hansvons Posted February 25 Author Share #181 Posted February 25 Advertisement (gone after registration) 11 hours ago, ArnoG said: With HP5, I always need to boost contrast in LRC curves panel. Thoughts? Me too. HP5 appears notoriously “greyish” or “flat” when shoot with it. That's why I gave up on HP5. As a remedy, I pushed it mildly adding contrast this way. Maybe Xtol is too compensating for HP5 and we should use ID11. Your Foma 400 shots look nice in Xtol. Seems like Foma 400 benefits from Xtol. In my market, Tri-X is not more expensive than HP5 anymore. So, that’s an easy dicision. I know that this is somewhat unfair to HP5, given that I‘ve seen nice images shot with it and it’s legendary reputation. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25 Posted February 25 Hi hansvons, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hansvons Posted February 25 Author Share #182 Posted February 25 11 hours ago, ArnoG said: and I still like the tones better than HP5, which always seems to make a wash from zones V-VIII (due to increased red sensitivity?) The increased sensitivity in the red-yellow spectrum also affects Delta 400. However this is only visible when shooting people. The skin becomes distinctly brighter and less contrasty than Kodak typically renders skin. However, Delta 400 looks overall better to my eyes than HP5 due to nicer, inherent contrast. Thus, I believe the greyness of HP5 is due to its formidable latitude, which is ridiculously large. HP5 was created with journalists in mind who needed a stock that delivers information in any situation and it does that remarkably well. I once shot it at EI 1200 and pushed it 2 stops. It looked better than Delta 3200, which has a boxspeed of ISO 1000 and which I find barely usable. I also shot it at EI 800 and pushed it by a stop and liked the results better than at EI 400. But as usual, everything comes with a cost and that is pronounced grain and shadows that start to become inky as with any undere,xposure. So, I figured that shooting at box speed and using more rigorous agitation is the best way to deal with HP5 for best results. But Tri-X gives me what I‘m looking for without any hassle and doesn’t require pushing when underexposed by one stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted February 26 Share #183 Posted February 26 11 hours ago, ArnoG said: I’m not sure if I can blame the film. At some point I tried a different type of reel (one of these metal ones) and the film touched the film below it and gave bad spots. Will look if it was this film. I used quite a bit of Foma 400 and never noticed funky things that wierdness is definitely film caused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted February 26 Share #184 Posted February 26 16 hours ago, hansvons said: HP5 was created with journalists in mind who needed a stock that delivers information in any situation and it does that remarkably well. I once shot it at EI 1200 and pushed it 2 stops. It looked better than Delta 3200, which has a boxspeed of ISO 1000 and which I find barely usable. I also shot it at EI 800 and pushed it by a stop and liked the results better than at EI 400. But as usual, everything comes with a cost and that is pronounced grain and shadows that start to become inky as with any undere,xposure. So, I figured that shooting at box speed and using more rigorous agitation is the best way to deal with HP5 for best results. But Tri-X gives me what I‘m looking for without any hassle and doesn’t require pushing when underexposed by one stop. I always found HP5+ mushy in the shadows because it's a "long toe" film designed for pushing. You can resolve that by pushing development, of course, but the tonal relationships never look right to me, and you get increased grain. Tri-X is a little better because it's less pushable, but my favourite 400 was the old APX (which hardly gained any speed with increased development). I may come across as a heretic, but I really like TMY if I need to shoot at ISO 400. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 26 Share #185 Posted February 26 11 hours ago, PetPhoto said: that wierdness is definitely film caused. I checked. It was not the new developer spool attempt in which short sections of film touched each other, but it was the first shot on the roll, so perhaps..., well..., I don't know... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 26 Share #186 Posted February 26 23 hours ago, hansvons said: HP5 appears notoriously “greyish” or “flat” Just stumbled over this guys' HP5 shots on flickr - https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=hp5&user_id=44828871%40N06&view_all=1 quite a lot of "bold" photos, I thought you like maybe? Lots of them apparently shot at 640 and and developed in XTOL.. ..not sure how he does it but apparently it works for him 🙂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted February 27 Share #187 Posted February 27 Advertisement (gone after registration) 8 hours ago, username said: Just stumbled over this guys' HP5 shots on flickr - https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=hp5&user_id=44828871%40N06&view_all=1 quite a lot of "bold" photos, I thought you like maybe? Lots of them apparently shot at 640 and and developed in XTOL.. ..not sure how he does it but apparently it works for him 🙂 and probably given a good run through the photo shop AI system too boot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldwino Posted February 28 Share #188 Posted February 28 On 2/25/2025 at 1:36 PM, hansvons said: Me too. HP5 appears notoriously “greyish” or “flat” when shoot with it. That's why I gave up on HP5. As a remedy, I pushed it mildly adding contrast this way. Maybe Xtol is too compensating for HP5 and we should use ID11. Your Foma 400 shots look nice in Xtol. Seems like Foma 400 benefits from Xtol. In my market, Tri-X is not more expensive than HP5 anymore. So, that’s an easy dicision. I know that this is somewhat unfair to HP5, given that I‘ve seen nice images shot with it and it’s legendary reputation. When I used HP5, and Xtol. I liked the look I got by shooting at 200 and processing at the 800 times. Over-expose and over-develop. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted March 2 Share #189 Posted March 2 HP5, EI400, 11:30 in Xtol 1+1 at 20.6 C, 30" initial inversions, then 5" every 30" (as per Kodak Xtol sheet). Only black and white point set: Flat skin tones. Also, HP5 seems much cleaner and sharper in Xtol 1+3 (see my earlier post, close to the beginning of this thread). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5766243'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted March 2 Share #190 Posted March 2 Same film: Setting only B&W points yields grey muck Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5766245'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted March 2 Share #191 Posted March 2 As before. I really don't like the tonality of HP5 and won't use it again. Of course it can be boosted as per @oldwino or in software but the skin tones will remain flat. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5766247'>More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted March 2 Share #192 Posted March 2 I honestly realized that Ilford label film is set for the lighting in England or scotland and not really the high mountains in summer or winter.. Or the alps in winter. Like your "mucky" shot of the woods trail.. not bad at all. But I have to ask, what was the meter reading of the dark trees, the light trees, and the shadow the dark trees were in? In my PERSONAL moments with HP5, Delta 400, and kentmere 100(?), the films dont truly enjoy a wild variation in lighting in a scene Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted March 3 Share #193 Posted March 3 5 hours ago, PetPhoto said: I honestly realized that Ilford label film is set for the lighting in England or scotland and not really the high mountains in summer or winter.. Or the alps in winter. Like your "mucky" shot of the woods trail.. not bad at all. But I have to ask, what was the meter reading of the dark trees, the light trees, and the shadow the dark trees were in? In my PERSONAL moments with HP5, Delta 400, and kentmere 100(?), the films dont truly enjoy a wild variation in lighting in a scene lol. This was Holland in winter. Not much different from England and Scotland (in summer…) and I didn’t have a spot meter, only incident so “something” average, there was actually sun, it was a high contrast scene, I was trying to get my last HP5 filled with anything, and I was testing a Contax iia, which I know has accurate shutter speeds, with a biogon 35/2.8 for that at hyperfocal distance that apparently didn’t work so well for infinity…I know that HP5 is supposed to have a large bandwidth, but I would have preferred to have some lovely tonality double x instead… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted March 3 Share #194 Posted March 3 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: lol. This was Holland in winter. Not much different from England and Scotland (in summer…) and I didn’t have a spot meter, only incident so “something” average, there was actually sun, it was a high contrast scene, I was trying to get my last HP5 filled with anything, and I was testing a Contax iia, which I know has accurate shutter speeds, with a biogon 35/2.8 for that at hyperfocal distance that apparently didn’t work so well for infinity…I know that HP5 is supposed to have a large bandwidth, but I would have preferred to have some lovely tonality double x instead… ilford doesnt like huge variations between light and dark. I probably killed 10 rolls of delta 400 before i realized it.. But still not too bad. Maybe print on an enlarger 1 grade lower.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted March 3 Author Share #195 Posted March 3 17 hours ago, ArnoG said: As before. I really don't like the tonality of HP5 and won't use it again. Of course it can be boosted as per @oldwino or in software but the skin tones will remain flat. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Agreed. Know this grey-ness inside out. Get Tri-X. Less work on contrast required. HP5 and faces work in harsh light and flash though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted March 4 Share #196 Posted March 4 Contrast can easily be added in post as attached, but its a bit of GIGO...I indeed switched to Kodak, with double x, tri-x, and Tmax... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5767137'>More sharing options...
username Posted March 19 Share #197 Posted March 19 ..as they're kinda same-same - but different I thought it might be a good idea to have a seperate XT-3 thread. It's over here for those interested: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted March 24 Share #198 Posted March 24 On 2/26/2025 at 8:36 AM, hansvons said: Me too. HP5 appears notoriously “greyish” or “flat” when shoot with it. That's why I gave up on HP5. As a remedy, I pushed it mildly adding contrast this way. Maybe Xtol is too compensating for HP5 and we should use ID11. Your Foma 400 shots look nice in Xtol. Seems like Foma 400 benefits from Xtol. In my market, Tri-X is not more expensive than HP5 anymore. So, that’s an easy dicision. I know that this is somewhat unfair to HP5, given that I‘ve seen nice images shot with it and it’s legendary reputation. I have the same opinion, and shoot HP5 pushed to 800 for the same reason. It improves the look (much closer to Tri-X look, I think ). Where I live HP5 is still half the price of Tri-X so I am sticking with it but much prefer Tri-X 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted March 24 Share #199 Posted March 24 On 2/26/2025 at 9:05 AM, hansvons said: So, I figured that shooting at box speed and using more rigorous agitation is the best way to deal with HP5 for best results. But Tri-X gives me what I‘m looking for without any hassle and doesn’t require pushing when underexposed by one stop. Maybe I'll need to try this with HP5 , because yes the grain is sometimes much to pronounced in my pushing to 800 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted March 24 Author Share #200 Posted March 24 6 hours ago, grahamc said: Maybe I'll need to try this with HP5 , because yes the grain is sometimes much to pronounced in my pushing to 800 Let me know how it goes, Graham. 1 Link to post 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