HP5+ (Pushed to 800) & Tri-X

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello 

I know the similarity of these stocks have been discussed many times, but I have generally preferred Tri-X. For me, HP5+ has tended to come out more flat & grey than Tri-X

But I’ve been delighted when pushing HP5 to 800 recently, and have found that this brings them close enough for me to use these stocks interchangeably.   Great news because HP5 is 40% cheaper than Tri-X here these days, yet I was never completely satisfied with it. 

Anyone else pushing HP5 to 800 as your standard way to use it ?

Examples here :

 

 

Edited April 22 by grahamc

[hansvons]

For B & W, mild pushes can be beneficial. 

I have yet to try HP5 @ISO 800 because, like you, I found it too flat/greyish and not sharp enough when I tested it (perhaps I should give it another try at ISO 800).

That's why Delta 400 I my everyday medium sensitivity B&W film. Recently, I pushed Delta 400 to ISO 800 and bathed it in Xtol 1+1 for 15min at 20 degrees. It turned out that sharpness was even higher, and grain and resolution were in the ballpark of DoubleX 5222 at ISO320 or Tri-X at box speed, which I find absolutely acceptable. The push makes the gamma a bit steeper and tightens the shadows a bit (same as you experienced with HP4), which isn't a problem for Delta 400 as it's relatively flat at box speed (not as flat and greyish as HP5) and can cope with the increased contrast very well. 

Because Delta 400 renders skin tones a tad lighter compared to all other ISO 400 stocks I tried (approx 1/3 stop due to a higher red sensitivity), the exposure of darker scenes with people/skin in the picture benefits a bit. I do like the grain of tabular films; others don't. But if you do, I'd give it a shot (pun intended). Delta 400 @ 800 is now my default high-speed B&W film stock.

Edited April 23 by hansvons

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[grahamc]

10 minutes ago, hansvons said:

For B & W, mild pushes can be beneficial. 

I have yet to try HP5 @ISO 800 because, like you, I found it too flat/greyish and not sharp enough when I tested it (perhaps I should give it another try at ISO 800).

That's why Delta 400 I my everyday medium sensitivity B&W film. Recently, I pushed Delta 400 to ISO 800 and bathed it in Xtol 1+1 for 15min at 20 degrees. It turned out that sharpness was even higher, and grain and resolution were in the ballpark of DoubleX 5222 at ISO320 or Tri-X at box speed, which I find absolutely acceptable. The push makes the gamma a bit steeper and tightens the shadows a bit (same as you experienced with HP4), which isn't a problem for Delta 400 as it's relatively flat at box speed (not as flat and greyish as HP5) and can cope with the increased contrast very well. 

Because Delta 400 renders skin tones a tad lighter compared to all other ISO 400 stocks I tried (approx 1/3 stop due to a higher red sensitivity), the exposure of darker scenes with people/skin in the picture benefits a bit. I do like the grain of tabular films; others don't. But if you do, I'd give it a shot (pun intended). Delta 400 @ 800 is now my default high-speed B&W film stock.

Great thanks for the info.  I'll give this a try.  

Would be interested to get your feedback if you try HP5 at 800.  It doesn't really increase the sharpness but I also don't find Tri-X that sharp - I like it for it's grain structure and contrast and I think this push makes them now perfectly interchangeable for my use.

It's good to know about this Delta push also 

[AZD]

I regularly use HP5 at 800. It does so well that I rarely rate it any lower. Instead I’ll carry a second body loaded with 100 speed. Makes for a versatile travel combination. HP5 is my go-to film whenever light is less than optimal. 800 is pretty tame and it’ll easily go to 3200 with the usual trade offs of pushing. 

My thinking, which could be flawed, is that HP5 looks better at 800 because of increased contrast from additional development, not necessarily the underexposure and overdevelopment that is “pushing”. Basically it solves the “HP5 is flat and boring” problem that many seem to experience. If you shoot at 400 and develop at 800 it still gains contrast, but exposing at 800 looks great, so take the extra stop and run with it. 

I’m still trying different developers. D76 is great, as expected. Stock or 1+1 are both good. One particular roll was shot at 1600 and developed 1+1 for something like 24 minutes with reduced agitation (trying to account for some weird circumstances on that roll…) and ended up having really interesting edge effects that accidentally worked great for some pictures and accidentally ruined a few others. That was more of an experiment though. D76 and HP5 are pretty much impossible to mess up.

Microphen increases film speed slightly so 800 isn’t even much of a push. However it seems a bit less sharp, at least with the first couple rolls in the stock solution. I swear that everything after roll 4 gets a bit sharper and better looking, though each additional roll in the stock solution needs 10% more development time than the last. I got 12 rolls out of a liter before deciding it wasn’t wise to test the absolute limit. Microphen an HP5 are a great combination, very moody. Sharpness isn’t always everything.

Rodinal and HP5 at 800 sounds like a bad idea and probably is most of the time, but meh, whatever. It actually looks pretty good with the right subject. Nice visible grain and very sharp. Blank sky will look awful and you won’t flatter anyone with a portrait, but it’ll make a rusty hubcap look lovely. Another tool in the shed. 

Xtol is next, though I have only developed two rolls and haven’t printed anything yet, so no opinion. Negatives look good though. I’m hoping for the speed increase of Microphen with better sharpness… even though I just said it isn’t always everything.

Anyhow, go for it. Maybe buy a bulk roll and see just what you can do with it. I could be wasteful, but it takes me 100 feet before I really understand a film.

[skahde]

Back in the day I used to push HP5+ to ISO 3200 in Ilfotec HC on a regular base. It behaved very well with this developer with the usual caveats when pushing: Forget about the shaddows. You can use LC29 instead which is prediluted Ilfotec HC or Kodak HC110 which is as similar to Ilfotec as D76 comes close to ID11. 

[grahamc]

Definitely . I haven't looked back since using it at 800 first time 😁

[jakontil]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/27/2023 at 4:21 PM, grahamc said:

Definitely . I haven't looked back since using it at 800 first time 😁

I usually rate 800 and develop it at normal time 6:30 with ilfotec HC so no puch but expose under

[hansvons]

On 4/23/2023 at 12:42 PM, hansvons said:

Because Delta 400 renders skin tones a tad lighter compared to all other ISO 400 stocks I tried (approx 1/3 stop due to a higher red sensitivity), the exposure of darker scenes with people/skin in the picture benefits a bit. I do like the grain of tabular films; others don't. But if you do, I'd give it a shot (pun intended). Delta 400 @ 800 is now my default high-speed B&W film stock.

Quoting myself for context ;). I got a new macro lens for scanning negatives. It's the Sigma 70mm Macro. At f 11, it's super-sharp across the entire frame. So sharp that Delta 400's tabular grain looks too harsh (Delta 100 is fine, though). That's why I did this:

 

On 4/22/2023 at 5:05 AM, grahamc said:

Anyone else pushing HP5 to 800 as your standard way to use it ?

Yes. And it looks much nicer than at box speed; below are a few examples from last Wednesday. HP5 shot at ISO 500-800 and developed at ISO 800 in Xtol. Thanks for pointing me to this @grahamc! Click to enlarge.

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!

[hansvons]

Again HP5, pushed to ISO 800. M4P, Color Skopar 35mm @f 2,8.

 

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!

Edited May 12 by hansvons

[hansvons]

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!

From the same series:

 

 

Edited May 12 by hansvons

[hansvons]

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!

[grahamc]

These all look great @hansvons ! Great to see it.  I shot tri-x today which I haven’t needed to do since I started shooting the HP5 this way. But I’m looking forward to developing the tri-x , as usual of course ! 

[hansvons]

On 4/27/2023 at 5:04 AM, AZD said:

Xtol is next, though I have only developed two rolls and haven’t printed anything yet, so no opinion. Negatives look good though. I’m hoping for the speed increase of Microphen with better sharpness… even though I just said it isn’t always everything.

I defaulted to Xtol 1:1, as it retains the speed, is sharp, and grain is minimised as possible. Compared to Rodinal, I’d say it’s on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding grain. But the key advantage is the relative environmental friendliness because it's based on vitamin C. It’s close to D76 but performs in everything better. I buy the Adox XT3 clone which comes in convenient anti-dust 1-litre powder pacs instead of the large pro 5-litre Kodak bags. That way, the infamous Xtol ageing sudden death is a non-issue because I never reach the 6 month storage limit. 
 

I used to run Xtol replenished and it worked great. But I now prefer the 1:1 solution. I find it even more balancing, fine-grained, and similar effectively.

[hansvons]

11 hours ago, grahamc said:

 I shot tri-x today which I haven’t needed to do since I started shooting the HP5 this way.

Have you ever tried Double-X 5222? From all B&W stocks this is my all-time favourite. It shows the nicest gamma curve, has the lushest tones, gives fabrics that structural pop and renders faces highly personal. I rate it IE 320 in daylight, especially under full sun. But pushing it makes it super-gritty and kills the shadows for good. That’s why I started that ISO 800 endavour. 
 

I’m not sure yet where that ends. I’d really like to bring Tri-X into the mix but its price is prohibitive in Europe. Delta 400’s tabular grain is an issue for me at that speed as the push exaggerates the grain’s structural prominence. However, it out-resolves HP5 visibly and keeps the latitude at ISO 800 similarity well. And the gamma is a tad nicer to my eyes.
 

Delta 100 stands the test of time for me. It’s my stock for high-resolving B&W images that want that luster and shininess. Rated at IE 80 and bathed in Xtol, it delivers results that enter medium format territory. You can shoot it at IE 200 without the need of pushing it, but the results will be more 35mm-ish. With Delta 100 I can clearly see the difference between the relatively cheap (and pocketable) Color Skopar and the Summicron 35mm ASPH. 

[AZD]

21 hours ago, hansvons said:

I used to run Xtol replenished and it worked great. But I now prefer the 1:1 solution. I find it even more balancing, fine-grained, and similar effectively.

I should compare 1+1 and replenished. So far so good with replenishing. The latest three rolls of HP5 look as though they will print very well. 

I ran a roll of Delta 400 at 800 also. I really need to print before I can tell how it went. Sometimes more detail and less grain would be welcome. However, TMAX 400 at 800 will be hard to beat. Kodak really got TMAX 400 right.

5222 is interesting but I haven’t used enough to fully understand it yet.  I have another roll waiting for when the mood strikes. From what I’ve seen personally I like it more around 250, so no help in the 800 category for me anyway.

I agree about Delta 100. What an excellent film! Last year I took a bunch of pictures of an old Sears department store during demolition. It’s amazing how much detail is in the negatives, like individual strands of rebar and bits of collapsing ceiling back in the shadows. Delta 100 and my Dual Range Summicron will meet again. I have some more architectural stuff in mind. 

[hansvons]

6 hours ago, AZD said:

I should compare 1+1 and replenished. So far so good with replenishing. The latest three rolls of HP5 look as though they will print very well. 

Frankly, if you have a nice replenishing line running, don't change that. It's a winning team.

I don't shoot B&W every day but project-driven (although that is changing now), meaning there are times when the developer sits on the shelf and oxidises comfortably in front of me. Although replenished Xtol seems to have longer shelf times than regularly used Xtol, I had a few rolls that looked underdeveloped when digitising them. I attributed that to a dying Xtol replenisher. In hindsight, I believe that an exhausted fixer was the culprit. But I couldn't afford to investigate that fully, so I re-booted the whole chain and made it foolproof. Now that I do 1:1 in one-litre packages, I don't have that shelve issue any more. And the economic aspect is close to replenishment. The only downside is the longer dev time. 

 

6 hours ago, AZD said:

Kodak really got TMAX 400 right.

Another great contender that outpriced Kodak for me. In Europe, I can get three rolls of Ilford for two rolls of Kodak, 5222 being the exemption. But I shot a few rolls of it and found it super close to Delta 400, with the same high acutance, highly resolving for ISO 400, and a sharp grain that isn't everybody's cup of tea.

 

6 hours ago, AZD said:

From what I’ve seen personally I like it more around 250, so no help in the 800 category for me anyway.

Absolutely no help in the 800 category. But in the medium-speed category, it offers B&W virtues that I vividly remember when I shot music videos with that stock in the 90ies and early 2000. For me, it's a great walk down memory lane with the option to recall old experiences and improve on them today. IE 320 is a bit too high for an overcast sky, leaving the shadows a tad inky. But when there's contrast, IE 320 works nicely - in Xtol, at least (I never tried D96). I pushed it once. But that experiment only showed that there was a reason why the film labs back then advised against pushing 5222. 

 

6 hours ago, AZD said:

I agree about Delta 100. What an excellent film!

Yeah. It is underappreciated in the sea of web opinions. 

Edited May 14 by hansvons