Ilford hp5 is finer grain possible?

J

jbrubaker

Established
Local time
7:48 PM
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
141
I just developed a roll of hp5+ using d76 1:1 as I used to do years ago for tri-x. I am surprised at how grainy the negs are - more than I remembered from a few years back when I shot film. Is there a way to use Ilford hp5 and get a more moderate grain? thanks, john.
 
Properly exposed at 400 and developed in D76 1+1 @20C, HP5+ is not particularly grainy. It depends on what you call "grainy".

Using Perceptol and exposing at 200 will reduce grain, but quite marginally, at the cost of one f-stop lost and very low contrast.
 
Perceptol does clearly reduce the grain in my experience but with some lack of sharpness. The flip side of lowered contrast and lowered grain is a beautiful tonal range.

I've tried Ilfosol 3 with HP5 rated at 400 and really liked the overall result. It's now my first choice for HP5 and Delta 100 at box speed. Pushing by one stop gives good results with marginal increase in grain. Pushing two stops when using Ilfosol 3 is unwise. Thin negs result with massive loss in shadow detail.

HP5 in DDX works well but I tend to reserve this for it rated at 800 and above (mainly 1600). DDX doesn't have the same acuity that I like about my results with Ilfosol 3.
 
At box speed, HP5+ in HC-110 is like 'buttah.' Dilution B works although a lot of folks opt for Dilution H for longer dev time.
 
Jumping off of Keith's comment, I just scanned a roll that I developed in HC-110 Dil H, and I'm quite happy with the results, specifically w.r.t. grain.

5brpgbO.jpg

wfPAIeI.jpg


The roll was exposed at ISO 400, and developing was at 20°C for 11 min w/ inversions every 1.5 min.
 
Last edited:
kxl said:
At box speed, HP5+ in HC-110 is like 'buttah.' Dilution B works although a lot of folks opt for Dilution H for longer dev time.
Click to expand...

I don't use dilution H but do love B with HP5 at box speed. I wet print with an Ilford MG head which is a diffusion source and I'm really happy with tonality and minimal grain. 8x12 prints don't show any noticeable grain.

To get the best results, as always it's important to expose and develop properly. Bad exposures and processing give bad results.
 
Ive made this comment several times that film wasn't designed to scan. Film is dedigned to wet print so results are going to look different if scanned. Most consumer scanners like Plustek, Epson, Nikon use a hard LED light source that exagerate grain where as pro scanners like Imacon, creo Kodak eversmart, Fuji Finescan such as the Lanovia Quattro all have cold cathode lights that soften grain.
 
FWIW, I've found HP5+ to be astonishingly low grain in Caffenol-C-H(RS). Being a homebrew developer it may not be something you're interested in, but it can work well with this film. I can post samples if you like.
 
I switched from D-76 to Xtol and see noticeably less grain.
I scan with a plustek.
There's a small increase in speed also. I shoot at 400 and get better shadow detail.
 
Perks said:
I switched from D-76 to Xtol and see noticeably less grain.
I scan with a plustek.
There's a small increase in speed also. I shoot at 400 and get better shadow detail.
Click to expand...

I think the least amount of grain I've ever had with any film has been with Xtol. Amazing stuff! :)
 
Thanks for all the replies. Since I do have a bottle of HC110, I will try that next. I have used Xtol in the past with good results, but only with tri-x. Caffenol sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about consistancy with home mixed developers. regards, john.
 
You could shoot Delta 400, TMAX 400 or C41 process Ilford XP2 Super for extremely fine grained 400 speed films.

As another commenter noted, most scanners accentuate the grain. What would be a very fine grained image in the darkroom is much grainier in a scan.
 
I really like Agfa Studionol for HP5+ at box speed. Now available as R09 Spezial from Compard. DD-X also seems to give less pronounced grain, and +1 on HC-110b.

These are my three developers of choice for HP5+ in no particular order.

I only wet print film however, so do not see grain in the same fashion.
 
Not only developer influences the grain, the lens does too, believe it or not. I've found out that when scanning Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 negatives (Tmax400) you'll get a finer grain than when scanning Summicron 50mm f/2 negatives on the same film.

However, on wet prints (made with a Focomat IIc) there is no such difference visible.

Erik.
 
x-ray said:
Ive made this comment several times that film wasn't designed to scan. Film is dedigned to wet print so results are going to look different if scanned. Most consumer scanners like Plustek, Epson, Nikon use a hard LED light source that exagerate grain where as pro scanners like Imacon, creo Kodak eversmart, Fuji Finescan such as the Lanovia Quattro all have cold cathode lights that soften grain.
Click to expand...

Right on!
Take any negative and print in darkroom.
Hardly any grain! Some "grain" is slight reticulation,
if chemicals and was water not same temperature.
 
kevin_v said:
Jumping off of Keith's comment, I just scanned a roll that I developed in HC-110 Dil H, and I'm quite happy with the results, specifically w.r.t. grain.

5brpgbO.jpg

wfPAIeI.jpg


The roll was exposed at ISO 400, and developing was at 20°C for 11 min w/ inversions every 1.5 min.
Click to expand...

Very nice results, and thanks for the dev time tip. HC 110 dil. h is one of my two go-to developers (the other is Diafine). Will try it with some HP5 soon.
 
I prefer a longer tonal range vs "fine grain". Barry Thorntons book "edge of darkness" is a great read and demonstrates well how grain = perceived sharpness. In digital terms I would look at what sharpness or clarity sliders do.....they increase "digital grain". If you're shooting hp5 anywhere from 200-800 you should get some nice grain and if developed in a developer that gives a full tonal range, you will have plenty of options to increase your contrast in digital or wet print.
 
My friend Timothy Briner shot his Boonville project mostly on HP5 (and FP4). It was shot on a mix of 4x5 and 120 film, but I processed all of it in HC110, mostly dilution B. You can see the work at http://timothybriner.com/boonville

Ok, this is larger film than 35mm, but it shows what's possible. It looks pretty good in 35mm, too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom