t_feltus Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 I have been processing my own b&w film now for over ten years, and in this time have somehow accumulated a fair abount of HP5 stock in my fridge. Each time i pop a roll in a camera i remember why it is still in the fridge: i have consistently gotten very grey negatives that have a slightly fogged quality to them. yes this is using differend developers, batches and formats, though my favourite dev is Rodinal, which is not a low contrast developer! I am curious to know why people use the film. or if anyone has any idea of something bizarre that i might be doing wrong. as an example, yesterday i processed 3 rolls of 120, of which two were HP5 and one Tri-X. the HP5 looks like it was shot through a bit of trace, even the base isn't clear, and the Tri-X is perfect. obviously these were exposed in the same camera, at the same exposure, and processed in the same manner. what a mistery. thanks for your help,tobias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 I've shot several rolls of it (actually HP5+, not HP5), and if anything, it tends to be TOO contrasty. (EI 400, D76 at recommended time, condenser enlarger). Anyway, if TriX is perfect, just use TriX and forget the HP5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Though the film base on the HP5+ isn't clear, that's not a real problem. Different films have different base densities. You just adjust your print exposure times to compensate for that. It could very well be that the negatives look flat to the eye because the base density is higher on HP5+ than it is on Tri-X. The truth will be in the print. It could also be that the film is seriously outdated and you are experiencing the usual problems associated with outdated film, lower film speed and higher fog levels. Do this little test. Get a fresh roll each of Tri-X and HP5+ and make some bracketed exposures of the same subject in the same light. This will give you an indication of how each film responds to chages in exposure, and don't be too surprised if the two films give optimal results at different exposures. Wht do people use HP5+? It's good stuff, not the same a Tri-X, but good stuff nonetheless. There's absolutely no reason why you can't get first rate results with this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_feltus Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 thanks for your answers guys. yes, i fogot to indicate that it is HP5+ (if i recal HP5 was fased out in the very early '90s, when TMAX appeared and HP5+ was introduced). Since i still have some stock, maybe i should get hold of some D76. have you had good results with FP4 in D76 as well? through i have had better results with the latter in Rodinal. the stock is out of date, but i have kept it in the fridge, and have never had any difficulty with other films, even colour, in such conditions. the prospect of them printing well is possible, though i currently dont have a access to my dark room, but they may scan well. cheers, tobias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_t Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 So ... how does it print?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanmeeks Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Tobias, Simply shoot a roll of new HP5+ and compare against your old roll of HP5 at identical exposures. That should tell the tale. Marc Meeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_feltus Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 you are all right, if i were to expose a test roll it would stop me complaining. at the same time i did not really expect to get an answer. thank you very much! tobias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 You didn't expect an answer from this opinionated bunch? Are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 FWIW, I have about 300' of 10+ year old HP5, not the plus. It has a gray base, plus a generous amount of fog. In spite of that, it still prints nicely, so I keep using it. Definitely try some fresh film if you want to see what it should look like, and yes, I'll probably throw my old stuff away when the fog becomes too annoying :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_feltus Posted June 29, 2003 Author Share Posted June 29, 2003 Frank, I had never posted a plead, so had no idea what to expect :-) Conrad, What developer is it that you use on the stock then? If i get a chance to print in the next few weeks I shall let you all know how they came out, but my guess is that contrast 4 paper won't be sufficient. right, i am going to stop winging and do a test,at some stage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_stahl Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 FP4 exposed @ 100 rather than 125, developed normal in D76 seems to work well for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photojim Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Conrad, one word: benzotriazole. :) A friend shot some HP3 sheet film that he got in an auction with some 4x5 and rollfilm cameras. The expiry date was 1965. I have no idea how the film was stored. The negative looked wonderful. I hope he shoots more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Ok, so I alternate between extremely fussy and extremely casual about things. When I do my FP4+ in FX-2 or FX-2K, I use new film and control everything. For some reason, I use the HP5 for snapshots and get-togethers, process it in whatever's handy, and seem to get good results. FX-2 works well with it, very sharp and the grain pattern isn't too awful. No doubt it would work as well with D-76 or HC-110; developers just don't make a huge difference if you've got the times down. I keep both pure benzotriazole and the Edwal Liquid Orthazite on hand for old printing paper, but have never tried them on film. IMHO, they don't do beans for paper, but I'll give it a try on the HP5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wind.dk Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 You could use it pushed - if you think it has too little contrast as it is. My problem is usually the opposite, but I always push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 About a year ago, I bought a few rolls of HP5+ to play with. It replaced Tri-X as my main black and white film after 2-3 rolls. And I've been using Tri-X since 1973. I use D76 diluted 1:3 and I process for about 20-25% less than Ilford recommends. My negatives print nicely using an Ilford #3 filter when I use my old Leitz Valoy enlarger. When I use my Omega C700 enlarger, I have to use a #2 filter--sometimes a #1 1/2. Since there are variations in the way people expose film, the equipment used, the way they process it using the same chemicals and in printing equipment and methods, I can't say this will be very helpful to you. I love the stuff but that doesn't mean you will. I hope this is helpful. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 As a user of HP5 of some twenty years I've never experienced the problem you describe. And I use Rodinal almost exclusively. Can't imagine what's causing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_gainer Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 HP5+ is not a very high contrast film. The reason AGFA does not recommend using it withRodinal 1+100 is that it will not develop to CI of .65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulent_ozgoren Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Patrick I have seen some beautiful 20x24 prints made from 35mm FP4+ negatives normally developed (not stand) in FX2 with addition of some household salt in the working solution to improve grain. I understand this is your version of the formula. Please inform how much salt is added to the working solution? Can you give me a starting EI for FP4+ 35mm, dilution, temperature and time for diffusion enlarging for my tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now