Ilford HP5+ revisited.

Yummy Good Antonio, Playfully Sublime !
That 35 cron asph renders Beautifully with hp5/D76

Oh Wow Stewart , you just snuck that Photo in
A Classic, Beautiful, Love it !

HP5 shown here is soooooo Good, its all I thought it would be & Better
 
Emily and Karen near Hana, Maui in March 2014.

HP5, e.i. 200, HC-110 (clone by Legacy Pro) 1:50 11 Min 18 deg C.

med_U34820I1409232348.SEQ.0.jpg
 
After a lot of trial and error I finally found out how to do 35mm HP5+ in Rodinal 1+50, ISO 400, 20C, 11mins. First, you need at least 500ml of diluted Rodinal per roll. Never place two rolls in the same tank (don't even ask..). Agitate slowly for the first 30 secs and then just one *slow* insertion every minute. Last 3-4 minutes let the tank stand still.

10742426374_1abc0ca6b2_b.jpg
 
Sometimes i get that when fixer is exhausted so the film isn't as clear, resulting in the scanner got blocked and tries to increase exposure, showing more grain?
Other than that, underexpose the scene and brightness increased by scanner also cause that.
I do see more grains in HP5 than arista premium but not to this degree.

helenhill_HH said:
Grain-acious... me and HP5 :eek:...:eek:
perhaps' other worldly' atmosphere but since I have 20 more rolls I would like to get it right
Click to expand...
 
helenhill_HH said:
Yummy Good Antonio, Playfully Sublime !
That 35 cron asph renders Beautifully with hp5/D76

Oh Wow Stewart , you just snuck that Photo in
A Classic, Beautiful, Love it !

HP5 shown here is soooooo Good, its all I thought it would be & Better
Click to expand...

... I discovered only last month that the girl in the first photo has just had her second child ... I think hp5 has got better over the years, Roger will be along shortly to tell me I'm fudging it but it works quite well in id11 in practice ... more time = more speed and contrast
 
Michael Markey said:
I guess I`m very much the odd man out in this in that I don`t enjoy trying different films and developers .

Maybe its because I shot K64 for thirty years .

If I am going to develop a film I want something which is straight forward with a reasonably predictable outcome.
Click to expand...

Not really, I know a few people who shoot just one film and develop using the same formula, there's something to be said for consistency.
I used to try tons of films, slowly settling now.

I never found TriX to be that special really, I enjoy HP5 much more and I'd much rather support Ilford than Kodak
 
While I use other films, HP5 is my first choice and most used film. It is very easy to work with, dries nice and flat, scans nicely. I use Ilford chemicals and processing methods, never had a problem. It does nicely at 1600 and everything in between. My second favourite film is Rollei retro 80's, which is high contrast but very sharp and detailed, a lovely film that I shoot on special occasions. I've never gotten very pleasing results with any of the Kodak films, and I hate working with tri-x, it arcs terribly and is a pain to flatten.
 
Hello,

I've been using HP5 since the 80s. The paper I worked for had no other film. Always used HC-110, dissolution B, 6 minutes at 68F. I tried dissolution H but there was way too much grain. Today I am scanning films I developped with SPUR HRX-3 (A+B)+17 at 68F, 11 minutes. We'll see...

HP5 is cheaper than Tri-X, big difference for a 100' roll.

Gil.
 
Hello,

Here is one shot from my HP5+ HRX-3 experiment:

IB_390-vi.jpg


Looks nice, low grain. Maybe slightly less contrast than HC-110...

Summilux 35mm.

Gil.
 
HP5 has always been my favourite film and has given me lots of good images over the last three and a bit decades
 
I mostly use the cheaper Kentmere 400 (and, for the moment, Fomapan 400) but used some Hp5+ back in april. Here are two shots:

M6, Nokton 35/1,4; HP5+ E.I 400, Rodinal/R09 1+25:

Scan-140506-0026.jpg


M6, Summicron 2/90, HP5+, probably exposed as E.I 800 but developed as E.I 400, Xtol 1+1:

Scan-140410-0061.jpg
 
Love how flat HP5 negs get, love how inexpensive it is in bulk compared to Tri-X. Still love what Tri-X does in the shadows a bit more, but I've been shooting HP5 exclusively for the past few months and I really love what it does in Ilfosol-3

15056356892_45c3017b14_z.jpg
 
Lauffray said:
What would you recommend to use if I've been using Xtol to push process ?
Click to expand...

I use Ilfosol 3, a one-shot developer, and push HP5 to 1600 when desired. It's a good developer but once opened it has a short shelf life, about 4 weeks before it starts to turn which is easy to notice because it starts to turn dark amber when it goes bad. I buy the small bottles and use them up before they turn bad. If you don't break the seal on the bottle they can last a lot longer in storage.
 
^^ Have you had an easy time pushing with Ilfosol? I got some pretty foggy tri-X negs last time I tries a 2-stop push with I-3, but that was older film too...

And yeah, FWIW, I've used Ilfosol several weeks into its getting yellow and it's still good, but I never keep a bottle open for more than 6 weeks.
 
De_Corday said:
^^ Have you had an easy time pushing with Ilfosol? I got some pretty foggy tri-X negs last time I tries a 2-stop push with I-3, but that was older film too...

And yeah, FWIW, I've used Ilfosol several weeks into its getting yellow and it's still good, but I never keep a bottle open for more than 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

If it's yellow it's still good. Once it turns a deep amber, a burned look, it's no good. It happens quickly. I've never used Ilfosol older than about 5 weeks.

I have developed tri-x at 1600 with Ilfosol 3, no problems just a lot of nice grain. I actually like tri-x but hate working with it so I tend to stay away from it. Could your foggy negatives be from the fixer? I find if my fixer isn't so fresh my negatives look like crap. Stale developer will do it too. I've made both mistakes a few times, sometimes together :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom