Ilford HP5+ in D76 turns out grainy, why?

[Waterman100]

I used Ilford HP5 Plus for the first time a few weeks ago for a trip to the Fallingwater. To my surprise, all images turn out very grainy and flat. I would like to know why. This is an image straight from Vuescan:



Ilford's instruction for D-76 [1+1] at 68F is 11 mins. The temp I used was 66F, and so I increased processing time to 12:15, following Freestyle Photo's Time and Temp Adjustment Chart.

Ilford's suggested agitation method is 4 inversions during the first 10 secs, then 4 X inversion again during first 10 sec for each following minutes. I had thought the inversion rate was slow, but I did it anyways.

Scanning was done with Coolscan V ED and Vuescan.

Compare with the results I normally get from Neopan 400 or Tri-X, the HP5 images I got were much flatter and therefore, after adjustments with curves, they turn out much more contrasty and lack tonal range than I'd like (see image below). The amount of graininess also puzzles me.

What did I do wrong? Many thanks for the help.

 

[dovi]

Over exposure and over development, i think.

 

[andredossantos]

Yes looks overexposed to me as well. How are you metering your scenes?

 

[Rhoyle]

Did you scan it as a bw negative or a color slide? I just tried scanning as a color slide (PX125 in Tmax) manually adjusting levels in the negative, inverting to positive, manually readjusting levels again and I got much better results than scanning as a bw negative. Coolscan V with Vuescan as well.

 

[Brian Legge]

I do find HP5 to be on the grainier side personally. I wasn't happy with the tones until I started shooting it at 250 (though I've seen people push it with good results here - so perhaps I just never really figured out how to shoot/develop it at 400)

 

[Rhoyle]

Bring up the histogram in levels. Slide the left adjuster to the right, beyond the clipping spike on the left and stop where the graph begins to rise. Slide the center adjuster to the right until you get the proper exposure. See if that works.

 

[Bob Michaels]

...................... Compare with the results I normally get from Neopan 400 or Tri-X, the HP5 images I got were much flatter .....................

I suspect you are drawing an erroneous comparison from film on one shoot developed at one time. I shot Neopan 400 for about 8 years, with two different six month times when I shot a number of bricks of HP5. And I have been shooting Tri-X for the last 8 months or so. I find them all to close to identical. I have never changed developer, developing technique or exposure technique all that time, only film.

I suggest you shoot some more HP5 and developing exactly the same way you do Neopan and Tri-X. I strongly suspect your negs will look the same.

 

[guoshuo]

I suggest you adjust the exposure setting in vuescan. The noise seems more digital to me.
edited: like Bob said, these films are too close and tolerable to be distinguished.

 

[bensyverson]

Pardon my edit, but:

after adjustments with curves, they turn out much more contrasty and lack tonal range than I'd like

So when you make it too contrasty, it gets too contrasty? 😉

My non-smart-ass reason for writing is to echo Rhoyle's comment about scanning as a color slide. That's really the "best" way to scan anything on a Coolscan, because they just can't handle negatives at all. The firmware is complete s#!t, and there's no hope for an update.

Beyond "scan it as a color slide," there are two additional things you can do. First: set your analog gain so that your highlights aren't reading as pure black in VueScan (use VueScan, not Nikon Scan). Second: set one of your channels to a much, much higher analog gain, in order to read into the deepest highlights.

For example, with HP5, my analog gain is Red: 2.75; Green: 2.75; Blue: 8.0. That will produce a very blue image, but once you invert it and convert it to grayscale, you'll have 100% of the negative's latitude in one pass.

As for grain, HP5 is not a tabular grain film, and it's 400 speed. I like its "classic" grain, but if you want less grain, there are better options.

Here's an example shot on TMAX100. I've added a great deal of contrast back to this image, but believe me when I say the scan has detail in both the coat and the sky... HP5 should be no different, just grainier.

 

[filmfan]

Hexar AF? I see the notch in the left (edit: right) side 😀

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Quote: Ilford's instruction for D-76 [1+1] at 68F is 11 mins. The temp I used was 66F, and so I increased processing time to 12:15, following Freestyle Photo's Time and Temp Adjustment Chart.
Ilford's suggested agitation method is 4 inversions during the first 10 secs, then 4 X inversion again during first 10 sec for each following minutes. I had thought the inversion rate was slow, but I did it anyways. Quote.

The Massive Development Chart gives a time of 13 minutes @ 20C. You processed @ 19C for 12:15 mins but the time/temperature conversion puts the required time at about 14 minutes. On that basis you were about 2 minutes short, or 15% approximately.
That would support the comments others made about underdevelopment.

 

[sepiareverb]

I always find it takes me several rolls of any new film to settle into how I need to expose and develop it. I had several images on some of my first rolls of the Rollei Ortho film that I really loved the look of, but that film took me forever to really get enough of a handle on that I can now use it as comfortably as I use HP5+. By contrast, the Adox 100 and Eastman XX were quite simple for me to figure out.

In these scan only times I'm not sure how one would pin down a 'proper' exposure and development time for their workflow. Looking at the original scan I'd say you needed more time and more agitation- both of which would likely add grain. I would suggest DD-X 1:4 or Studionol (now found as RO9 Spezial) 1:15 as a developer for HP5+, I find that these minimize the appearance of grain with this film yet still deliver good contrast. Note that I don't scan film, so these may not be the best recommendations for your situation.

 

[250swb]

The only thing the top photo needs is some post processing, I can't really see much else thats wrong with it. All the tones are there, it should take all of ten seconds in Photoshop to make it better than the one below.

In fact the top image could be used as a perfect example of what a good scan should look like, every tone is present and not over or under exposed. If you start with a flat image the tools in Photoshop are far more powerful and effective than trying to make a scan as if was your final image.

Ten seconds in Photoshop

 

[Pirate]

" it should take all of ten seconds in Photoshop to make it better "

What if he wants to make a real print of it in the dark room?

 

[bensyverson]

" it should take all of ten seconds in Photoshop to make it better "

What if he wants to make a real print of it in the dark room?

Then why is he asking about scanning?

Honestly, the scan Waterman100 posted is totally blown out in the highlights. It's easy to bring the midtones back to a reasonable place without crushing the blacks, but the highlights are gone. I guarantee there's more info in the negative, so a re-scan that prioritizes highlights should do the trick...

 

[250swb]

My modified image posted above is made from the lighter and flatter image from the top of the thread. It shows the highlights are fully intact and it was perhaps the clumsy use of Photoshop that blew them out in the second of the OP's images.

Pirate, if anybody wants to make a silver bromide print in the darkroom from a digital file there are companies that are able to make a digital negative. Indeed I think you can buy materials to make a digital negative with your ink jet printer.

Steve

 

[bensyverson]

The highlights are definitely not intact in the top image... There are giant areas of pure white. The problem is definitely in the scanning.

 

[Highway 61]

I suggest you shoot some more HP5 and developing exactly the same way you do Neopan and Tri-X. I strongly suspect your negs will look the same.

What he said 100%.

You also might want to go for continuous inversion during the first minute, then five-six inversions each minute, to get a slightly more punchy result, but I wouldn't change anything else. If properly exposed, there is no reason not to like HP5+ which is one of the two best classic grain 400 ISO films remaining on the market.

Always scan as a colour positive film in 16bits TIFF format so that your scanner captures the most from the negative, then work on the file in PhotoShop.

 

[Nokton48]

The only thing the top photo needs is some post processing, I can't really see much else thats wrong with it. All the tones are there, it should take all of ten seconds in Photoshop to make it better than the one below.

In fact the top image could be used as a perfect example of what a good scan should look like, every tone is present and not over or under exposed. If you start with a flat image the tools in Photoshop are far more powerful and effective than trying to make a scan as if was your final image.

Ten seconds in Photoshop

Bingo!

And, you are standing in the right spot 😎 I've been to Falling Water four times, myself. What a cool place.

 

[KenR]

I agree with Highway 61 that the developing proceedures that most people use for D-76 is different than the poster states. I use continuous aggitation for 30 seconds and then 5 turns and twists every minute. As stated, this may be harsher than Ilford's method, but it is quite consistant. You may have to adjust the total development time to your liking.