Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm not a huge fan of this film but I have noticed it seems to handle over exposure really well and this has become very noticable when using it in my Widelux. The camera's smallest aperture is F11 and it's fastest shutter speed is 1/250 so at sunny sixteen it's being over exposed by two stops and I expected it to look awfull in these conditions ... but not so!
Is Tri-X as forgiving ... or Neopan for that matter?
Is Tri-X as forgiving ... or Neopan for that matter?
Chris101
summicronia
I've no experience with Neopan, so I left that part out. Trix is as forgiving - possibly even more so - but it is inherently a faster film, at least in my way of developing and printing it. Because of that, trix starts out closer to the bottom of it's latitude - you can over-expose it a couple of stops, but then you are starting to get to the end of the curve. You can however push trix further into underexposure than you can hp5+. To my eye, the Ilford film has about a 1-stop-push more contrast than does Kodak's trix for the same speed. I believe it is that contrast that makes it survive over-exposure so well.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You're right about under exposing Ilford ... it goes incredibly flat so obviously as you say its tolerance is at the other end of the scale.
I go through periods of really disliking HP5+ and then deciding that maybe I could live with it if Tri-X ever became extinct! I'm damned if I can get it to look even half reasonable in Xtol though ... I tried for a while then went back to Rodinal.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I didn't really like HP5+ until I started shooting it around ei 250 - and occasionally another stop slower on high contrast days. It does wonderfully with over exposure if you back off on development a bit.
Jaans
Well-known
Keith- What I have found through developing a ton of TRI-X, HP5 Plus and Neopan is that the Ilford has the lowest inherent contrast of the three. This was when developed with either D76 1:1, HC110 H and Rodinal.
So, it is a good film for very contrasty conditions when shooting with modern optics - as this lower inherent contrast can tame this contrast. TRI-X was in the middle and the Neopan had the strongest contrast.
I have also overexposed and then overdevelped the HP5Plus and I still retained details in the highlights. If I do this with Neopan then it gets really contrasty really quickly.
I have souped with XTOL a few times, but not enough to form a proper opinion. But the film I did soup with XTOL seemed to be rather flat in appearance without any perceived depth to the image, with little noticeable grain. It was way to smooth for me personally, but thats just me.
I recall reading that you like Neopan 400? I think that TRI-X is closer in look to Neopan than Ilford. Neopan is just too flimsy to handle as it feels like its underexposed or underdeveloped when I handle it - that is one of the main reasons that I love TRI-X, as it is such a superb film to handle as it doesn't buckle easily like the Neopan.
In summer with humid conditions, I sometimes have problems loading the film with my bag due to the humidity - and sometimes the smallest pressure can leave buckle marks on Neopan. I found that TRI-X is a lot stronger.
So, it is a good film for very contrasty conditions when shooting with modern optics - as this lower inherent contrast can tame this contrast. TRI-X was in the middle and the Neopan had the strongest contrast.
I have also overexposed and then overdevelped the HP5Plus and I still retained details in the highlights. If I do this with Neopan then it gets really contrasty really quickly.
I have souped with XTOL a few times, but not enough to form a proper opinion. But the film I did soup with XTOL seemed to be rather flat in appearance without any perceived depth to the image, with little noticeable grain. It was way to smooth for me personally, but thats just me.
I recall reading that you like Neopan 400? I think that TRI-X is closer in look to Neopan than Ilford. Neopan is just too flimsy to handle as it feels like its underexposed or underdeveloped when I handle it - that is one of the main reasons that I love TRI-X, as it is such a superb film to handle as it doesn't buckle easily like the Neopan.
In summer with humid conditions, I sometimes have problems loading the film with my bag due to the humidity - and sometimes the smallest pressure can leave buckle marks on Neopan. I found that TRI-X is a lot stronger.
BobYIL
Well-known
Exactly my impressions about the hi-speed Ilfords starting with the HP4 up to HP5+.. Compared to the Tri-X in ordinary developers like the D-76 they exhibit longer highlight gradation, especially under harsh lighting conditions, like noon-time direct sunlight. With the Collapsible or DR Summicrons' medium contrast rendition, HP5+ produces great tonalities, but also tend to "tame" the high microcontrast of my Biogon 25/2.8. It has been my favorite choice since the '60s.
sparrow6224
Well-known
PHotographer's Formulary makes a developer that advertises itself as working really well with HP5 and I tried it and it does. Gives it a little more contrast and range in the shadows and highlights. I've been deveoping Tri-X in Rodinal and boy do the highlights blow out. Tonight I did three rolls in Xtol, my old favorite; we'll see how they come out. Chris Crawford makes a very good case for processing and scanning for low contrast and then manipulating the contrast in PS. Another approach is Xtol with a 1:100 does of Rodinal in the mix. Definitely ups the contrast and accutance; but will challenge the highlights so one should reduce dev time by about 10 percent.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting info being supplied and exactly what I was after. I've used Tri-X and Neopan a fair amount in the past but I've never deliberaley overexposed them the way I've had to with the Widelux and HP5+. Based on what I know now HP5+ is the ideal film for that camera ... it gives me lowlight flexibility without having to worry too much about a full sun situation and corresponding loss of detail in the highlights. ND filters are very hard to come by for the Lux so this is good news.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
HP5 has a very long shoulder, not only will it catch all the highlights it will also give differentiation between them. I've never felt it much slower than Tri-x possibly Neopan both of which I've used.
Not sure about less contrast I always thought contrast was a function of dev time and agitation, if you need more contrast just develop a little longer.
HP5 is a wonderful forgiving film, that works well in a wide range of developers.
Not sure about less contrast I always thought contrast was a function of dev time and agitation, if you need more contrast just develop a little longer.
HP5 is a wonderful forgiving film, that works well in a wide range of developers.
Highway 61
Revisited
Yes - those films being pretty identical in every respect...
Nope. Highlights will get blown out more quickly on an overexposed T-grain film.
In any case, diluted compensating developers (D76 1:1 for instance) work pretty well with any of those films...
D76 1:3 (20 minutes @ 20C) will work even better on your Widelux negs !
Nokton48
Veteran
You should consider Double-X Eastman 5222
Jaans
Well-known
I think the speed of HP5 Plus will be dependant on the developer used. I could achieve EI:320 in D76 1:1 and EI:400 in XTOL no problem. But if I used Rodinal then EI:250 would be at the top end. But then again, most people don't like or recommend Rodinal with HP5 Plus, so I guess it depends on how much grain you like.
If TRI-X disappears I will be broken hearted, but I am have been preparing by using a fair bit of HP5 plus, so if worst comes to worst, I can hopefully make a seamless transition, but not necessarily grainless transition to Ilford ^^
Jaans
Well-known
I've also used the latest Zeiss Optics - the Biogon 35mm F2 and souped some Neopan in Rodinal. It was amazing how contrasty that combination was compared to using my Rokkor 40mm.
I don't use the latest Zeiss optics anymore as I find the contrast is just too strong for my liking, especially as i tend to shoot in contrasty conditions. It is just bothersome trying to tame that contrast, while retaining details in the highlights.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm a big HP5+ fan. I shoot it most at 400 or 800, but have used it at ISO50 with great success to control high contrast situations. HP5 is incredibly changeable depending on the developer used. At 400 I like Studionol for smaller grain and HC-110b for larger grain. At 800 it is Rodinal 1:25 for smoother grain (usually with 120) and HC-110b for a gritty look. Microphen at 1:1 is also very good. Then for smooth grain with huge contrast reduction I'll shoot it at 50 and run it in Perceptol 1:1 With the demise of my stocks of Neopan 1600 I'll be doing some experiments in going faster with HP5 this winter. I'd expect I'll get it to 1600 with ease, but if I'll get that lovely Neopan 1600 grain is another matter.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I shot some HP5+ at 1600 a few years ago and developed it in Xtol ... it's a very different film when you push it a couple of stops. This was Xtol @ 2:1 and 20 deg ... I can't remember how long the dvelopment was though. I think I used the time from the digital truth site.
Highway 61
Revisited
Well the highlights are blown out and there is not much detail in the shadows (especially on the first shot).
This is probably not what you were looking for...
I am keen to think that any pushed film should be developed in some special two-baths developer like the Tetenal Emofin. Or the Diafine if you can still locate some.
Boring, but...
Although Microphen 1:1 should work well.
But X-Tol 2:1 isn't the way to go for some 400 ISO film pushed up to 1600, it seems.
This is probably not what you were looking for...
I am keen to think that any pushed film should be developed in some special two-baths developer like the Tetenal Emofin. Or the Diafine if you can still locate some.
Boring, but...
Although Microphen 1:1 should work well.
But X-Tol 2:1 isn't the way to go for some 400 ISO film pushed up to 1600, it seems.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I like DELTA 3200 pushed to 6400
Not as probably as contrasty as you want but holds up well when pushed. The above was in Rodinal.
Not as probably as contrasty as you want but holds up well when pushed. The above was in Rodinal.
MIkhail
-
Let me ask a question: in Diafine, where HP5 becomes ISO 800, if I shoot it as ISO 400 still, would this have the similar effect to what you describe?
Thank you.
BobYIL
Well-known
Used it many years, also Microphen.. Diafine is known to add one stop over the nominal speed by normal development; negligible loss in gradation, very slight increase in contrast. It's a real push developer; with the HP5 you can hardly tell it's push developed.. Almost all other developers I used to increase speed resulted in proportionally increase in contrast, thus loss of tonality. Diafine and Acufine deliver D76-like grain and sharpness, very sharp, whereas Microphen grain is a little coarser, sharpness is like undiluted Microdol.
If you want the longest gray scala, rate HP5 (or Tri-X) between 250 to 320.. even D76 (1:1) can please you with the tones or better use Perceptol.
MIkhail
-
Thank you. I like diafine for simplicity (not that others are all that complicated) but hardly ever used HP5 before. I eused it long time ago, it gave me super contrasty results and I switched to triX as you can't go wrong with that