HP5 Plus- Under Fixed or Under Developed?

[Jacob Hamby]

I've been trying to teach myself to shoot/develop BW film and I've hit a bit of a road block. I wonder if you all could give me some advice. I've shot three rolls of Ilford HP5 Plus. All have come out cloudy, as you can see in the linked images. I apologize for the poor scans- I'm tackling my problems one at a time here.

https://www.box.com/s/cwq9hv5cdra9x4lw8h3w

https://www.box.com/s/vhxamn1mgn4s69jvrw9z

I thought my built in (Canon FTb) light meter was off, but when I approximated my exposure using sunny 16 and shot five stops over/under, the roll still came out with the same cloudy result. I thought maybe I had a light leak so I took my changing bag in a pitch black room, but still came out with the same results.

I've been reading that cloudiness can be symtom of underdevelopment or under fixing. I've been developing in DDX for 9 min. at 68 degrees with three minutes in IlfoFix, per Ilford's recommendation for HP5 Plus.

Any ideas what my next move should be?

Thanks,

Jacob

 

[Clint Troy]

Definitely underfixed.

 

[Papercut]

I think so too.

OP: put them back in the fix and do it again but for longer -- if the negs aren't processed ages ago, you should be able to re-fix them and they should clear. When my fix was exhausted last summer, I didn't notice it for several days (hung them up and then had no time to scan so I didn't notice the minor cloudiness in some frames). Re-fixed and the roll is fine.

Definitely underfixed.

 

[Mcary]

My suggestion would be to double your fix time to 6 minutes. I usually open the and take a quick look at the 1 minute to go mark if everything looks good I dump the fixer at the scheduled 6 minute mark. If the film still a little foggy I let it sit in the fixer for a few more minutes**. If its really foggy I'll let it sit while I mix up a new fresh batch of fixer and then refix using the new batch.
** Means last roll(s) for that fixer time to mix a new batch.

The way I look at it the film has to hang to dry for 3-4 hours before I can scan it so what's an extra few minutes to make sure its properly fixed

 

[Jacob Hamby]

Wow, thanks for the all the input. I did try to re-fix one of the negatives, but it was kind of a half hearted attempt because I thought it had been too long since development (apparently not since it had only been a matter of hours). I'm going to develop another roll tomorrow and double my fixing time as suggested.

 

[Jacob Hamby]

Does anyone have a link to a what a correct negative should look like? As inexperienced as I am, I can't really tell if it's cloudy until I scan and invert.

 

[Papercut]

Jacob,

I can't find any good examples off hand on the web. The main thing is that when properly fixed the film base (the edges / sprocket and the densest shadows in the image) should be clear, though it may have an overall tint. Your second example looks much better than the first. The first is milky, cloudy, and opaque. The second looks much more transparent and, hence, closer to being properly fixed.

Does anyone have a link to a what a correct negative should look like? As inexperienced as I am, I can't really tell if it's cloudy until I scan and invert.

 

[mike rosenlof]

It's very difficult to say exactly what the issue is without some calibration on the scans. To get an idea of a good looking neg, find a good quality B/W photo on the web. One of Ansel Adams, or any other good looking photo. Download the image and use photoshop or gimp an invert it. That will give you a good idea of what a good neg will look like. You should have texture detail in the shadow areas that "should" have detail and also in the highlight areas that also "should" have detail. Getting a feel for those "should" comes from experience, but that's what you can start to look for.

Ilford's recommendations for developing film have historically been for a condenser enlarger. For scanning, or if you're doing wet darkroom with a diffusion enlarger (like a colorhead), you might want to develop by another 10 or 15%. Temperature control is a good thing, or at least good temperature measurement. The tables that Ilford publishes for dev time correction vs. temperature are a good guide. Poke around their web site if you haven't found them.

You can overfix film, but it takes several tens of minutes, 10, or 15 minutes is not going to hurt your film. I fix all films for 10 minutes, and dilute fixer more for the "slow fixer" times rather than the "rapid fixer" times. On the ilford bottle, that would be the greater of the dilutions they recommend.

Modern B/W neg film, like HP5+ can take a lot of overexposure and a little underexposure.

In your scans, the second and third frames (from the left) have little detail in the foreground. I would call them underexposed. The frames at the far left and the far right have the best detail in the foreground. One of those two was probably the best exposure.

You don't need to learn the Zone System to make good B/W prints, but if you understand the idea of "expose for the shadows" it helps a lot. Modern films have such a wide range that "develop for the highlights" is less critical than classic Zone System technique. There are several good references on the web, and probably at a local library. You don't have to do all of the calibration that the ZS calls for, but an idea of the general concepts is a great starting point.

 

[yossarian123]

Does anyone have a link to a what a correct negative should look like? As inexperienced as I am, I can't really tell if it's cloudy until I scan and invert.

http://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm

Have you ruled out your camera yet? Your shutter speeds could be a few stops too fast. Something to think about once you rule out all of the developing suggestions.

 

[bensyverson]

It looks like the base is pretty purple... That happens to HP5 when it's underfixed.

With that said, it shouldn't matter too much for scanning. You can always bump the contrast.

 

[Jacob Hamby]

The second looks much more transparent and, hence, closer to being properly fixed.

It's the same image, one is the inversion of the other.

In your scans, the second and third frames (from the left) have little detail in the foreground. I would call them underexposed. The frames at the far left and the far right have the best detail in the foreground. One of those two was probably the best exposure.

On this roll I was just working through my stops systematically to ensure I got one properly exposed frame, as well to try and see zones changing with each stop. I have been reading up on the zone system and was trying to keep it in mind while shooting.

And that's a great idea to invert an Ansel Adams shot, really appreciate that bit of advice.

Have you ruled out your camera yet? Your shutter speeds could be a few stops too fast. Something to think about once you rule out all of the developing suggestions.

I thought it was my camera at first, but after doing three rolls I'm confident that it's not the camera.

 

[Photo_Smith]

This is what B&W film should look like...

The top roll is overexposed and the bottom under.

From the shots you've posted it's impossible to tell what the fault is as they are scans, you need to shoot the negatives with a digicam for us to tell what's happening the scan could pretty much change everything.

I've even seen people use document scanners without a TPU and wonder what they're doing wrong, the second row look as if you've done just that-scanned them on a flatbed sans TPU.

 

[the.ronin]

Photo_Smith, thank you!! My film looks nothing like that LOL.

Jacob Hamby, thank you very much for starting this post. As a beginner myself, my head has been spinning trying to figure out which of the umteen steps I may have botched ... and that doesn't include botching the fixer which I thought was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Alrighty then the adventure continues! lol

 

[Jacob Hamby]

I've even seen people use document scanners without a TPU and wonder what they're doing wrong, the second row look as if you've done just that-scanned them on a flatbed sans TPU.

Guys, I apologize. I'm a doofus. I did my homework on transparency scanning adapters and picked up an Epson V370. I'm all squared away now.

https://www.box.com/s/nuwbue9pmkhx2y4fao58