Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Post by nielsf5 » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:55 pm

Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook) with the aim of processing some uprated HP5 (1600asa). For the sake of experimentation and economy I wanted to process one-shot at 1:1 but couldn't find any info anywhere. A cursory glance of Microphen dev times showed a rough doubling of times over stock, but dilute development of pushed films seemed not to be recommended. Undeterred, I figured on a time of 22 minutes at 20c (double the stock time). The negs turned out far better than I expected with relatively good shadow detail and not much fog. Contrast is a little on the high side, but certainly well printable. Anyway, just thought I'd share my findings with you. Regards, Niels R.


pentaxpete
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:19 am
Location: BRENTWOOD,Essex,(UK)

Post by pentaxpete » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:42 am

Welcome to the Forum: good to read about another 'make up your own' fan ! Thanks for the information, very useful.
Got COMPUTERISED and 'slightly Digitised Pentax K10D' but FILM STILL RULES !

pirateoversixty
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Post by pirateoversixty » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:04 am

Niels:

Is it possible for you to post a print or two from your roll of pushed HP-5?
Underexposed/overdeveloped film is certainly a controversial subject on this forum.
I have pushed HP-5 to 1600 myself with pretty decent results, though my film de jour is Neopan 400, with similar results.
Have a good one.
Jim

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Post by nielsf5 » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:41 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:Niels:

Is it possible for you to post a print or two from your roll of pushed HP-5?
Underexposed/overdeveloped film is certainly a controversial subject on this forum.
I have pushed HP-5 to 1600 myself with pretty decent results, though my film de jour is Neopan 400, with similar results.
Have a good one.
Jim
No probs Jim, Must warn you that I take forever to get round to printing and these are just test shots, nothing ambitious you understand.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Post by Ornello » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:01 pm

nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook) with the aim of processing some uprated HP5 (1600asa). For the sake of experimentation and economy I wanted to process one-shot at 1:1 but couldn't find any info anywhere. A cursory glance of Microphen dev times showed a rough doubling of times over stock, but dilute development of pushed films seemed not to be recommended. Undeterred, I figured on a time of 22 minutes at 20c (double the stock time). The negs turned out far better than I expected with relatively good shadow detail and not much fog. Contrast is a little on the high side, but certainly well printable. Anyway, just thought I'd share my findings with you. Regards, Niels R.
Just ONCE I'd like to hear from someone who did NOT want to push film. Why don't you try it at normal speed first??

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:49 am

nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook).
What`s so special about this formula? :?:

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Post by nielsf5 » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:35 pm

Ornello wrote:
nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook) with the aim of processing some uprated HP5 (1600asa). For the sake of experimentation and economy I wanted to process one-shot at 1:1 but couldn't find any info anywhere. A cursory glance of Microphen dev times showed a rough doubling of times over stock, but dilute development of pushed films seemed not to be recommended. Undeterred, I figured on a time of 22 minutes at 20c (double the stock time). The negs turned out far better than I expected with relatively good shadow detail and not much fog. Contrast is a little on the high side, but certainly well printable. Anyway, just thought I'd share my findings with you. Regards, Niels R.
Just ONCE I'd like to hear from someone who did NOT want to push film. Why don't you try it at normal speed first??
Why do you make the assumption that I haven't?? I've used HP5 at it's 'normal' speed for the past 20 odd years. In fact, I usually downrate it slightly. Sometimes, not very often, I'll push it 'coz I like the results it gives me which, IMHO is the important thing.

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Re: Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Post by nielsf5 » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:51 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook).
What`s so special about this formula? :?:
Keith, as far as I'm aware, ther is nothing special about this formula other than it works for me. Regards, Niels R.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:24 am

nielsf5 wrote:
Ornello wrote:
nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook) with the aim of processing some uprated HP5 (1600asa). For the sake of experimentation and economy I wanted to process one-shot at 1:1 but couldn't find any info anywhere. A cursory glance of Microphen dev times showed a rough doubling of times over stock, but dilute development of pushed films seemed not to be recommended. Undeterred, I figured on a time of 22 minutes at 20c (double the stock time). The negs turned out far better than I expected with relatively good shadow detail and not much fog. Contrast is a little on the high side, but certainly well printable. Anyway, just thought I'd share my findings with you. Regards, Niels R.
Just ONCE I'd like to hear from someone who did NOT want to push film. Why don't you try it at normal speed first??
Why do you make the assumption that I haven't?? I've used HP5 at it's 'normal' speed for the past 20 odd years. In fact, I usually downrate it slightly. Sometimes, not very often, I'll push it 'coz I like the results it gives me which, IMHO is the important thing.
Half the questions I see here are about pushing. It's getting ridiculous.

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Post by nielsf5 » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:33 am

Half the questions I see here are about pushing. It's getting ridiculous.
That may be the case but, my original post wasn't couched as a question, but rather as a piece of information that might be useful to others who don't share your views on pushing (film)

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Hello, good evening and.... HP5

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:44 pm

nielsf5 wrote:
Keith Tapscott. wrote:
nielsf5 wrote:Well, this is my first post on this forum so hello to one and all. I made up some 'Microphen type' developer (formula#22, The darkroom cookbook).
What`s so special about this formula? :?:
Keith, as far as I'm aware, ther is nothing special about this formula other than it works for me. Regards, Niels R.
Perhaps I should have asked how the formula differed from ID-68 for example, my original question may have seemed abrupt, but wasn`t meant to. I don`t have a copy of the book, so I don`t know the formula of #22.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:11 pm

nielsf5 wrote:
Half the questions I see here are about pushing. It's getting ridiculous.
That may be the case but, my original post wasn't couched as a question, but rather as a piece of information that might be useful to others who don't share your views on pushing (film)
'Pushing' simply doesn't work, ever. It's chemically impossible* to make film behave as if it were more sensitive that it is through changes in development times or temperatures. Some developers offer slightly more speed than standard borax-metol-sulphite (D-76 and clones) but we're talking no more than 1/3 stop true speed differential. The sad truth is that the speed of film is established at manufacture. Some batches may vary by 1/3 stop from 'norm'.

*Chemical hyper-sensitizing is occasionally used by scientists who need maximum sensitivity. It can be dangerous and should not be used by amateurs.

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Post by nielsf5 » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:06 pm

Ornello wrote: 'Pushing' simply doesn't work, ever. It's chemically impossible* to make film behave as if it were more sensitive that it is through changes in development times or temperatures. Some developers offer slightly more speed than standard borax-metol-sulphite (D-76 and clones) but we're talking no more than 1/3 stop true speed differential. The sad truth is that the speed of film is established at manufacture. Some batches may vary by 1/3 stop from 'norm'.
So, let me get this straight. Are you saying it's impossible by underexposing and overdeveloping a film (i.e. pushing) to get an aesthetically pleasing image? Are you arguing that is impossible to create graphic high contrast images for pictorial effect? It seems to me that you are using the words 'doesn't work' in its narrowest sense. I know pushing a film will give me some loss of shadow detail and various other effects but, for the kind of work I do, it's not always necessary (and sometimes a distraction) to have good shadow detail. It 'works' for me because I understand the trade-off and exploit it to suit my subject matter.

nielsf5
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Lancaster, NW England

Post by nielsf5 » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:18 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:Perhaps I should have asked how the formula differed from ID-68 for example, my original question may have seemed abrupt, but wasn`t meant to. I don`t have a copy of the book, so I don`t know the formula of #22.
Keith,
Here's the recipe for formula#22. I'm assuming you already have the formula for ID68. Regards, Niels R.

Water at 52c - 750ml
Sod. sulphite - 100g
Hydroquinone - 5g
Borax, granular - 3g
Boric acid, granular - 3.5g
Pot. bromide - 1g
Phenidone - 0.2g
Water to make 1litre.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:40 am

nielsf5 wrote:
Ornello wrote: 'Pushing' simply doesn't work, ever. It's chemically impossible* to make film behave as if it were more sensitive that it is through changes in development times or temperatures. Some developers offer slightly more speed than standard borax-metol-sulphite (D-76 and clones) but we're talking no more than 1/3 stop true speed differential. The sad truth is that the speed of film is established at manufacture. Some batches may vary by 1/3 stop from 'norm'.
So, let me get this straight. Are you saying it's impossible by underexposing and overdeveloping a film (i.e. pushing) to get an aesthetically pleasing image? Are you arguing that is impossible to create graphic high contrast images for pictorial effect? It seems to me that you are using the words 'doesn't work' in its narrowest sense. I know pushing a film will give me some loss of shadow detail and various other effects but, for the kind of work I do, it's not always necessary (and sometimes a distraction) to have good shadow detail. It 'works' for me because I understand the trade-off and exploit it to suit my subject matter.
You are free to do whatever you want. I intend to discourage such behaviour, however, whenever I can. Why? It's been done to death and looks like crap. It's trite and facile. I much prefer compelling content.

Post Reply