HP5+ problem with HC-110?

[Leigh Youdale]

My thought is this was probably under-exposed and over-developed, resulting in what appears to be very high contrast.

I'd agree with Chris. The overdevelopment will block up the shadows and accentuate the grain. I have no knowledge of HC-110, but I do know that, for me, Rodinal 1+50 produces an undesirable grain in HP5+ even when the exposure is correct and I prefer to use DD-X or ID-11 (D76) with that film.

 

[jordanstarr]

....there's good shadow detail in the last shot, but the other two are underexposed and overdeveloped for sure. Temperature could have definately played a part, especially if you're getting the heat-wave we're having at a whooping 37 degrees celsius today. Your agitation method seems pretty sound, so it was either temperature or too high concentrate of developer. I'd dilute it to a Dilution B anyway and run a test on a scene with shadows and a white towel to gauge this combination if you plan on shooting HP5. Otherwise, stock up on Neopan 400 if that's what is working for you. No need to switch if this works for you.

 

[charjohncarter]

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.

No, I still think it is a functional error by the developer/photographer. Let's find it.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Again, I am going back to your initial statement that your process worked well with Neopan 400 but not with HP5+. There should be no difference changing Neopan 400 for HP5. My experience, the Fuji data sheet, the Ilford HP5 data sheet, the Kodak HC110 data sheet all support that.

Did you develop the 4 rolls of HP5 all at the same time? Or, was this 4 different processing runs?

You seem to be off in the non-standard world at this point. Something has changed. You are much better determining what changed rather than trying to compensate for it.

 

[Brian Legge]

I had highlight issues with that pair. Trix was great but with hp5 my highlights were consistently blown.

I eventually settled on shooting it at 250 and really preferred those results. I think I was relying heavily on the compression of the curve with trix.

 

[charjohncarter]

Again, I am going back to your initial statement that your process worked well with Neopan 400 but not with HP5+. There should be no difference changing Neopan 400 for HP5. My experience, the Fuji data sheet, the Ilford HP5 data sheet, the Kodak HC110 data sheet all support that.

Did you develop the 4 rolls of HP5 all at the same time? Or, was this 4 different processing runs?

You seem to be off in the non-standard world at this point. Something has changed. You are much better determining what changed rather than trying to compensate for it.

Right, I see he is from Washington state so my Euro drift is wrong. He is doing something wrong. He has to check camera, dilution accuracy, temp, agitation, time, and maybe use sunny sixteen for a roll with a different camera.

After all is done: do you think you are the first person that has use HC-110(b) with HP5+ in the world? No, and many use it for this film, it is your process.

 

[kknox]

Thanks for the coments & tips. I will check the process & temps, must be my fault. Maybe the Neopan is a little more forgiving with the variations.

 

[timor]

Thanks for the coments & tips. I will check the process & temps, must be my fault. Maybe the Neopan is a little more forgiving with the variations.

Are You insisting on using this combo ? HP5 and HC110 ? Isn't it an uphill battle ? HP5 will be always to grainy and to contrasty with HC110. Why don't You try Tmax developer or Edwal FG7 or Stoeckler two bath ?

 

[Ljós]

Are You insisting on using this combo ? HP5 and HC110 ? Isn't it an uphill battle ? HP5 will be always to grainy and to contrasty with HC110. Why don't You try Tmax developer or Edwal FG7 or Stoeckler two bath ?

HP5 with HC-110 is most definitely not an uphill battle - many see this combination as a staple, with very good tonality. It is true that HP5 with HC-110 is grainier than Tri-x with HC-110, but not massively so, and the difference in look is subjective: for many it is just the ticket, others go for another look.

As for "always too contrasty": if you wanted to, you could make pancake flat negatives with HP5 and HC-110. Just as you could with other films.

All the best, Ljós

 

[timor]

HP5 with HC-110 is most definitely not an uphill battle

Maybe it is, if Kknox is asking this questions. HC110 is a very strong developer and with such many things can go wrong. One will need a lot of own experimentation, not just to follow someone else's . I just proposed alternatives for HP5. Stoeckler for that matter does not have any specific process. 5 min. in metol with constant agitation, 5 min. in borax stand. HC110 is beaten in every department with an exception maybe in economy.
Don't get me wrong. I am using HC110. But I am also using a lot of other stuff too and just compare.