david b
film shooter
I've been using HP5+ for a while and really like the film. It seems to do well in both xtol and ID-11, which I use the most.
But I just got a bottle of Ilfotec HC.
I just shot two rolls of HP5+. One was exposed at 250, and the other was at 800.
Both came out thick and contrasty.
The roll exposed at 250 was developed 1+31 for 6.5 minutes and the roll exposed at 800 was developed 1+31 for 9.5 minutes.
First, is this film really 400 speed when developed for 6.5 minutes? And second, is the developing time for 800 slightly long? I am thinking it might be around 8 minutes or so.
Let me know what you think and what your experience is.
Thanks,
david in new mexico
But I just got a bottle of Ilfotec HC.
I just shot two rolls of HP5+. One was exposed at 250, and the other was at 800.
Both came out thick and contrasty.
The roll exposed at 250 was developed 1+31 for 6.5 minutes and the roll exposed at 800 was developed 1+31 for 9.5 minutes.
First, is this film really 400 speed when developed for 6.5 minutes? And second, is the developing time for 800 slightly long? I am thinking it might be around 8 minutes or so.
Let me know what you think and what your experience is.
Thanks,
david in new mexico
markinlondon
Elmar user
Sounds like you're getting more speed than expected out of that combo, David. Is this overexposed or overdeveloped? How are the shadows? I've always thought Ilfotec HC was an exact replacement for HC-110 so about 5 minutes would be indicated for EI400 if you take the HC-110 data.
david b
film shooter
I think it's a combo of overexposed AND over developed. This is going to take a bit of testing, for sure.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Not to sound rude (though I think it's going to sound like it - chalk it up to being sleepy), but it's not whether you _think_ it's overexposed and overdevelopers, it's whether it _is_ either or both. How are your shadows? Do you have areas that don't have density? The 800 should have a lot of missing shadows.
If your shadows look okay (again, with not much density at all in the shadows in the 800), then it's just significant over development. If your shadows have a lot of density, then it's overexposure, too, and you might have to look at your metering technique.
meaning to be helpful,
allan
If your shadows look okay (again, with not much density at all in the shadows in the 800), then it's just significant over development. If your shadows have a lot of density, then it's overexposure, too, and you might have to look at your metering technique.
meaning to be helpful,
allan