HP5 Plus at EI1250

[bob_mcbob]

I recently shot a roll of HP5 Plus rated at EI1250 (darkish basement,

crappy lighting, etc...). I developed it for 12 minutes in Ilfotec

DD-X (as per Ilford's recommended time - 13 minutes at 1600).

<br><br>

Here's an example of a shot on the roll: <a

href="http://www.pbase.com/image/20283701">http://www.pbase.com/image/20283701</a><br><br>

The highlights are totally blown on almost every shot (you can browse

through the rest of the gallery...). Is this caused by

overdeveloping? Bad metering? As far as I know, almost every shot

was slightly *under*exposed when I took it. I know the lighting was

rather uneven, but I didn't expect the highlights to be so blown. I

have a feeling that it may be something to do with high contrast

(pushed film) and averaged metering (Canon A-1). I'd like some

opinions, though. Is 12 minutes a reasonable developing time for this

combination? Should I have cut it, since the photos I was taking had

so much contrast?

[john_hicks___]

I'll bet you'd find lots of highlight detail by printing on lower-contrast paper and/or doing some burning-in. HP5+ can hold a huge range at the same contrast...at least 15+ stops...so the detail's most likely there.

[jimvanson]

John Hicks...good to hear from you! Do you have any favorite recipes for HP5+ in the 400 and up range?

[corey_riggle]

I've shot HP5+ at EI 800, and it did the same thing with blown out highlights. I don't think you can fix this problem with metering differently. DDX is probably the best developer for pushing ilford films. I don't think its possible to push the film and have it look normal, or even desent. I think cutting development will give you underdeveloped midtones; which could be even worse. Your best alternative would probably be to use ilford 3200. 3200 doesn't suffer from the problems of pushed hp5+.

[lex_jenkins]

Chris, I found HP5+ didn't suit my needs for push processing, pretty much for the same reasons you've illustrated in your sample photos. I've switched to TMY in Microphen, Tri-X in Diafine or Delta 3200 (which also does well in Diafine).

 

Otherwise, as already suggested, it may take some artful dodging/burning and contrast adjustments to get the prints where you want 'em.

 

I've never used DD-X so I can't offer any specific suggestions for that developer. However I found that Microphen works best for me as straight stock solution, 1:0, rather than in any of the standard dilutions. I reuse the stock solution several times, making it as economical as 1:1 dilution for one-shot use. I'm not sure whether there are any standard dilutions other than 1:4 that work acceptably with DD-X.

[chris_waller]

I regularly used to shoot HP5 at 1600 ASA. Recently I 'revisited' some of those negatives and was surprised how much tonal detail there was in them. If the time given for 1600 ASA is 13 minutes then I'd try 11.5 minutes for 1250 ASA and reduce agitation to reduce highlight density.

[trooper]

I had the same issue with HP5+ when I first used it some years back. Moderated/less aggressive agitation went a long way toward controlling this for me. I'm not accustomed to the quirks of Ilfotec so I can't comment on any personal experiences specific to that but with the developers I've used, this film seems somewhat sensitive to one's agitation technique.

[oskar_ojala]

I tend to push HP5+ in DD-X, the most extreme having been @2000 in some moderately high-contrast scenes (in 6x6 though). The results came out great...it's alot about fitting the exposure and the amount of push since a push of that magnitude pretty much means zero latitude in terms of exposure (you'll need all those stops for the scene...unless you're shooting very low-contrast scenes). However, the detail it can retain in the highlights is indeed awesome. It might require a bit of patience to print, though. Films like Delta 3200 are not easy to use either, compared to eg. HP5+ @320 - fast speeds tend to induce some challenges.

[richard_zevnik]

I have found through the course of an extended project from last Fall through the middle of June using HP5+ at 800 in HC110 [solution B] that I get good overall tonality at 7.5 minutes @ 68 degrees F (or time adjusted according to the time/temp conversion chart on the Ilford website) with agitation for first 30 seconds in std stainless tank with reels, and then minimal agitation thereafter -- 3-4 inversions every 2-2.5 minutes. When I started this project, and was doing the conventional 3 inversions every minute, I got excessive grain and contrast, including the kind of highlights in your sample.

[scott_eaton]

Use a developer designed for pushing like Diafine or Acufine. Either can take HP5 or Tri-X to EI 1250-1600 with much better results than the example.

[charles_henderhan2]

I shot HP5+@3200 just to see what the results would be. I was suprised to find that the negs were good if somewhat grainey. Now by good I mean to say the resulting prints (grade 0 Ilford m.c.r.c.) looked good in limited experence. DD-X, 20 mins@ 68 degrees / normal agiation.

[patrick_gainer]

Chris,

 

If you used an average metering, I suspect your setting of 1600 gave about normal exposure, equivalent to reading the shadow where you want some detail and setting your meter at 1600. I say this because it appears that the shadows predominate in the scene. If that is the case, you overdeveloped. Look at the shadow areas of the negative for detail.

 

If you did the measurement as I suspect, the best cure is low contrast paper.

 

Pat Gainer