Push HP5+?

P

pdx138

Established
Local time
7:51 AM
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
105
Has anyone had experience pushing HP5+ to 800, 1600 or beyond? I have D-76 available for developing, but if something else would work better, I'd be willing to try.

I buy a ton of HP5, so I've always got it around. It would be great if I could use it for 800 and 1600 also, but I've never really seen or heard of anyone doing it.
 
I have pushed HP5+ to 800 and 1600 before. I liked it allot at 800 but not so much at 1600. IMO Fuji Neopan 1600 was much more appealing @ 1600. For processing I used the Ilford standard, Ilfotec DD-X and processed as indicated in Ilford documentation. Give it a try at 1600 though. There is nothing better then first hand knowledge built on the experiences of others. Also, what I did not like was the contrast narrowed out on me @ 1600.
 
It's VERY similar to Tri-X, minus the purple stains. Some say it can't be pushed quite as far, but 1600 is doable. Do a search here and on APUG, you'll find tons of info. Using data for Tri-X as a starting point may be useful. Basing my efforts on Merciful's posts about pushing Tri-X to ISO 12,000, I found that Rodinal, 1:50 for 20 minutes with 5 inversions each 5 minutes works for me.
Whatever you do, avoid disappointment- test before you're relying on the film!
 
I've pushed HP5+ to 800 and 1600. I haven't had many occasions for 1600, but have done it. I quite like it at 800. I use Ilford DD-X for development which, though somewhat more expensive than many powders, does really well with HP5+. The grain is really quite fine for 800 all things considered. I use Ilford's times given with the HP5+ film on their site. (If you haven't checked out their site, you ought to print out the film's PDF info.)

As others have suggested, your own testing would be the best indicator as to whether this would be pleasing to you. Have fun Kyle!
 
Thank you both. I will try a roll at 800 this week.

I really like the Fuji Neopan 1600 but it is plenty contrasty, so I would probably not be crazy about the HP5 at 1600. I might give it a try anyway.
 
I use HP5+ farily regularly, and I frequently push it to 800 and have shot it at 1600 often enough. My favorite push developer is Ilford's Microphen, used full strength at 70 degrees F. HP5+ gets 12 minutes @ E.I. 1600, and 9 minutes @ E.I. 800. It looks pretty good at both speeds.
 
I had occasion to use six rolls each of HP5+ and Tri-X at 1600 last month. Some were developed in HC-110 and others in DD-X.

I've only enlarged to 5x7 so far, but the results are lovely. Maybe it's me mucking things up somewhere - but I do see the Tri-X photos have more contrast and the HP5+ has kept more detail in the dark and light areas. (all taken with a VC 40/1.4).
 
I've pushed HP5+ to EI1600 and 3200 in DD-X and Microphen at recommended times. I would say there's nothing in it between these developers. Contrast and grain increase but are reasonably well controlled.
I've also just developed my first rolls at EI1600 in HC-110B. These look thin, haven't printed any yet.

HP5+ @ EI3200 DD-x 1:4, 50mm Summicron
 
In my opinion, HP5 does not push as well as TXT. Shadows block up much faster - by 800 it's marked, and by 1600 it's completely gone. I wonder if it's even there at 1000. It's just not very tolerant of underexposure.

However, that doesn't mean you can't do it. I soup in Microphen, too. My times are on my page at http://photos.kaiyen.com/pages/dev_chart.html

allan
 
I've had excellent results with Acufine @ 800. I think the grain is even finer than my 400 process in HC 1:31. Grain is small, tight and sharp. Acutance is excellent and tonality is excellent. The highlights don't block and tha shadows are open with good detail. When I shoot HP-5 I always rate it at 800 and use the standard process time on the Acufine can.
 
If you are adventurous, try HP5 at 1000 in dr5 as a chrome. Very fine grain, scans well, and looks great printed on cibachrome.
 

Attachments

  • 000031r.jpg
    000031r.jpg
    547 KB · Views: 0
Hi Kaiyen, interesting development chart you have got!

I'm using FP4+ and HP5+ as well, and also want to move into the EFKE-type of film (ADOX actually). Rodinal only for me...

Your chart says for FP4+:
Rodinal 80 1+50 9:00 N
Rodinal 80 1+50 8:30 N-1
Rodinal 80 1+50 7:30 N-2

I've been exposing FP4+ lately at the same EI, but my time for normal development is 7'. I need the low density for scanning. What do you use the N-1 and N-2 for? High contrast subjects?

You don't push FP4+? I've developed a roll of FP4+ pushed to 250ISO yesterday at 9' (actually 10', because temperature was 19degrees). The negative looks OK, scans still to be done. I wonder if the grain will be better than HP5+ at the same sensitivity...

Groeten,

Vic
 
vicmortelmans said:
I've been exposing FP4+ lately at the same EI, but my time for normal development is 7'. I need the low density for scanning. What do you use the N-1 and N-2 for? High contrast subjects?
Click to expand...

I'm scanning, too, and find my density about right. The N-1 and N-2 are indeed for higher contrast situations. perhaps you just generally shoot in high contrast situations? Or you're being "careful" and underdeveloping in general? Nothing wrong with that, as long as you get enough of a curve going.

You don't push FP4+?
Click to expand...

I never push unless I have to (of course, once I get past 640 I'm pushing at least a bit, since I haven't shot NP1600 before which would be about 800). FP4 isn't a particularly fine-grain film, so to me it makes no sense to push it. I'd rather shoot, say, Tri-X at 250, which gives me soft, fine grain when used with the right developer combination that gives a nice look for portraits.

The only caveat to using a higher speed film instead of pushing is when you are using a higher speed _developer_. In that case, it's better to use, say, FP4 in FX2 at 250 rather than Tri-X at 250 in Perceptol. Well, that might be too extreme of an example (FX2 is some powerful stuff, sharpness wise), but that's the idea. But it's also not pushing at all - FX2 just gives more speed.

Bitte,
allan
 
kaiyen said:
perhaps you just generally shoot in high contrast situations?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering.... Outdoor scene's with direct sunlight are definitely 'high contrast'. What about overcast sky? Still 'high contrast'? But also interior photography with natural or artificial light gives high contrast (unless you have a complete ceiling filled with TL-lamps).

What do you consider as typical low (or 'normal') contrast subjects? Portraiture in studio light perhaps?

Groeten,

Vic
 
Victor,
Well, cloudy conditions are not usually high contrast. You can kinda use the sunny 16 rule with this:

-well-defined shadows (16) - high contrast
-shadows with fuzzy edges (11) - normal>high contrast
-shadows with no edges (8) - normal
-no shadows (5.6) - low contrast

So that's one way to correlate them. But that rule also assumes things. for instance, cloudy usually means low contrast, but only if that's the only source of light and the subject is in the cloudy light. If the subject is under complete shadow, then even overcast light will be high contrast in comparison.

when I've indicated N, N-1, etc times it's when I've spot-metered and done tests. Otherwise I just use conservative development, as you do, universally across a roll.

allan
 
Lloyd Chan said:
If you are adventurous, try HP5 at 1000 in dr5 as a chrome. Very fine grain, scans well, and looks great printed on cibachrome.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. What is "dr5"? And when you say "as a chrome", do you mean "as a slide"/"as a positive film"?

I've never tried Cibachrome, and none of the labs in my urban area, that I know of, print it. Do you have it printed and shipped to you?
 
Ye olde rule of thumb for contrast control as per Barry Thornton and Mike Johnston and probably many others is:

Flat light (no shadows): rate at box speed and develop as recommended.
Soft shadows: overexpose 1 stop and cut development by 20%
Deep shadows: overexpose 1 1/3 stop and cut development by 33%.

This results in about 70% of zone system practice without the spotmeter.
It works for me. YMMV as ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom