange back down to have some detail in the family it got grainy. Any advice would be appreciated.


[URL="
Scan-120828-0010-Edit.jpg

Jim
 
Film Explorer: You have back to back recommendations for 11 minutes and 13 minutes. You may find that confusing or frustrating.

Take a roll of film and use it to shoot the same scene, bracketing exposures if you want for about 12 frames, then put the lens cap on and shoot 12 blank frames, repeat exactly what you did for the first 12 frames.

Then cut the film into two equal length sections. Develop one for 11 minutes and the other for 13. Make your best print from the identical frames from both sections. Compare the prints and you will find the difference quite subtle. You will worry less.

Remember what they taught you back in school about the "scientific method" where you only change one variable (i.e. developing time) Too many people think they are doing valid tests when they have changed lighting scenarios, different lenses, different subject matter, and then think they have reached some conclusion about another variable.
 
Bob Michaels is always right about these things. Go do his test, then You can shoot forever without worrying about your results. Two things: 1. HP5 is a bit grainier than say, Tri-X, but still a lovely, creamy film. 2. Over-exposure shows everybody your grain, so expose carefully as possible. I develop it for 11 minutes, but I use a California variant called Lauder Formula 76.
 
Just want to say thanks for everyones wonderful input. The reason that I posted this question is that there was a large discrepenacy between Iflord's time on the film box (11 minutes) and the massive development chart. Two minutes was quite a difference and as Bob accutely observed - it was frustrating to work out which one to go for!

Interesting that TRI-X in D76 1:1 has a standard time in most literature 9:45mins.

I will follow Bob's suggestion and see how I go.

All of the shots above look delicious and creamy!
 
Film explorer said:
Interesting that TRI-X in D76 1:1 has a standard time in most literature 9:45mins.
Click to expand...

This time is too short, Tri-X standard time (per what Bob says as for what a standard is) must be the very same as HP5+ standard time, those two films being absolutely undistinguishable from each other once properly exposed and processed, but by third-type encounter persons maybe.

As for grain, nothing serious can be said about the actual film grain while looking at a photo on a screen coming from a scanned negative, because the scanner (even an high-end one like the Nikon Coolscan) creates its own "grain" on the full resolution image and then the websize downsizing creates another artificial "grain" which is the result of a bicubic resampling of the first step digital sampling.
 
I would not recommend HP5+ as a film to be scanned in 35mm. It is grainy for wet prints, but it can work. For scanned work, I have found the grain both harsh and prominent.
 
Film Explorer: You will eventually realize that our modern obsession with precise digital measurement and information spread via internet combine to imply some exactitude that is unnecessary. I am not suggesting one be sloppy or that some consistency is unnecessary. Just don't get hung up believing there is some absolute.

Remember there was a time when people estimated exposure by eyeball, determined developer temp by sticking their finger in the solution, and measured their development time with a watch having no sweep second hand. And their prints looked great.

One of my favorite bodies of work, Revolutionary Moment by Burt Glinn, was photographed the first week in 1959. He used whatever film he could find along the way in various Cuban towns as he followed Castro in Havana. It is impossible to tell from the photos that he used a variety of different films. And no one used a light meter in those days. They "just knew" what the exposure should be.

Again, I am not suggesting sloppiness or not striving for consistency, only that the perceived level of precision is not required.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Film Explorer: You will eventually realize that our modern obsession with precise digital measurement and information spread via internet combine to imply some exactitude that is unnecessary. I am not suggesting one be sloppy or that some consistency is unnecessary. Just don't get hung up believing there is some absolute.

Remember there was a time when people estimated exposure by eyeball, determined developer temp by sticking their finger in the solution, and measured their development time with a watch having no sweep second hand. And their prints looked great.

One of my favorite bodies of work, Revolutionary Moment by Burt Glinn, was photographed the first week in 1959. He used whatever film he could find along the way in various Cuban towns as he followed Castro in Havana. It is impossible to tell from the photos that he used a variety of different films. And no one used a light meter in those days. They "just knew" what the exposure should be.

Again, I am not suggesting sloppiness or not striving for consistency, only that the perceived level of precision is not required.
Click to expand...

Bob - that was a very interesting anecdote about Burt Glinn. I guess to get to that level of a master, both technically and asthetically, takes years of practise.

I was sort of operating under the principle of you have to crawl before you can walk. Just trying to get my times down to a decent ball park figure and then go from there. I plan to experiment later when I have gained some confidence.

I'm really enjoying taking photos with a film camera - being forced to slow down, think about my exposure, shoot, then mix the chemicals and follow the timer. It really is a calm enjoyable experience that I hope to repeat for a long time.

I was going to get into TRI-X, but that recent thread had me a little worried about the future of that legendary film, so I thought maybe Ilford may have a longer future>
 
Buy and use some Tri-X too. If we all give up then it will be more likely to disappear for good. The same was true of Ilford not so long ago. They survived and went on to prosper.
 
John - fair point, will do.

I've been spending a good part of my time on Magnum in Motion. Just dug out Burt Glinn's essay on Cuba (it also featured the work of other Magnum members). The work is stunning and his use of light and exposure is something else - just like Bob said.
 
Film explorer said:
.......................
I was going to get into TRI-X, but that recent thread had me a little worried about the future of that legendary film, so I thought maybe Ilford may have a longer future>
Click to expand...

I have transitioned from Neopan 400 to HP5, back to Neopan, again to HP5, back to Neopan, and then to Tri-X over the last 11 years. Each transition was because of price / availability, was over about 4-6 weeks and included at least a brick of each the old and the new. I would shoot several rolls of the old and several rolls of the new exactly the same way. Then develop rolls of both in the same tank. The only variable was the manufacturer of the film.

I simply cannot tell any difference in the prints made from one or another. Others here imply they can but no one has been able to with my prints.

So my thinking is that you can interchange TriX and HP5, expose and develop the same, and see no difference in the final print. Not everyone shares my view but that is the way I see it.
 
Is there a significante difference between the D76 and Ilfotec DDX ?

I want to make the transition to D76 developing HP5 because it is much cheaper, but I'm not quite sure if I can get the same results with it.

Any experiences?
 
schlops said:
Is there a significante difference between the D76 and Ilfotec DDX ?

I want to make the transition to D76 developing HP5 because it is much cheaper, but I'm not quite sure if I can get the same results with it.

Any experiences?
Click to expand...

DDX is a lot like Tmax Developer. A good general purpose developer if you prefer a liquid over a powder, and it is better for pushing and for the Delta 3200 film, than D-76. It is, however, expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom