Pushing Ilford HP4 Alot

<p>OK, so I'm at my "day job", and a very nice young lady comes up to me, and asks, "are you Ed?". So since that is who I am, I say "yeah, that's me". So she tells mr that some one at a local camera shop sent her to find me to maybe process a couple of rolls of B&W for her. She hands over 2 rolls of HP4+, and says "oh, and I pushed it". I ask how much, to this she replies,"2000 ISO". Any body got a clue how long the development time would be in D76??? Or, if it's actually possible to get usable negs from this? I don't want to waste time, or screw up her film. Thanks. </p>

<p>Given that Ilford HP4 film was discontinued in 1976, pushing the film is the least of your worries.</p>

<p>It occurred to me that you were probably handed FP4+ film, not HP4 film. Developing FP4+ to E.I. 2000 would be a 4-stop push, which is not even remotely recommended by Ilford:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gommamag.com/v3/download/ilford_push_processing.pdf">http://www.gommamag.com/v3/download/ilford_push_processing.pdf</a></p>

<p>First off, it can be done. I have push HP5+ 3 stops, even with rodinal with acceptable results. But it wasn't a test of exposure, but a test of how far I could push rodinal.</p>

<p>I would not recommend pushing that far in D76. Xtol would be my choice. I rarely shoot Neopan 400 at 400 anymore, I just go strait to ei 3200. Most people who see my photos don't know, and I don't tell them... ;)</p>

<p>Puck up some XTol, as it's only between 8-12 bucks (depending where you live). The massive dev chart lists EI 1000 @ XTol 1:3 in 23.5 mins. There are shorter times for higher dilutions, but 1:3 will yield finer grain. I would throw in 2-4 extra mins to accommodate ei 2000. I would shoot a roll to test before committing to the clients film.</p>

<p>I have pushed HP5+ to 6400 with microphen. Results were good, images <a href="../photo/12671194">here</a>, <a href="../photo/12671192">here</a> and <a href="../photo/12671193">here</a>. But we're talking about HP<strong>4</strong>, makes sense 4 comes before 5, but I never knew it existed! Besides microphen, Ilford also recommends ilfotec DD-X. I'd call ilford to find out what to do.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the info. I think I'm just going to return her film. Due to the fact that I'm kind of busy getting ready to move, I'm not planning on buying any more chemicals till I get settled. I've got enough stuff to haul around already.</p>

<p>You definitely need to establish exactly what the film type is.<br>

FP4+ at ISO 2000, no chance. I tried it at 800 once and it was rubbish<br>

HP4 will be fogged, no chance.<br>

HP5+ good chance in DDX or Microphen. Check <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php">http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, it's HP4+. I have no idea where one would get the idea that you could push a 125 ISO to 2000.</p>

<p>FP4+ never pushed well for me the few times I tried, but HP5+ I could regularly shoot at ISO 1600 and get very good negatives.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Yeah, it's HP4+."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eh, even tho' it's very old and badly underexposed, it's still worth a shot. Might try HC-110, or adding a bit of restrainer to whatever developer you prefer.</p>

<p>This gets into the realm of voodoo, not science. I'd probably try Microphen stock solution for 20-30 minutes. That's my favorite for badly underexposed or unknown film, but it's just my personal fetish or gris-gris bag, not science. Other soups would probably do as well... or as poorly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have no idea where one would get the idea that you could push a 125 ISO to 2000."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Happens all the time nowadays. For better or worse, that's the influence of the interweb. Many folks who are new to b&w film and processing will rely on suspect "data" from websites that rely on user input, or unsubstantiated hearsay from web forums rather than, oh, say... reading a book with proven techniques written by a credible author. Or reading the instructions provided by the film and chemical manufacturers.</p>

<p>I'm surprised that so few folks who are new to b&w voodoo seem to realize that Ilford actually provides very useful PDFs, free, for virtually every relevant topic, including push processing. Kodak provides quite a bit of useful info too, tho' it's not always easy to find on Kodak's labyrinthine website.</p>

<p>Any chance that she just shot it at 200 and not 2000? You could always ask to see her camera and have her show you were it was set at.</p>

<p>If it was ISO 200 instead of 2000, FP4+ would handle the push well in Microphen or HC110 without a fuss. If it is indeed HP4, as others have said expect fog. Your best bet then would likely be HC110 since it minimizes fog. If it was really rated at 2000 you would get the "chalk and soot" look that is common with extreme pushes. Even a pro lab probably wouldn't guarantee their work on such extremes.</p>

<p>Well, one thing is for sure ; it ain't HP4 Plus, because that film was never made. And the O.P. does not have the time to process it anyway..<br>

Nothing to see here folks, move along now.</p>