Developing Ilford HP5 plus in D76

Hi all,

 

I am new to B&W photography and development. I rated an Ilford HP5

Plus at 320 instead of 400 as some writers suggested. Now I need to

develop it. Kodak D76 is the only developer that university's

darkroom has. I cannot find development times for Ilford HP5 in

KODAK D76 at ISO 320. Can anyone help me out?

 

I assume if I underrate a film I should process it that rate to get

this better contrast in my photos or should I develop it at 400 rate?

 

Thanks

 

Baha

With that small of an overexposure, I would recommend processing at the normal time. Unless you were shooting a very contrasty scene, the latitude of the film will be plenty to handle any overexposure. In fact, many people normally rate HP5+ at 320 or 250 to get better shadow detail.

Note that changing development time changes both contrast and density; exposure affects only density. So the normal processing time will give you normal contrast regardless of the exposure; but you will have a little more density due to the extra exposure.

 

David Carper

 

ILFORD Technical Service

Thank you very much

 

Baha

Listen to that guy above. It's a beautiful film! Good developer! Go for it! mary

I did a roll of 35mm hp5 plus (shot at 320) in d76 1+1 the other day at 20deg C the time was what Anchels book recommends. I then took 20% off to suit my condenser enlarger. The roll was shot outside under fairly over-cast and flat lighting. Came out GORGEOUS!

Make sure if your using a condenser enlarger to reduce dev by 10-20% to compensate - as times are normally listed for difuser enlarger types.

You may find times for HP5 plus developed in ID11 a useful starting point. I understand that D76 and ID11 are similar in formulation.

 

You may also want to experiment by rating the film at 200 and cutting developement time by 25%.

You know, this confused me too when I first began developing B&W film: if you downrate a film you still need to develop it for the speed that you started from. In other words, if you find 400 too black and you go to 320 or 250, you still have to use the development time for 400. Got it?

Not necessarily, John. That sort of combination of exposure and development isn't always appropriate.

 

For example, rerating HP5+ to 200 for exposure under contrasty conditions followed by development as for 400 would probably result in negatives that are too contrasty, at least for condenser enlargers.

 

Without getting all zoney, it's still appropriate to match the exposure index, lighting conditions and development to the desired end result. This will help prevent overdeveloped negatives with blocked highlights, or underdeveloped negatives (if one goes too far in "pulling" processing).

I opened a box of 35mm HP5 Plus yesterday. Printed inside the box were developimg times for a bunch of developers,including D-76 both straight and diluted 1:1, and at 68 and 75 degrees.

This is an old post, so maybe nobody is interested anymore, but I tried the HP5+ and D76 (1:) combination with the following results. My time was 8 minutes at 23 degrees Celcius, which produced what I would describe a slightly 'thin' negs. I'm gojng to try a longer development period next time because I quite like the combination.<div></div>

David, I suspect that your "thin" negatives were a result of metering that scene with the extremely bright sun dappling on the wall rather than metering the wall without the dappled area. HP5+ does seem to give slightly thinner negatives than Tri-X. You're still going to have to play around and discover what ISO rating and developing times work best for you.

I found this thread very late while searching for something else but I still want to add something for anyone who may see it in the future.

 

The term "overexpose" is used incorrectly here when discussing using a lower E.I. rating for the film. When you purposely rate a film differently than the nominal rating listed on the box, you are not under or over-exposing film. You are exposing it correctly, based on your experience or testing with the film or films in general. You NEVER want to over-expose film EVER. Over-exposure, by definition, is incorrect exposure. Even if you gave the film much more exposure than normal for a special effect, you are still not over-exposing the film if you are increasing the film's exposure intentionally. Over or under-exposure is a term for an error or mistake in exposure, not an intentional increase or decrease in exposure. The misuse of those terms reflects a lack of understanding of the process and materials.

 

For example, if your tests or experience show that you are not getting enough shadow detail with HP5+ and you change your E.I. to 200, you are NOT over-exposing the film. You are exposing it properly. In fact, in this example, you would be under-exposing the film if you rated it at E.I. 400. Or to put it another way, people change the speed rating of their film to correct for over or under-exposure that they experience when they rate it at the published speed (on the box).

 

(In case you aren't familiar with the term "E.I." it stands for Exposure Index and it is merely the speed rating of a film as determined by experience or testing as differentiated from the nominal ISO rating listed on the box. For example, the ISO of Tmax100 is 100 but based on testing, I rate it at E.I. 64 like many users of that film. The terms should be used correctly to avoid confusion. I am NOT rating my Tmax100 at ISO 64. I am rating it at E.I. 64.

 

As a general rule, if I have not used or tested a traditional b&w film before, I cut it's speed in half or by about 2/3rds stop for T-Grain films. Later testing usually shows that that is just about right. Of course, that all depends on YOUR meter and HOW you meter a subject.

 

For HP5+, which is one of my preferred films for 35mm, I rate it at an E.I. of 200-400 for normal shooting. I often push this film to speeds up to E.I. 3200 when necessary.

 

You have nothing to be concerned about when rating HP5+ at E.I. 320. Just develop it for the normal time until you have refined your developing times. Remember, just as the published numbers for a film's speed are only general and often very rough guidelines, the development times listed are also just general guides. Only testing for film speed AND development time can show you what you should be rating the film at and how long you should develop it. If you have not done that testing, worrying about such fine points is pointless.

 

The only thing that matters is what results that YOU get. Everyone processes film differently. The quality of the water may vary. (I generally use distilled water for the development step to keep that variable constant in case I move or my water source changes.)

 

When you haven't tested a film, remember that it is better to risk erring on the over-exposure side than on the under-exposure side. If you really do under-expose, you will not have shadow detail in the film. If it isn't there, you can't get it back. But if you should accidentally over-expose the film, you will still have shadow detail but your highlights will block to some extent. But at least you have information to work with unless it blocks completely.

 

Meters and shutters in cameras also differ greatly. Most people are amazed when they learn of the huge differences between equipment.

 

Your testing can be done with a densitometer but that is not really necessary. You results are the best feedback of all. Make proper proofs (not corrected) of all your negatives. Inspect them carefully. They will tell you everything you need to know about your exposure and development. If you find you have to print most of your negatives using high contrast filters (for VC paper) or on high contrast graded papers, increase your film development time until you see a change. If you notice that you have to use low grade contrast filters usually, increase your film development time. Making a good proper-proof is perhaps the single most important thing you can do. Do NOT correct your negatives individually. If you do, you will be hiding exposure and development problems. Be consistent with all proofs. If you make them correctly and do not foolishly try to correct them, you will get constant feedback of your processing methods and it will steer you to near perfect technique. Just proof your negatives with your normal contrast filter (for VC) or on your "normal" grade of paper and expose it till the print just reaches maximum black where it was exposed under clear unexposed film (along the edges). I have a densitometer for testing but if I had to choose between proper proofs and a densitometer, I would choose proper proofs every time.

Thanks Tom for that very helpful answer. I recently ran a roll of HP5+ through my Canon

T70, and got very satisfying results from a 320 EI - with judicious use of the AE metering,

and normal development. As I started working with HP5+ I was unhappy with the grain I

was getting - I thought it was under exposure, and that's what prompted me to go the 320

ISO route. I noticed sharper images with much less grain. How much influence does

exposure have on visible grain? If I'm getting too much grain from HP5+ what other

factors could be contributing to that? I process in Ilfotec HC 1+31, and will soon start

experimenting with 1+47, on occasion I rate the film at 800 and process in Diafine -

sometimes to really good effect.

 

Thanks,

 

Elias