HP5+ in D-76 ...starting over with 4x5 -- where to start w/ JOBO

[pchaplo]

I just shot a test bracket with HP5+ 4x5, metering at ISO 250 that i heard many people use as a working film speed. I plan to develop with D-76 in a Jobo processor as my friend has D-76 on-hand and will help me. If you have worked with this same film, developer, and processor could you kindly advise on development time? Also, when I shoot the finals, I was to process them archivally--does that mean that I wash them for extra long time or is there more to it?

[Oren Grad]

For a starting point, follow the guidance in Ilford's data sheet for HP5 Plus:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf

Read the whole thing carefully - pretty much everything you need to know to get started is in there.

[David Lobato]

The label on my cabinet says: HP5+, EI 200, D-76 1:1, 73 F, 7.5 minutes. I use a JOBO drum and reversal rotary processing for both 4x5 and 8x10 formats.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I would ask what the OP wants to do with these negatives. GSPs? Scans? Alt Pro? 'It Depends' seems to be the real answer to his question.

[John Kasaian]

Check this out:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/film-development-chart

[pchaplo]

The label on my cabinet says: HP5+, EI 200, D-76 1:1, 73 F, 7.5 minutes. I use a JOBO drum and reversal rotary processing for both 4x5 and 8x10 formats.

Thanks. It seems obvious but I thought I would ask: 1:1 means one part developer to one part water, correct? Do you get D-76 as a powder or liquid concentrate? (I ask bc years ago I used HC-100 liquid concentrate that was very handy for single batch processing). What about the D-76?

[pchaplo]

I would ask what the OP wants to do with these negatives. GSPs? Scans? Alt Pro? 'It Depends' seems to be the real answer to his question.

Historical documentation. Mostly I need a well-exposed archival negative. Secondly and far less important, a contact print or a scan.

Do you process B&W film differently for different outputs? How?

[Kimberly Anderson]

Oh sure, you have a whole slew of developer options, exposure options, developing technique options, many people like to tailor their system to match the type of output or prints they want to make.

It's like anything, you can dive into a death spiral of obsessiveness from which you may or may not recover. No promises. ;)

[David Lobato]

Thanks. It seems obvious but I thought I would ask: 1:1 means one part developer to one part water, correct? Do you get D-76 as a powder or liquid concentrate? (I ask bc years ago I used HC-100 liquid concentrate that was very handy for single batch processing). What about the D-76?

Yes, it is one part developer and one part water. D-76 is a powder that needs to be mixed with water.

[pchaplo]

Yes, it is one part developer and one part water. D-76 is a powder that needs to be mixed with water.

Thanks. Does D-76 dissolve easily? Do I need a mixer on a drill? Can I use tap water -- we have pretty good water here.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks. Does D-76 dissolve easily? Do I need a mixer on a drill? Can I use tap water -- we have pretty good water here.

You can use tap water but it needs to be at around 120-125F. I've never used mechanical assistance, but sometimes it takes a few minutes of vigorous stirring to get the last bits of powder to dissolve.

[jbenedict]

+1 on the hot water. I think it is the metol that needs the high heat to dissolve. Dektol also has a lot of metol in it and it also needs really hot water.

[StoneNYC]

I found 250 way too strong and flat, 320 worked better for me, but HP5+ is the only film (besides Acros100) that I feel is actually rated properly, so 400 works very well also.

As other suggested, the times given by Ilford are fairly accurate, but reduce the time by 10% when using a rotary as a starter adjustment.

[Lenny Eiger]

Historical documentation. Mostly I need a well-exposed archival negative. Secondly and far less important, a contact print or a scan.

Do you process B&W film differently for different outputs? How?

This is not the combination for what you re doing. HP5 is very grainy, and so is D76. Use TMax, Ilford Delta (my favorite) or TMY2 and develop in something more modern, like Xtol, or in a variant of Pyro. There is on reason to put up with D76 (or HP5, for that matter) if you are going to scan. It is also excellent for everything else...

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

HP5 has a fairly smooth rendering in certain pyro formulas, combined with excellent edge effect. So it can be superb for architectural rendering, esp w/8x10 film,
but can't compete with TMY for detail with 4x5 film, or for shadow rendering. But that's as far as I'll take it on this thread, since I gave up on both D76 and rotary processing for either of these species of film a long time ago. Delta has the longest toe of any of them, so I never cared much for its shadow reproduction at all,
though it could be wonderful in the highlights. I consider D76 the "jack of all trades, but master of none" developer.

[Lenny Eiger]

HP5 is grainy. D76 is grainy. By definition. For scanning, you want the opposite, something that has very tightly packed grains.

That generally means lower ISO (very generally). Developers should not be "solvent" type, like D-76, if it can be avoided. I have managed Delta very well in the shadows, and I don't have to overexpose.... it doesn't yield a better result, at least not here.

Lenny

[Ken Lee]

The BTZS Plotter (http://tinyoctopus.net/BTZSPlotter/) program ships with test data for a large variety of film/developer combinations. I have found the data very precise and reliable.

For HP5+ in D-76 1:1 at 70 degrees, their data for normal development is 8.5 minutes, yielding a film speed of 250. With rotary processing you can reduce development time by 10%.

HP5+ in D-76 is a very nice combination. With 4x5 unless you plan to make substantial enlargements, you won't see much grain. Of course, what one person considers substantial, another may not.

[pchaplo]

Thanks to everyone for the very useful information! Good to know about the developer and consideration for scanning and get consultation from people with experience here!

[pchaplo]

The BTZS Plotter (http://tinyoctopus.net/BTZSPlotter/) program ships with test data for a large variety of film/developer combinations. I have found the data very precise and reliable.

For HP5+ in D-76 1:1 at 70 degrees, their data for normal development is 8.5 minutes, yielding a film speed of 250. With rotary processing you can reduce development time by 10%.

HP5+ in D-76 is a very nice combination. With 4x5 unless you plan to make substantial enlargements, you won't see much grain. Of course, what one person considers substantial, another may not.

Hi Ken, Thats very interesting data from BTZS. I wont be making a print larger that 4x5 inches, so your comments are fitting. Thanks for sharing!

[Roger Cole]

The label on my cabinet says: HP5+, EI 200, D-76 1:1, 73 F, 7.5 minutes. I use a JOBO drum and reversal rotary processing for both 4x5 and 8x10 formats.

Reversal? You're processing to a positive image or do you mean the direction reversing that Jobos do?

[Roger Cole]

I found 250 way too strong and flat, 320 worked better for me, but HP5+ is the only film (besides Acros100) that I feel is actually rated properly, so 400 works very well also.

As other suggested, the times given by Ilford are fairly accurate, but reduce the time by 10% when using a rotary as a starter adjustment.

Or use a pre-soak. I've found the Jobo recommendation that a 5 minute pre-soak in tempered water almost exactly compensates for rotary development to be pretty accurate, in an "in the ballpark" kind of way. Bi experience yet with HP5+ though I plan to switch to it from TMY-2 as Kodak has simply priced themselves out of my sheet film usage, at least when film as good as Ilford is available for so much less.

[Roger Cole]

HP5 is grainy. D76 is grainy. By definition. For scanning, you want the opposite, something that has very tightly packed grains.

That generally means lower ISO (very generally). Developers should not be "solvent" type, like D-76, if it can be avoided. I have managed Delta very well in the shadows, and I don't have to overexpose.... it doesn't yield a better result, at least not here.

Lenny

D76 is grainy?

I don't think so. Full strength D76 has enough solvent action to be considered a somewhat "fine grain" developer. This is lessened, at the gain of increased sharpness, at 1+1.

D76 is, as Drew said, a sort of "jack of all trades master of none" developer but as such it's a great choice. I first used it in circa 1976 or so and keep coming back to it. I use T-Max for some Kodak films and to push D3200 (and previously TMZ) and I use Diafine for Tri-X where EI 1000-1250 is useful and for Pan F+ to tame highlight contrast, but otherwise I keep coming back to D76. While it may not be the best at anything it isn't the worst either. If I had to choose one and only one developer it would probably be D76.

[Lenny Eiger]

D76 is grainy?

I don't think so. Full strength D76 has enough solvent action to be considered a somewhat "fine grain" developer. This is lessened, at the gain of increased sharpness, at 1+1.

D76 is, as Drew said, a sort of "jack of all trades master of none" developer but as such it's a great choice. I first used it in circa 1976 or so and keep coming back to it. I use T-Max for some Kodak films and to push D3200 (and previously TMZ) and I use Diafine for Tri-X where EI 1000-1250 is useful and for Pan F+ to tame highlight contrast, but otherwise I keep coming back to D76. While it may not be the best at anything it isn't the worst either. If I had to choose one and only one developer it would probably be D76.

Yes, but look at what you re doing... you are "pushing". This is increasing the contrast considerably for low light situations where you are just dropping out the shadows... (Pushing doesn't happen, you don't get more in the shadows by overdeveloping.) As I stated earlier, if your aim is contrast then it doesn't matter.

If one looks very closely at grain, you can see it increase with development time (given all other factors, same temp, developer, agitation, etc.) If you are developing longer to expand the range vs compress, you are already in an area which I would call grainy. Comparing one grainy result against another there will be little difference.

However, if you develop for an N-1 or N-2 result, you will see quite a bit of difference between many of the developers.

Lenny

[Roger Cole]

Yes, but look at what you re doing... you are "pushing". This is increasing the contrast considerably for low light situations where you are just dropping out the shadows... (Pushing doesn't happen, you don't get more in the shadows by overdeveloping.) As I stated earlier, if your aim is contrast then it doesn't matter.

If one looks very closely at grain, you can see it increase with development time (given all other factors, same temp, developer, agitation, etc.) If you are developing longer to expand the range vs compress, you are already in an area which I would call grainy. Comparing one grainy result against another there will be little difference.

However, if you develop for an N-1 or N-2 result, you will see quite a bit of difference between many of the developers.

Lenny

What? Yes, I know about pushing with normal developers. I never push with D76.

If you're talking about my reference to Diafine and T-Max RS, Diafine definitely does NOT increase contrast. Believe it or not but don't deny it until you try it - EI 1000 Tri-X negatives in Diafine have good shadow detail and are actually rather flat, print well on grade 3 to 3.5. The T-Max with D3200 is a conventional push of course as you say but D3200 starts out a flat film for just this reason.

I did not mean to compare it to Diafine. I mentioned the latter only because it was the only developer I used aside from D76 for years. D76 for normal (it was all roll film then so I didn't do minus) and Diafine when I needed the speed.

Again - I never use D76 to push. For that I use T-Max RS or Diafine. I use D76 for normal, minus, and plus-without-push (normal EI, increased contrast) development.

Now if you mean "of course D76 isn't grainy compared to those I'm pushing with when I push" I'd see your point if it was all I'd ever TRIED. It isn't - I said those were all I USED. I also use the T-Max RS for Kodak films at normal EI and I've tried Microdol X in the old days (finer grain, less sharp, less effective speed) and also used Rodinal (D76 is finer grained and less sharp) and HC110 (grain about the same - we're splitting hairs between most normal developers.) And then there's the T-Max RS I also use at normal speeds/contrast and normal speed plus and minus contrast with Kodak films.

D76 is not a grainy developer. It isn't Microdol-X but it isn't Rodinal either.

[robertrose]

Your 73 degree water is a bit warmer than most, so you are going to have to experiment. That Freestyle site, and that HP5+ sheet you were given the link to both give times for 68 degrees. (Your 73 degree water will give a bit shorter times) The Jobo should temper everything so it won't matter once you get what you like, so long as you are consistent from batch to batch. Use a hypo clearing wash if you want to keep wash times down.

Yes, your end use will definitely affect what your negatives should look like. For example, if you are going to scan and print digitally, then you will want tone in the highlights, and a lower contrast since you can change quite a bit in post-processing. If you are going to wet print then you are going to want to adjust the negatives so that they have the right contrast for the desired paper. For wet prints I found that I exposed for the shadows and printed for the highlights. Now I scan and digital print, so I expose and print for the highlights, more like slide film.

Just enjoy the process.

[Roger Cole]

That part shouldn't be a problem. I develop all my black and white at 75F. The reason is that in the summer my "cold" water comes out of the faucet at nearly 80F and the ambient temperature in my darkroom puts solutions at about 75 (sometimes a degree or two more on the hottest days and I compensate) and my Jobo CPE2 has a heater but not a chiller, not that I'd have cold water for it anyway.

Ilford makes a handy conversion chart that I've found plenty close enough for starting times.

[ic-racer]

D76 isn't the best developer for rotary processing in a Jobo, but, as others have pointed out, it is feasible. A time to start with would be about 5 minutes at 24 degrees centigrade. Trouble points to watch for with D76 & Jobo would be times less than 4 minutes (uneven development) or greater than 1000ml of solution in the tank (broken Jobo) or less than 250ml concentrate per 80sq inch film ( weak development in center of negative).

[Roger Cole]

I use D76 1+1 and T-Max RS in my Jobo. Works fine. Seems every developer "isn't the best for rotary" but they all seem ok to me. ;)

Those points are true for all developers with appropriate adjustment of the amount needed per film.

[robertrose]

I should have added that with the Jobo CP processors (CPE, CPA, CPP) you can take one or more of the unused plastic bottles, fill it 2/3 with water (to allow for ice expansion) and freeze it. Then place the frozen water bottle in one of the unused slots, and then the tempered water bath will be colder. You can use the built-in heater element to raise the temperature back up to 68.

[bob carnie]

I have been using D76 straight with jobo process for HP5 for over 20 years.. my time is about 7min at 20C as basis, depending how lit , lighting ratio , and rating will determine final time .. Usually between 6-9 min

Second main developer is PMK .much different times.

[Peter De Smidt]

Like Roger and Bob have said, D76 works just fine in a Jobo.

You have to run your own tests. If your temp is slightly different from someone else's, or the rotation on the drum is different, or your exposure is different, then you'll need different times. Just make your best guess, run a test negative, evaluate your results and fine tune. It's simple! You don't have have to do an Adams/Picker/Davis style test, if you know what a good negative looks like, not that those are hard.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used to use D-76 diluted 1+1 and even 1+3 with HP5+ in BTZS tubes until Xtol came out and pyrocat-hd... 4x5 and 8x10.

[Roger Cole]

I should have added that with the Jobo CP processors (CPE, CPA, CPP) you can take one or more of the unused plastic bottles, fill it 2/3 with water (to allow for ice expansion) and freeze it. Then place the frozen water bottle in one of the unused slots, and then the tempered water bath will be colder. You can use the built-in heater element to raise the temperature back up to 68.

Sure. You also just use a temperature that you can raise it to without the ice and shorten the time. There is nothing magical about 68F. My results are fine at 75F. 68 would ALWAYS require some cooling if I'm going to be working in the room.

[Peter De Smidt]

I do exactly what Roger does and for the same reason. There's nothing wrong with 75F.

Btw., the most accurate starting points I've seen, assuming you have a good thermometer, are Kodak's Xtol times for rotary development.

[Lenny Eiger]

Like Roger and Bob have said, D76 works just fine in a Jobo.

You have to run your own tests. If your temp is slightly different from someone else's, or the rotation on the drum is different, or your exposure is different, then you'll need different times. Just make your best guess, run a test negative, evaluate your results and fine tune. It's simple! You don't have have to do an Adams/Picker/Davis style test, if you know what a good negative looks like, not that those are hard.

Peter and Roger.

Love you guys, but there IS a huge difference in grain structure between these combinations. I tested about 30 different developers, stuck the film on my scanner and looked in Photoshop at 100%. HP5 was very different from Delta, TMax and TMY2 (and Acros). D-76 couldn't come close to Xtol.

Xtol won out in our original tests, which I had done without Pyro. I have just tested Rollo Pyro and PyroCat and the results from Xtol and those two match in terms grain structure.

If you print contrasty (or develop negs contrasty), these things don't really matter, as I have said before. However, D-76 does not compare well to Xtol or Pyro.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an accurate thermometer in glass, that you can purchase. Repeatable, yes, but not accurate.

Is it possible that my tests are different from everyone else's? Sure, why not. However, there are excellent developers out there and there's no reason in my mind to use the old stuff... it isn't better. PyrocatHD is terrific, it comes in glycol so it lasts a long time. It's sharp, has a little Phenidone in it, compensates well. It's a good choice.... especially if one learns how to use it over a little time.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

I've used only Pyrocat HD/MC and Xtol exclusively for over a decade. It's been a long time since I tried D76, although it's been classified for decades as a fine grain solvent style developer, including in the Film Development Cookbook, by Anchell and Troop. I agree it's not as fine-grained as Xtol, but it's certainly not FX-1 or Rodinal. Lenny's results are a bit of an outlier, but it certainly counts as a viable data point.

I consider HP5+ to be a very grainy film.

My mercury lab thermometer has certification traceable to NIST. It came with a chart of it's response compared to the standard. Why is it not both precise and accurate? When I got it all of a sudden my Xtol times in my Jobo matched Kodak's times.

[Michael Clark]

Just wanted to add when mixing your powdered developers not to stir to vigorously, just constant and enough to keep the particles in suspension so they will dissolve into the water. Too vigorous stirring will pump oxygen into the mix turning it brown and weakening the mix.

[Lenny Eiger]

My mercury lab thermometer has certification traceable to NIST. It came with a chart of it's response compared to the standard. Why is it not both precise and accurate? When I got it all of a sudden my Xtol times in my Jobo matched Kodak's times.

I had been moving around for a couple of years and finally settled and pulled out all my darkroom stuff (a bunch of years ago). Looking at my thermometers, I had a Kodak one, two Patersons, a Chinese one, and one or two others. I stuck them all in a jar of water just to see how they compared, and which one I should use. None of them agreed with each other, not any two of them. I began researching, and bought a couple of NIST traceable thermometers, one was a stick, the other a round (lollipop) thing to stick on the wall, with a sensor on a wire. $30-$50 each.

Not only did they not agree with my glass ones, the two NIST Traceable ones didn't agree with each other. I was confused and came here to discuss it. Turns out someone knew the drill, and he wanted a print made. NIST and Traceable means that at some point someone came to their factory (or they sent one of their thermometers to the NIST) and someone certified that it actually was correct at some temperature. Many of these thermometers are certified "at points", which (for what we would buy) usually means at 0 degrees and 100 degrees Celsius. There are also plenty of other ranges from very cold to very hot.

I went back to my NIST Traceable thermometers and stuck them in some freezing cold water with crushed ice and, in fact, they were pretty good. I assumed that they were fine at 100 degrees as well. However, in the middle of the dial, they were not accurate at all. A re-read of the specs, and after talking to the company I got them from, I discovered that they could be 1-2 degrees off in the middle of the range (or maybe 3, or a little more) and still be fine, this was expected.

Thankfully, my friend with the printing need explained this to me, and was happy to send me a VWR Scientific Thermometer. He had a pile of them in his scientific lab. He also had his assistant calibrate the thermometer to .1 degree all the way up the dial from 0 to 100, and be extra careful in the 20-25 C region, where we all live.

When I finally got a hold of this newfangled box I stuck all the glass ones back in the closet where they still live. FWIW, despite all the talk about Kodak thermometers, my trusty Kodak with the big red bulb was one of the worst. At the time, the VWR thermometers were about $495. Now a quick check of scientific thermometers on the net will yield everything from $30-$40 all the way up... to thousands. Before I could buy another one, I would want to talk to the manufacturer and make sure the sensor was meant for liquid immersion, and the "points" it was measured at were in the scale I need, right there at 22...

Of course, the only real important thing is repeatability, which glass thermometers have. The only ones that might not are the dial ones, especially if they get dropped. Of course, if you are trying to tell someone they should develop for 8.5 minutes at 70 degrees F, you might have to compare thermometers first... We all know that a couple of degrees can mean minutes of difference...


Hope this helps,

Lenny