HP5+ @ 200 Dev times for ddx or ilfosol s?

[andre_reinders]

Many people suggest HP5+ is really an ASA 200 film, depending on

developer, etc. I am having trouble finding times for either Ilfosol

S, or DDX.

 

I have seen only generic suggestions of reducing development times

for 400 by 15%. This would put DDX at about 7.5 min. @ 20 degrees C,

and Ilfosol at about 6 min.

 

Any other suggestions or comments?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I wish I could help, but I develop HP5 in D76. And the Massive Development Chart doesn't have HP5 EI 200 in DDX. The link, if you need it, is:

 

http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 

I'd be interested in your results as I've thought about trying DDX.

 

Robert

[seanmoran]

Hello there Andre,

 

The instructions attached to DDX bottles give 7min 30s as the time for HP5+ at ISO 200 (20degC). This is what I use and it works well - smooth, long tonal-scale, tiny grain, lovely skin tones (perhaps a little 'flat', but you can print on grade 2.5 or 3 to compensate).

 

Enjoy,

 

Sean.

[db1]

This might not help either, but I shoot mine at 250 and develop it in ID-11 1+1 for 12

minutes at 68 degrees. It's not the smallest grain but I like the tonality of it.

[andre_reinders]

Thanks Seᮬ I never thought to look on the bottle. It matches what I have found - reduce the dev time by 15%. I will give it a try!

 

BTW - I scan my negs and print digitally (lab) not traditionally, so I would be trying to compensate for flat negs by using s/w.

[lex_jenkins]

As with most films the true speed of HP5+ depends on the developer used. The ISO speeds given for films are based on very specific standards and testing procedures, which includes a standard for the developer used to achieve that nominal speed. Change the developer and the true speed is likely to change at least a little.

 

According to an Ilford rep the true speed of HP5+ in Microphen is 500, which appears to corroborate my observation that most films I've tried see a small increase in true speed in Microphen.

 

It's entirely likely that the true speed of HP5+ is closer to 200-250 in Ilfosol-S, which is not a speed enhancing developer. In DDX which, like Microphen, is a speed enhancing developer, the true speed is likely to be at least the nominal ISO 400 or a little faster.

 

However, this doesn't mean you have to *like* the results you see at a particular speed with the film in a particular developer. You have to factor in such influences as your preferred paper, type of enlarger, other materials, and personal preferences. I happened to prefer HP5+ at 250 in ID-11 at 1+1, whether or not that was the "true" speed.

[john_mullaney]

Lex,

 

A beginner's question. I am shooting HP5 at an EI of 250. I am overriding the camera's default speed of 400 and exposing at 250. Should I then process the film normally based on the development time for 400? I would imagine if I develop for 250 that I am then "double compensating."

 

If I were to push this film, would I change the setting of the camera back to 400 first? Or should I still expose for the true speed of the film (or my beginners habit of underexposing?)

 

Thanks,

 

-john

[kaiyen]

<p><I>Should I then process the film normally based on the development time for 400? I would imagine if I develop for 250 that I am then "double compensating."</i>

 

<p>You expose at 250 for shadow detail. You develop for highlight/contrast control. Shooting at 250 then reducing development from the time for 400 is not double compensating. It is getting the "right time" for EI 250.

 

<P>Having said that, since you are increasing exposure by 2/3 of a stop, you might want to cut back on the time recommended for EI 400 by 10-15%. Then adjust from there based on whether you like the contrast you get.

 

<p><i>If I were to push this film, would I change the setting of the camera back to 400 first? Or should I still expose for the true speed of the film (or my beginners habit of underexposing?)</I>

 

<p>Pushing the film means that you underexpose and then overdevelop. Since you have established that your "real" EI is 250, rating it at anything higher than 250 would be underexposing. So if you want to push by 1 stop, you'd expose at 500 (or 560? I keep forgetting 1/3 over 400) and find your development time.

 

<p>However, most people do speak in terms of 400, 800, 1600, etc when it comes to pushing. So you will likely want to go for one of those EIs and find your time. But technically anything faster than your own EI will be underexposing.

 

<p>allan

[andre_reinders]

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments.

I have been developing at home for 6 months or so, and still playing around. What I take from this is that there may be no gain in pulling film with a speed increasing developer (like DDX).

 

I was also looking for the best option to shoot around 200-250 ISO. I would like to stick to PanF+/FP4+/HP5+ - and I use Ilfosol S and DDX for the time being.

 

Maybe I should push fp4+ ?

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Andre,

 

True ISO of FP4 Plus in DDX or Microphen will be 160-200. True ISO of HP5 in a fine-grain developer such as Perceptol, or an unsuitable developer such as Rodinal, will be 200-250. And the FP4 will be finer grained, except perhaps in Rodinal.

 

But FP4 in Perceptol will be 80-100 and HP5 in DDX will be 500+.

 

The most comfortable EI will depend on your subjects, metering technique, development technique, enlarger and personal preference. Most people find they get the best results with modest over-exposure (1/3 stop to 1 stop) but a lot depends on how you meter. Using HP5 Plus in DDX (true ISO 500-650) I rate it at EI 400 with a spot meter; EI 500 on an overcast day with a TTL meter; and 320 or even 250 on a sunny day with a TTL meter, all with the same development time.

 

There are only two ways to establish a realistic personal EI. One is via tedious (and somewhat misleading) Zone System testing. The other is easy.

 

Shoot at the meter reading and bracket +/-1 stop. Develop for the recommended time. Choose the exposure that gives you the best shadow detail and the best print on grades 2 or 3.

 

If you don't have enough shadow detail, cut the speed again on the next roll. If you consistently need hard paper (grades 3-4-5) you are underdeveloping and need to increase your dev time. If you consistently need soft paper (grades 0-1-2) you are overdeveloping and need to cut your dev time.

 

You might also want to take a look at The Photo School -- much of it FREE -- on www.rogerandfrances.com.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[kaiyen]

FWIW, I use the 2nd of Roger's EI-determining methods. When working with a new film/dev combo, I just bracket (how much depends on anecdotal information on the web) and see how the negatives look. It works fine for me.

 

allan

[roger_hicks1]

Forgot to add: tonality is the joker in the pack. I prefer the tonality of HP5 in Perceptol to the tonality of FP4 in DDX, even though the speeds are within 1/3 stop of each other and FP4 in DDX is finer grained (and often cheaper).

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[andre_reinders]

Thanks Roger for your answer. I keep learning that there are many variables which would influence my decisions.

 

Another variable in my process is scanning. I scan my negs after development, with my Minolta Scan Dual II and Vuescan.

 

I understand the logic of your method for determining a personal EI, but I am trying to traslate the hard/soft paper into something that relates to scanning.

 

Maybe if I am consistently pumping up the contrast in PS, then that would be the equivalent of using hard paper - so I would be under developing. (Which I typically do) I know scanning opens a whole other ball of wax - and I have heard before that for scanning it is better to have 'flatter' negs (a little under developed).

 

All of my developing is using one of the Ilford developers I listed before, and times 'by the book' - either Ilford's published times or from the Digital Truth website.

[kaiyen]

Andre,

 

I develop for scanning, too. I determine EI by first bracketing in a scene after metering the shadows. When I scan, I lock scanner exposure and use the TMAX400/D76 .55 profile (at least, that's what I use now. I used to use TMAX100/Tmax .55). I look for the scan that gives me the appropriate histogram. That one is my EI.

 

"Appropriate" histogram depends on the shot. If your shadow is the darkest thing in the image, then you'll want the left side of the histogram close to but not right up against the left end of the graph. If there are other areas in the photo that are supposed to be _black_, then if the histogram clips a bit that's okay. In zone speak, you'll want Zone III close to the left side, Zone II right up against the edge, and Zone I can be off the edge.

 

so that's how I figure out my EI. I then figure out my dev time in the opposite way. Of course, I can only use 1 development time for the roll. I scan it, again with that film profile (I like how it handles the midtones). If there isn't supposed to be anything that is paper white (zone VIII), then everything should be on the graph on the right side.

 

allan

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Andre,

 

Sorry, I scan only colour. Allan's advice is probably more use for scanning. But have you considered XP2? No Callier effect = far less grain aliasing. And XP2 ain't hard to process at home...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger