HP5+ problem with HC-110?

[kknox]

Hi I have processed many rolls of Neopan 400/1600 film with HC-110 @5 min with great results. So I picked up the HP5+ 2 for one special that has been running. It says to develp that film in HC-110 for 5 min also. I do the same thing & the photos turn out with lots more grain & look like they are all over exposed. The photos I took in bright sun are the worst. I have done 4 rolls & all the same results. Some of the photos are so washed out I cant save them, maybe what Im trying to say is the detail in the bright shots is washed out, with lots more grain. The ones in the lower light look fine. I have used the same camera with both the Neopan & HP5+ film.
Do I need to develop the HP5+ longer than 5 min @ dilution B? Please let me know, as I have lots of this film to shoot. Have never had this problem with Neopan. Thanks everyone.

 

[illuminati_02]

I use the digital truth massive dev chart times for about everything.
The new HP5+ I have gotten I have been developing in ID11 for 7.5 and it has turned out well, but previously I was using HC-110 and the dev chart shows dilution B for 5 min.
I do not remember ever having any issues.
So, no answers from me except that usually works fine.
Sorry.

 

[jordanstarr]

...if it looks over exposed and grainy, it's 'cause you're pushing the film beyond 400 ISO, which is adding contrast, grain and more density. You can shorten your time or use Dil.B. If Neopan is working for you, just stick with it...why switch over?
I use a seasoned HC-110 Developer with Dilution B in a dip n' dunk method at 8-9 minutes and 68 and it works like gold.

 

[pschauss]

5 minutes in HC-110 dilution b sounds reasonably close. I get good results with 11:00 in dilution H (half of dilution B).

 

[FrankS]

I regularly use dilution H for 10 minutes, and 100:1 for 20 minutes with HP5+.

 

[tlitody]

personally I didn't like HP5 and HC110 for 35mm. For 4x5 its great.

 

[jordanstarr]

...you're gonna have a hundred people on here with 100 different ways to develop this film with that developer. You'll just have to run a test roll and cut it into 3rds and find that time that works for you. But 5 minutes doesn't give you a lot of room to play with, so I'd consider Dilution B, which will expand you time and will be more forgiving. Then try 5, 7 and 9 minutes and see which looks that best for you.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Hi I have processed many rolls of Neopan 400/1600 film with HC-110 @5 min with great results. So I picked up the HP5+ 2 for one special that has been running. It says to develp that film in HC-110 for 5 min also. I do the same thing & the photos turn out with lots more grain & look like they are all over exposed. .............. Do I need to develop the HP5+ longer than 5 min @ dilution B? Please let me know, as I have lots of this film to shoot. Have never had this problem with Neopan. Thanks everyone.

Something is not sounding right here. I have shot many bricks of HP5+ when Neopan 400 was not available. I metered them the same, developed in HC-110 Dil. H the same and the two films were indistinguishable.

I think something has changed in your processes. I would bet if you exposed a roll of Neopan 400 and immediately a roll of HP5+, then developed them in the same tank, they would look identical. I would recommend doing that to convince yourself there is no difference in the films and to find out if your problem is continuing or was a one time.

 

[Ljós]

I am with Bob Michaels (and others) on this one. I have developed about 150 rolls of HP5 plus with Dil. B. at 5:30minutes (exposed at 400), and they printed nicely. HP5 does have "bigger" grain than the "new" Tri-X, and also, to my eyes, than Neopan 400. But the difference is not earthshattering, and the different look is subtle.

So I agree with Bob that something in your chain is off.
Now there is the general admonishment to avoid development times in the 5 minutes (and shorter) region, because of the inherently greater risk of process error. In my experience reasonable advice per se, but all in all out of about 400 rolls developed at 5:30 minutes I feel there is not one roll that I either "cooked" or seriously underdeveloped.

How do you check the temperature? If you developed HP5 for 5 minutes at, say, 24 degrees Celsius.... I could see how that would give grainier results than you like.

Hope you can figure this out! HP5 is a great film, and I think it is a very good match with HC-110.

Greetings, Ljós

 

[1948nikon]

Sounds like the temp was way too high.

 

[charjohncarter]

Check your camera too. Is the battery fresh, ISO setting correct, or is the shutter and diaphragm operating properly? Also is the dilution right, you have used B before so probably not that? Be sure if it is a new bottle of HC 110 that it is not the Euro version or vise versa.

 

[kknox]

I will try again tonnight, with a longer developing time. Thanks everyone for the help. The ones below are an example, of the wahed out look. The 3rd one is not to bad.

 

[kknox]

 

[kknox]

 

[FrankS]

I'm thinking that a longer development time is not the way to go. The shadow detail looks good, how about less agitation? (What agitation did you use BTW?)

 

[kknox]

First 30 seconds, then every min for about 10 seconds.

 

[ChrisN]

Frank - do you call that good shadow detail? I'd have said the opposite!

My thought is this was probably under-exposed and over-developed, resulting in what appears to be very high contrast. For some real answers you'll need to make a proper proof contact sheet. (also see http://www.shrani.si/f/1x/HV/1NqS4Wgw/btmaking-contact-with-cu.pdf)

 

[Rob-F]

I think HC110 is too active for 35mm, especially with ISO 400 films. There are better developers for this. I prefer D-76, D-DX, or XTOL for example.

 

[bukaj]

I've developed a couple of rolls of HP5 with HC-110 (dil H, 10min) and I too thought they were washed out and looked underdeveloped in comparison to tri-x negatives. But the prints turned out fine, so I never gave it much thought after that.

 

[FrankS]

Chris, you're right. I was looking at the last car pic, and under the car - the far wheel and below the bumper, the tones look good, but in the top car pic, the shadow beneath the car is soot. But we agree that more development is not the answer.