HP5Plus and D76 at 1+1

[wintoid]

This is just a little cry of joy from me...

I've less than a year of home development under my belt, and I started from Ilford's beginners instructions, which means that DDX has been my staple developer, and I do love it. I've also spent some time with Rodinal, Diafine and Acutol.

In the time I've been experimenting, I've been looking for a certain classic look, and the only film which has come up with the goods has been TriX. I wanted it to be an Ilford film, but I just did not like the way HP5Plus looked. It seems nothing has the b*llocks of TriX.

I recently mixed up some D76.... 4 gallons of the stuff. Never again I said, this is too complicated, especially with no storage space in a small flat. I started using it with disastrous results. It's been winter, so I've been pushing the 400 films (TriX, HP5, Neopan) to 1600, and DDX would normally do a good job with those, but the stock D76 has done a terrible job.... way too contrasty negatives and ugh I was about to pour the D76 away.

Yesterday I shot a roll of HP5Plus at ISO400, and tried D76 diluted 1+1 for the first time. Finally, something that has the b*llocks of TriX!!!

My question to the floor is.... will I be able to push films and get a similar look too?

Terrible photo, but I'm delighted with the look...

 

[clarence]

Hello,

What are Tri-X b------s, exactly?

Clarence

 

[wintoid]

Hi Clarence,

Punch, grit, something to do with the way the contrast works without losing too much detail... sorry I don't have the vocabulary to describe it properly. Should I say the knee and the shoulder? I don't know.

 

[RayPA]

Nice photo! It has that Tri-X look, that's for sure. I think Tri-X looks great rated at the box and used in situations like this image that I just posted (rated at 400 in D76 1:1). I feel it's got that Tri-X bullocks/stones/kohones (etc.):

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=33141&cat=500&ppuser=1093

I'm not much of a "pusher," Pushing for me has always been a technique of last resort, although I know some here, and others have refined pushing to an artform (usually with Rodinal [see Merciful]). I prefer the right horse for the course. My last foray into pushing TriX to 1600, I wasn't happy with the results: blocked up highlights and funky compressed looking mid tones and shadows.

Maybe Allan (kaiyen) will chime in with some thoughts.


🙂

 

[Toby]

HP5 pulled to 200 can be very nice with D76 1+1. I've never really rated it when I've pushed it (rarely)

 

[markinlondon]

If you're looking for a liquid with similar tonality, Ilfosol-S at 1:9 seems to be identical to 1:1 ID-11/D76 (IMO of course). I wouldn't use it for pushing though, Microphen or DDX are your best bets there. I'd agree with Toby that HP5 looks great at EI200 with either D76 or Ilfosol. Stock D76 at EI400 will give smoother grain, but maintain that punch.

Mark

 

[billwheeler]

I have shot hp5 rated at iso1600 and processed the film in hc110 with excellent results--good sharpness, fine grain, pleasing tonality--but I have no scanned images of this work to post. For the past few months I have been shooting tri-x exclusively, rated at iso320, and like the results a lot. That said, I just bought a dozen rolls of hp5, which I intend to rate at iso400; the ilford film is a little less expensive than tri-x, for one thing, and I'm curious to see how it compares with my recent experience with tri-x film.

 

[titrisol]

you can push with D76/ID11 1+1 BUT grain is going to be gritty.
D76/ID11 lose most of their solvency effects when diluted and become more of accutance developers.

Pushing with diluted D76 has not been recommended due to the grain, DDX does a much better job in that field.

 

[wintoid]

If you're looking for a liquid with similar tonality, Ilfosol-S at 1:9 seems to be identical to 1:1 ID-11/D76 (IMO of course).

Thanks for that opinion. When my D76 is gone, I might try that out.

 

[kaiyen]

My question to the floor is.... will I be able to push films and get a similar look too?

Since Ray put me on the spot 🙂...

First off, I truly, really believe that you can get just about whatever look you want out of any film with the right combination of developer and technique. No, you can't defy physics - TXT is grainier than Pan F Plus, and contrast goes up as you underexpose and overdevelop (and goes down when you do the opposite). But you can get what you want, sure.

For instance, what you're getting in that shot seems to be solid blacks, nice smooth midtones, and a good shoulder. Contrast is nice. Grain seems low, but it's hard to tell at the compressed size. HP5 tends to look a bit creamier to me than TXT, to be honest, and I'm seeing that here, too. So in a way, I would say that your shot does _not_ have the same "balls" of TXT because of that. But that doesn't mean it's a bad shot.

The whole point of pushing - overdevelopment - is to bring up the midtones at the expense of highlights. The underexposure will take care of your deep blacks, and the right developer will give you as much shoulder as you can get, controlling your highlights.

HP5, IMO, doesn't push all that well. By that, I mean that shadow detail disappears and contrast increases really quickly. A film that pushes well retains shadow detail despite the underexposure and doesn't go nuts on the highlights as you overdevelop. However, some people _like_ the contrasty look of HP5 pushed - it _looks_ like pushed film. This is HP5 at 3200 and this is at 1600. Notice that shadow detail has vanished, and the contrast on the 3200 shot is crazy. This is in Microphen, too, which will give an honest 640 out of HP5, btw.

So...if you want something to look like what you got but at 1600+, I would recommend Delta 3200 (if you want to stick with Ilford) shot at 1600. This is at 1600 and this is at 3200. Again, both in Microphen. The 1600 looks almost like normal contrast. At 3200 it's not so bad, either. Grain is way bigger than TXT or HP5, though.

I push film a lot. You use the right film for the job. If you want the pushed look, you can go with HP5 (though I prefer TXT because it's more flexible). If you want the speed but not contrast, shoot Delta 3200 or TMZ.

I can talk a lot more about this 🙂.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Oh yeah - as I said, you should use the right tool for the job. D76, honestly, is not good for pushing. HP5 is starting at like 250-320, and then you're trying to go higher than that. If you start with a speed-increasing developer, like Microphen, which gives you 560-640 out of HP5, then you're in better shape. And it controls highlights better.

The right tool for the right job.
allan

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Great explanation Allan.

Todd

 

[kaiyen]

Here's a semi-useful thread on PN, but only about EI 800:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GBZr

allan

 

[RayPA]

Since Ray put me on the spot 🙂...

...

allan

I knew you'd be up for it!

🙂

 

[wintoid]

Thanks for all the input. Not to seem ungrateful, but I don't personally feel Delta3200 looks much like my HP5 example. Ray's TriX one does, although his has more b*llocks 😀

 

[kaiyen]

NB: I didn't say that Delta 3200 looked like your HP5 example. I said that, shot at 1600, it has almost normal contrast.

allan

 

[wintoid]

Thanks for the clarification Allan, yes I certainly agree with that statement. Based on what you've told me, it sounds like I should definitely save D76 for the times I'm not pushing. That's very helpful, thanks.