Kugelfest Posted December 29, 2012 Share #1 Posted December 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi guys I need some advice about pushing hp5 to 3200. The chems I have at home are tmax-dev d76 and microdol. Which one should get the most ok results. And before you ask:the film was pushed by mistake and while there probably is some muchbetter chems for the task, the once mentioned above is what I have and i wont be buying anything else at the moment. Thanks in advance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Hi Kugelfest, Take a look here Hp5 @3200 need some advice. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted December 29, 2012 Share #2 Posted December 29, 2012 The Massive Dev Chart says TMax 1+4 11:30min at 20C, no times for the others at 3200. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted December 29, 2012 The Massive Dev Chart says TMax 1+4 11:30min at 20C' date=' no times for the others at 3200. Steve[/quote'] Thanks! Ok maybe will try that. Any suggestions on agitation scheme? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 29, 2012 Share #4 Posted December 29, 2012 I would think 30sec initial agitation and then 10 seconds on the minute (or depending on how you do your agitation maybe two inversions on the minute). Good luck Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share #5 Posted December 29, 2012 I would think 30sec initial agitation and then 10 seconds on the minute (or depending on how you do your agitation maybe two inversions on the minute). Good luck Steve Thanks mate! Just realize who answered my question. I have your thumbies on all my Leicas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted December 29, 2012 Hm just hanged it up for drying. Many frames look terribly underexposed whilst others look high in contrast so the times above was probably right but the metering was prob bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadside Posted December 31, 2012 Share #7 Posted December 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hm just hanged it up for drying. Many frames look terribly underexposed whilst others look high in contrast so the times above was probably right but the metering was prob bad. Not surprising really as you've under-exposed by at least three stops! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 31, 2012 Share #8 Posted December 31, 2012 I understand this won't help the original poster ... but I've seen very nice results from Ilford HP5 at E.I. 3200, developed in Tetenal Emofin two-bath developer. Acceptable grain and smooth tones with well-controlled contrast. However I cannot remember the development time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share #9 Posted December 31, 2012 Not surprising really as you've under-exposed by at least three stops! Yeah :-) the ones in high contrast came out ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted December 31, 2012 I understand this won't help the original poster ... but I've seen very nice results from Ilford HP5 at E.I. 3200' date=' developed in Tetenal Emofin two-bath developer. Acceptable grain and smooth tones with well-controlled contrast. However I cannot remember the development time.[/quote'] Cool ill keep that in mind for the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted December 31, 2012 Share #11 Posted December 31, 2012 Not surprising really as you've under-exposed by at least three stops! I'm with broadside. The film was designed to work at or around ASA 400. Underexposing by 3 stops is absolutely going to result in some loses somewhere. If anything good comes of it, remember the dog walking on his hind legs - we are not surprised at how well it is done, rather that it is done at all. Make life easy on yourself - buy an ASA 3200 film and develop it properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugelfest Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share #12 Posted December 31, 2012 I'm with broadside. The film was designed to work at or around ASA 400. Underexposing by 3 stops is absolutely going to result in some loses somewhere. If anything good comes of it' date=' remember the dog walking on his hind legs - we are not surprised at how well it is done, rather that it is done at all. Make life easy on yourself - buy an ASA 3200 film and develop it properly.[/quote'] Yeah. I have stash of both delta 3200 and tmax 3200. The hp5 film was shot as such by mistake ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.