Bob Michaels
nobody special
The same way you make Tri-X or Neopan 400 sing.
While I shot Neopan 400 for about ten years then switched to Tri-X several years ago (actually Arista Premium due to lower price) I have shot numerous bricks of HP5+ along the way due to availability. I exposed all the emulsions the same, developed them the same, and the series of prints containing the different emulsions show no distinguishing differences.
Do not set out to reinvent the wheel.
While I shot Neopan 400 for about ten years then switched to Tri-X several years ago (actually Arista Premium due to lower price) I have shot numerous bricks of HP5+ along the way due to availability. I exposed all the emulsions the same, developed them the same, and the series of prints containing the different emulsions show no distinguishing differences.
Do not set out to reinvent the wheel.
lam
Well-known
This is a very useful thread (beside all the 120 intervention, yes 120 is nice in practically ever film ever made.. I regularly shoot Tri-X 400 at 1600 with amazing results but that's for another thread)
I got 200' of HP5 and this thread is very helpful.
can't wait to get shooting with it.
I got 200' of HP5 and this thread is very helpful.
can't wait to get shooting with it.
Pablito
coco frío
Like many others: ISO 400, D-76.
Results much worse with Xtol.
Results much worse with Xtol.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A ways back I had some doubts about Bob's wisdom stated above, but over time I learned what he said to be true. Basically all my negatives looked the same, meaning good, and that it took rather a close look with an 8x lupe to determine any real difference, and any difference was so subtle that it might be imaginary. I had my doubts, but now I'm a believer.
A friend scanned my some of my negatives and asked what film (singular) that I used, but when I indicated that it was either HP5, Tri-X, or Arcos he was rather surprised.
To minimize grain I found that minimizing aggitation helped, even to the extent of having to extend development time. The minimizing of aggitation also has a contrast compensating effect to produce a broader tonality that in 135 more closely resembles the tonality medium format, meaning huge midrange.
Cal
williams473
Well-known
Here's a couple links to a couple portraits I made of my son on HP5 this past weekend - Shot at box speed and developed in D76 1:1 at 75 degrees F... (First image is "brown toned, second one is not but same film...)
http://www.pittsburghfilmphotographer.com/p691332156/e59036042
http://www.pittsburghfilmphotographer.com/p691332156/e59036044
Matt
http://www.pittsburghfilmphotographer.com/p691332156/e59036042
http://www.pittsburghfilmphotographer.com/p691332156/e59036044
Matt
gsgary
Well-known
Still hoping for anyone to let me in on the secret of using 135 HP5+ @800 and develop with Rodinal without summoning excessive grain...
It's gotta be in there somewhere, with the correct developing scheme...
Anyone? :angel:
Here you go Rodinal 1+50 12 minutes careful agitation for first minute then 5 every minute
Rodinal 1+25 8.5 minutes with same agitation as above
gsgary
Well-known
Here's one where i had been shooting indoors at iso800, next day i shot this outside in good daylight at iso800
gb hill
Veteran
Don't know about singing but Rodinal 1+50 @ 11 mins. has worked better for me with HP5 than it has with Tri-X.
EliasK
Well-known
Wise suggestion, I agree.
HP5+ is my favorite, for 135 and 120. I used various developers over the years, some help a bit with high contrast subjects, some have more acutance, but I think agitation, dilution and temperature are more important than developers.
I use rodinal 1:50 for 120 and tetenal UltrafinPlus 1:6 for 135.
135:
120:
always shot at box speed.
----------------------------
gsgary
Well-known
A friend on Flickr swears by Ilford DDX and Ilfosol3 for HP5 http://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/
Brian Legge
Veteran
I can't accept that Acros, HP5 and TriX all behave the same. The lack of grain in Acros at 35mm is easy to discern vs the other two in suitably large scans/prints.
HP5 - unless I pull it significantly - seems high contrast compared to Tri X. I have trouble avoiding blown highlights while keeping some shadow detail. Maybe this is just me being sloppy as Tri X seems more forgiving about the range of stops in a scene.
Edit: I'd be thrilled to get results like Eliasks while shooting the film at 400 or faster.
anjoca76
Well-known
I can't say that, for me, these films all behave the same, but I will say that it's not always obvious to me either just by glancing at an image, and I'm not convinced the differences between them are overly significant. I find that my developing technique has more to do with the outcome of an image than the film, particularly HP5 and Tri-X.
Tmax is another story though...
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I can't accept that Acros, HP5 and TriX all behave the same.
HP5 - unless I pull it significantly - seems high contrast compared to Tri X. I have trouble avoiding blown highlights while keeping some shadow detail. Maybe this is just me being sloppy as Tri X seems more forgiving about the range of stops in a scene.
Brian,
It took a lot to get it down, but somehow I got the results I reported. I use Diafine as a developer, but I basically figured out my own film speeds and aggitation to get the negatives I wanted. Know that I make negatives that are likely a bit dense for scanning because my intent is for wet printing. Also know that I almost always shoot with filters, and I want negatives that basically I just can straight print without any contrast filters in the darkroom (my contrast is controlled with filters on the camera, not with multi-contrast papers or multi-contrast filters), and in other words contrast control is embedded onto the negatives.
Know that I shoot Tri-X and HP5 at 800 ISO and even develop them in the same tank for 3+3 (two part developer), and that I only perform 2 inversions per minute. The push in film speed makes using filters for contrast control practical.
With Arcos I shoot at 100 ISO and develop 5+5 and again only two inversions per minute. Know that with Arcos with its inherent punchy contrast, sometimes and often I will for go using filters except under diffuse low contrast lighting.
The differences in the negatives are slight. I found Diafine to be extremely small/fine grained, and like I said it really takes an 8X lupe to see the difference in grain between Arcos and Tri-X. The results are close enough that basically I choose the film on choice of ISO alone. With the 8X lupe I can see that HP5 has a slightly more grain than Tri-X, but still it is fine grain.
Also know that I shot last summer about 50-60 rolls of film a month, and that I processed enough film (135 and 120) to become like Bob and have similar results. My intent in small format is to emulate a larger format. Not for everyone and YMMV.
Thanks for asking a really good question to aid in clarity.
Cal
Peter_Jones
Well-known
At the risk of upsetting the applecart - I've struggled to get good results with HP5 120 in Rodinal 1+50. It looked under-developed to me. Perhaps I will revisit some of the negs with different scanner software and see how it goes - next roll will get an extra minute or 2, or maybe stand developing is the way forward.
Easy answer is to use something other than Rodinal, but it keeps so well and is easy to mix.
Easy answer is to use something other than Rodinal, but it keeps so well and is easy to mix.
presspass
filmshooter
I've been trying HP5+ as well. I didn't like D76H 1:1 - too grainy. I do like the results with D-23 either 1:1 or 1:3 for a little more sharpness. I'm going to try Diafine - I've been shooting a couple of rolls at 800, and perhaps Thornton's two-bath. If you don't mind mixing your own - it's just two chemicals - D-23 has done the job for me and maintained the full 400 ISO.
gsgary
Well-known
This is 120 HP5 2hr stand developed in Rodinal, shot at iso1600
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
HP5 - unless I pull it significantly - seems high contrast compared to Tri X. I have trouble avoiding blown highlights while keeping some shadow detail.
Brian,
I originally started using Diafine as my developer because I was mixing about 20 liters of ID-11 every month and pouring the solvent developer down the drain. Because I was shooting so much film (120 and 135) I decided to try Diafine because it gets reused.
Diafine is a two part compensating developer. Part A soaks in for 3 minutes, but little or minimal development actually happens. Part A is emptied and saved for further use, and real development occurs in the second three minutes using Part B.
Think of part A as the developer that only soaks into the emulsion for the first three minutes,and then Part B is the activator for the Part A (developer) that was previously soaked into the emulsion.
With Diafine the highlights the Part A that soaked in gets depleted first and highlights don't get blown (kind of like localized stand development), and if the film was shot at an appropriate ISO there is also an extended shadow detail. Also the compensating effect of lower contrast takes down the contrast level even though the film is pushed one stop. The results are enhanced midrange, deeper shadow detail of a larger negative, and unblown highlights.
HP5 very much all of the sudden looks a lot like Tri-X except perhaps slightly more grain, and remember to see any difference I have to use an 8X lupe.
Hope this adds further clarity.
Cal
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I can go along with Acros being a bit different than Neopan 400, Tri-X, and HP5+. But prints from the latter 3 do look the same.
At a recent exhibit opening, some guy asked me "Tri-X, right?" As I did not want to waste the audience's time with inane technical questions, I just replied "Yessir, you sure know your stuff" without bothering to explain that the prints were from a mix of Neopan 400, Tri-X, and probably a few HP5 negatives.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I would say absolutely. Differences in developer are certainly a way to alter how a film looks.
I should note here I don't scan film, all my film is run for wet printing. My negatives are a bit stout for a scanner.
redisburning
Well-known
in my usual rodinal 1+50, which I will soon be moving on from to try a year of xtol
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
for me, the important thing for my scanning is to have thinner negatives. I don't like hp5+ or tri-x in 35mm though, neopan 400 is my choice for cubic grained film.
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
for me, the important thing for my scanning is to have thinner negatives. I don't like hp5+ or tri-x in 35mm though, neopan 400 is my choice for cubic grained film.