Oops! HP5+ exposed at 100(ASA) ~ How to develope?

[pa.patriot]

Ok, was shooting 120 FP4+ at 100asa and changed rolls. A few frames

in I packed up my gear and noticed I had loaded not FP4 but HP5.

Oops.

 

Looking around, and at the materials I have available, I can find no

recommendation for HP5 @ 100 in ANY developer.

So lacking that I looked at the numbers on the ilford recommended

times for HC-110 (my everyday developer) and discovered that the times

for 400/800/1600 were all approx 32% (or perhaps 30% rounded off)

apart for ONE STOP of difference.

 

My plan is to base this 'oops' roll on these percentages.

I normally develope HP5(120&135) in dilution *H* (1:63)HC-110 @ 68F

for 11 minutes. This is listed time for hc-110 dil*B* doubled(for

dil.H) +10%

Don't know why but I have to add 10% to FP4/HP5/PANF no matter the

exposure index and no matter the camera (7 of them) when I process

with HC110 or D76 OR Id11. Which are the only 3 developers I've used

w/Ilford. Anyway - back to the topic.

 

100 is two stops less than 400 so 11 minutes minus 32% is roughly 7.5

minutes (EI200) and 7.5 -32% is 5 minutes

So this is what I plan on using.

 

My question would be two fold.

Does this sound like a reasonable plan and before I give it a try has

anyone by chance already shot HP5 at 100? Either intentionally or not

that can give some real experience on this? :)

 

Thanks in advance

Rich

[francois_gauthier]

I use HP5+ at 200 iso but in ID-11 1:2 (11 min) .

 

HC 110 is a nice match for HP5+ at 400 and 800 . If this film is important, try a slower developper (something that recommend 200 iso) and adjust from there (like ID-11 1:3).

 

If you go for HC 110, there is not only reducing time to consider but also higher dilution.

[melvin_bramley]

Use the ei 200 times or a little under. I don't think you will have a problem.I regularly over develop with "my" set up.

[conrad_hoffman]

This is a guess, but the first thing I'd do is look for a developer known for causing a speed loss. That might be something like Microdol-X, used undiluted. Almost any developer is good for more speed when you dilute it, so go for the non-diluted recommendations. At the same time you need reasonable length development times to get even development, so compare your options. You need to cut the time, but not so much that you have no contrast to work with. I'd shoot another test roll to experiment with and try Microdol or even Rodinal, as it's not known as a speed increasing developer. With the pulled development, the grain might even be reasonable.

[patrick_ingram]

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CbsM">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CbsM</a>

[lex_jenkins]

If you can find 'em, Kodak Microdol-X, Ilford Perceptol, maybe a new formulation of the old Atomal now available from www.jandcphoto.com as A49.

[raczoliver]

HP5+ is forgiving for overexposure. I would process with a one stop pull, and live with the little longer printing times for this one roll. I don't think you will get blown out highlights.

[chris_waller]

As a general rule-of-thumb reduce development time by 1/3 per stop downrating. So, if the dev time at 400 ASA were 12 minutes, reduce to 8 minutes for a one-stop pull (200 ASA) and to 5.5 minutes for a 2 stop pull (100 ASA).

[skygzr]

Modern black and white films are very forgiving when it comes to overexposure. Plus, the REAL speed of HP5 is 160-200 (as defined by Zone I being 0.1 over film base plus fog). If it were my film, I'd process as normal and just enjoy the added shadow density.

 

A drastic "pull" will just get you low contrast (but probably usable) negatives.

[al_kaplan1]

I agree with Kevin. The film with normal development in something like D-76 or ID-11 should give slightly heavy but easy to print negatives. If you were shooting in very contrasty lighting, bright sun outdoors type of situation, maybe cut back the time a minute or so just to control the contrast a bit.

[neil_rankin1]

Rich, you are getting some bad advice here in some of these responses. I shoot HP5 a lot, and I suggest you adjust your development time accordingly by the given formula above, 1/3 adjustment for 1 1/2 to 2 stops (depending upon lighting and agitation technique) Too much density will kill HP5, and it will not yield any better shadow details. Contrary to one of your response's above, HP5 is not a 'modern' film. Rather, it is a conventional film, and has a thicker emulsion. A black area on this type of 'thick' negative will not yield highlight detail easily, if at all.

[skygzr]

I disagree, Neil. Ilford's data sheet shows a nice, straight line out to a density of at least 2.3. This should handle a two-stop overexposure with room to spare. Any shadow areas that were on the toe of the film will be lifted into the linear region, thereby improving contrast.

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto, Neil. Comments from Ilford's former rep, who occasionally visited photo.net, and others close to Ilford indicated that HP5+ and FP4+ are considerably different from the "old, traditional" emulsions of folklore, myth and, occasionally, fact.

 

My experience with HP5+ deliberately exposed at 200 developed in ID-11 at 1+1 indicates that it won't be terribly difficult to get usable results from the film exposed at 100.

[jtk]

Are you scanning or enlarging? Underdevelopment's good for scanning, where you definitely don't want too much density.

[neil_rankin1]

Characteristic curves or a 'rep' may say one thing, but I don't care. I've shot 100 rolls of HP5 over the last year, from ASA 200 to ASA 1600, and this is what I base my opinions on. I'm sure Ilford's 'rep' would tell you that his film is 'new' technology, as he's a 'rep'. But I'm telling you, if you expose HP5 as a daylight film and develop it as a fast film, you will lose your highlights...period.

[pa.patriot]

Thank you, gentlemen, for all the responses.

I see that your thoughts are as polarized as my own :)

I was initially intending to reduce 1/3 per stop and after reading through I believe I will stick with that.

I am off right now to try Dil.H HC-110 for 5 minutes (11 minutes is my regular 400ASA time)

I will post results!

Thanks again

[pa.patriot]

I just hung them up and initial inspection is very good.

I ran it an extra 20 seconds, I dunno, intuition sometimes gets the best of me.

Shadows are fine, density is right on and contrast looks good maybe less than perfect highlights but I can't tell yet.

Thanks again to all.