mmartin09
Established
Is it worth trying HP5 Plus pushed 2 stops in ID-11? I know the standard answer is DDX, and that most certainly works. Is ID-11 really only good up to ASA 800?
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Only one way to find out....
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
For 1600, I prefer Microphen
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Sure, ID-11 or D-76 will work fine. Others such as DDX may work a little bit better but people got by with ID-11 or D-76 for decades just increasing the development time by 40% or so.
The era of the internet seems to have brought about some new concepts of absolutes, what will work or not work, and discussing levels of precision that may not even be visible. But before that, people did just fine using what they had available.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I wouldn't, but that's because I spent years over-developing films and getting excessive contrast and empty shadows. Bob's advice is best: there are no absolutes.
Why not use Delta 3200 instead?
Cheers,
R.
Why not use Delta 3200 instead?
Cheers,
R.
Fjäll
■̷̛̈́̉̓́̽&
These are HP5 pushed to 1600 in ID11:
arseniii
Well-known
These are HP5 pushed to 1600 in ID11:
That's some great shots right there!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Does photography has to be with shadows details and some zone something contrast?
To me bw film provides enough of photography as long as it is enough light for it.
Film in question @3200 in hcA.
If they have it with ID-11 @1600 (and they have it) it means it works.
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Developer=ID-11&Film=&mdc=Search
To me bw film provides enough of photography as long as it is enough light for it.
Film in question @3200 in hcA.
If they have it with ID-11 @1600 (and they have it) it means it works.
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Developer=ID-11&Film=&mdc=Search
I’ve achieved satisfactory results exposing HP5 Plus at EI 3200, however I deferred to Ilford’s own recommendation in their information sheet for the film, and developed it in Kodak HC-110 because at the time I did not have any Microphen or DDX. With accurate metering I do not think EI 1600 is too much of an ask for ID-11 but I would be reasonably generous with the development time.
Minolta SRT-101; 58mm MC Rokkor f/1.4; ILFORD HP5 Plus @ EI 3200; Kodak HC-110 Dilution B, 20 minutes @ 20C.
Minolta SRT-101; 58mm MC Rokkor f/1.4; ILFORD HP5 Plus @ EI 3200; Kodak HC-110 Dilution B, 20 minutes @ 20C.
:: Mark
Well-known
HP5+ works fine push-processed in ID-11 or DDX.
However, Roger is right about the shadows. You have to be very careful how you expose, and maybe experiment with the development times - I usually find that I prefer the results if developed a bit longer than the usual recommendations, although these days I mainly use Delta 400.
FWIW, I prefer Delta 400 or HP5+ pushed to EI3200 over Delta 3200. The faster film has better tonality, but you have to really like the grain...
However, Roger is right about the shadows. You have to be very careful how you expose, and maybe experiment with the development times - I usually find that I prefer the results if developed a bit longer than the usual recommendations, although these days I mainly use Delta 400.
FWIW, I prefer Delta 400 or HP5+ pushed to EI3200 over Delta 3200. The faster film has better tonality, but you have to really like the grain...
mmartin09
Established
Thanks, everyone. I will give it a shot and see how it turns out. I'd rather minimize the number of developers to keep on hand, and I really enjoy ID-11 / D76 at ASA 400 and 800.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
A firearms writer named Jeff Cooper coined the phrase "Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments" to describe the obsession with minute differences in the performance of your gear which make absolutely no difference in the real world. I don't know if he was also a photographer, but the phrase fits our hobby pretty well too.
presspass
filmshooter
If your subject is in the midtown/highlight range, it probably doesn't matter what happens to the shadows. As Aalfano said above, these concerns are inconsequential as long as you are happy with the results. The only way you can determine that is to try it.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
And, too many refer to e.i. and related metering as it is an absolute that everyone determines consistently. Some believe there is a big difference between i.e. 800 and 1600 when in reality it is only one step in a ten plus step range.
In actual practice, especially in scenes with a long tonal range, different personal ways of metering yields widely differing results. Give 3 photographers 3 different accurately calibrated meters and ask them what e.i gives them f2 @ 1/60th for the same scene. One will tell you 400, one 800, and another 1600. None of them will be wrong, just different. That is why we have to learn what works for us and not for someone else on the internet.
In actual practice, especially in scenes with a long tonal range, different personal ways of metering yields widely differing results. Give 3 photographers 3 different accurately calibrated meters and ask them what e.i gives them f2 @ 1/60th for the same scene. One will tell you 400, one 800, and another 1600. None of them will be wrong, just different. That is why we have to learn what works for us and not for someone else on the internet.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
What a great phrase that describes far too much of the technical photographic discussions on the internet.
Ulophot
Ulophot
Years ago, when I was photographer for a ballet company, I tested HP5 against Delta 3200 in Microphen and chose the latter. As I recall, the grain, with careful development, was actually about the same and 3200 had the edge on shadow detail, since it is natively an ISO 800 film.