Ilford HP-5 in PMK

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

As many of you know, I have been using Gordon Hutching's PMK Pyro film developer a lot over the last few years. I have fallen in love with Ilford FP-4 in PMK, and it is a combination that I'm using for most of my medium format work.

For times when I needed high film speed, I was using Tri-X. Tri-X is great in D-76 1+1, but I don't really like it in PMK. Its too slow, EI-200, in PMK and doesn't give as nice a look at I got with D-76.

I decided to try Ilford HP-5 in PMK. Its ok in D-76, but nothing special. I got a few rolls of HP-5 in 120 size and have completed my tests for developing time and EI in PMK. I am REALLY impressed with it. Speed of HP-5 in PMK comes out as EI-320, same speed I get with Tri-X in D-76, and the Ilford film dries flatter. The tonality of it is just gorgeous in PMK. I've found a new favorite 400 film!

All three of these were shot with the Mamiya 6 with 50mm lens on HP-5 at EI-320. Developing time in PMK is 9 minutes at 75 degrees (24C).

 

[Rogier]

Wow these look awesome!

For me HP5 alway's ended up to contrasty in HC-110.

Can you tell us more about de details of how you developed this film?

 

[Vics]

Looks wonderful, Chris. I'm in the process of shifting over to Ilford FP4 and HP5 myself, so I'll be watching this with interest. Here's one of mine with Lauder Formula 76 (local D-76 liquid) on FP-4+.

Bordeaux6 by Victor Ross, on Flickr

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Rogier,

I use PMK, which is available in premixed liquid stock solutions from Photographers Formulary. Freestyle and B&H sell the Photographers Formulary stuff too. Its an unusual developer. It has two stock solutions and you use one part Solution A, 2 parts solution B, and 100 parts water. I use distilled water because PMK is sensitive to water quality.

This stuff is more toxic than most developers; wear gloves when working with it. It can absorb through your skin.

The developing regimen is different too, because PMK has a tendency to cause streaking and mottling on film if it is not agitated vigorously. You need to agitate first minute, then every 15 seconds invert the tank twice. This should be done fairly vigorously.

Don't use acid stop bath. PMK is a staining developer. A lot of the image is made of a yellowish stain. This is what gives the very smooth tonality and ability to separate subtle tones that PMK is famous for. Using Acid stop bath reduces the stain. Same with most fixers. Use an alkaline fixer. I use Photographers Formulary TF4 fixer. Freestyle and B&H sell it too.

Its a pain to use PMK because of the specialized procedures and chemicals, but is absolutely worth it. Here's some other film examples done in PMK:

Ilford FP-4

Ilford FP-4

Ilford FP-4

Kodak Tmax 400

Fuji Acros 100

I have developing times and film speeds on my website's tech pages

 

[Vics]

Excellent results with thez PMK in the fog and low contrast situations!

 

[Rogier]

Thanks Chris for your generous sharing of knowledge :angel::angel::angel:

 

[oftheherd]

Nice photos as always Chirs. I haven't tried HP5 with PMK, I'll have to try that. I have always like the drying characteristics of ilford film.

 

[shadowfox]

Stunning!!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Excellent results with thez PMK in the fog and low contrast situations!

Thanks. I love photographing fog, which is why I originally tried PMK a few years ago. PMK is claimed to give better rendering of fog than any other developer, and my experience is that YES, it is true, especially with FP-4.

 

[Fotohuis]

These results are really good if not excellent!

In Europe it is easy to get PMK via Labo Argentique in France or use FINOL from Moersch in Germany.

Easy to get in the Netherlands too 🙂

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here's another one on HP5 developed in PMK!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here's another shot from Ilford HP5 developed in PMK Pyro. PMK is said to be a great developer for foggy scenes, and my experience with it on Ilford FP4 was great, so I decided to try it with HP5 for this scene.

 

[mfogiel]

All this looks darn sharp, but the skies are pure white. I had similar problems with Prescysol EF - wonderful tonality in mid tones and shadows, but even with a red filter, the skies were white - and down here, the sky is really blue! This is why I stopped using it.
My impression is, that you are pushing the contrast too much, FWIW, you could be shooting digital. I find Tri X in D76 1+1 a good benchmark for film - if you are too far away from this, ask yourself why.

 

[Kenj8246]

Stunning!!

Agree with Will on this one. Care to share how you exposed this one?

Kenny

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

All this looks darn sharp, but the skies are pure white. I had similar problems with Prescysol EF - wonderful tonality in mid tones and shadows, but even with a red filter, the skies were white - and down here, the sky is really blue! This is why I stopped using it.
My impression is, that you are pushing the contrast too much, FWIW, you could be shooting digital. I find Tri X in D76 1+1 a good benchmark for film - if you are too far away from this, ask yourself why.

The skies here ARE white. I live in the middle of the North American continent, not the Mediterranean coast. More often than not, the skies here are solid, featureless white because of the extreme overcast conditions that we have so often. The photo you are complaining about was shot in heavy fog, for Christ's sake.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Agree with Will on this one. Care to share how you exposed this one?

Kenny

I exposed it like I do every photo. Used a spot meter to measure the darkest area I wanted detail in, which was the left side of the radio, and set the exposure for Zone III (two stops less than the meter read). The exposure required for that was long enough for reciprocity failure to be an issue. I think the final, adjusted exposure was 4 seconds, but I can't remember for sure. I never write down that stuff.

 

[Bruno Gracia]

Kudos for this thread, You're a master!

 

[jwicaksana]

I exposed it like I do every photo. Used a spot meter to measure the darkest area I wanted detail in, which was the left side of the radio, and set the exposure for Zone III (two stops less than the meter read). The exposure required for that was long enough for reciprocity failure to be an issue. I think the final, adjusted exposure was 4 seconds, but I can't remember for sure. I never write down that stuff.

Very useful for me, thanks for sharing, Chris.

 

[redisburning]

nice shots.

do you have any acros examples? also, can you compare generally to Xtol? I need all new chemicals and wouldnt mind the hassle of PMK if it gave the results I want. Im especially interested to know what it does to skin tones.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

nice shots.

do you have any acros examples? also, can you compare generally to Xtol? I need all new chemicals and wouldnt mind the hassle of PMK if it gave the results I want. Im especially interested to know what it does to skin tones.

I only have one Acros example on my site. I like how it looks, though. I don't shoot Acros often, but it seems nice in PMK. I usually develop it in Rodinal, so I can't compare to Xtol.

Here's the Acros in PMK photo:

I shot it at EI-64 and developed in PMK for 10 minutes at 75 degrees (24C) with the normal PMK dilution (1+2+100). The light in this one is unusual because the light was fading at the end of the day. The exposure was several seconds long, but I don't remember the exact exposure.

I have several rolls of Acros lying around that are now outdated. I should shoot them before they really go bad and see some more how it looks in PMK.