What's your EI for HP5 and PMK?

[Tim V]

Hi guys,

I haven't shot Hp5+ in 120 or sheets for over 10 years, and never developed it in PMK. I just want to check what EI you guys shoot at when developing sheets in PMK.

I've been shooting Kodak Tri-X at EI260 and it gives wonderful results. I know HP5+ is a very different film, but I want to make sure the shadow detail separation is good and I'm not getting blocked up highlights. I know it's a bit of a finicky film in this regard, and wonder if this is why Photography Formulary advises to shoot it at 320-400? But how does shadow detail look at 320 if one is exposing for the shadows?

Thanks again,

Tim

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't used this combo in a long time, but when I did, I used EI 160 for N development.

[Drew Wiley]

I use full box speed (400). This film has a slightly long toe, and has trouble crisply resolving deep shadows, so I prefer to select TMY400 instead when high contrast scenes in open sun are encountered. That being said, I love the midtone expansion and pronounced edge effect possible of HP5 when it's a bit overdeveloped in PMK. That leaves a dilemma, because the highights become hard to manage. But I have a way to have my cake and eat it too - unsharp masking. If I did it the common way - lower ASA and reduced development or compensating development, then the midtones would end up compressed too.

[Tim V]

Hi Peter, thanks for the info.

Are you going that low to compensate for the long curve and the toe? Maybe a silly question, sorry! I wonder why PF state 320 or 400ISO as recommended EI? For Tri-X they recommend 260.

Thanks again,

Tim

[Tim V]

Thanks Drew, helpful as always with this stuff.

I think I'll experiment by starting at EI250, and double up with EI320.

Thanks again,

Tim

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am certainly a novice here, but I start with the stated rating, HP5-400 or Tmax100, Across100, etc. Then figure it out from there. I am going to process some HP5 this weekend, comparing standard developing in Tmax and HC-110, then try it with bleach, bleach plus 2-bath. All at the stated EI of 400. Once, done, if anyone one wants to borrow my negatives for their own way of processing, examining, let me know and I will send them out.

[David de Gruyl]

For Tri-X they recommend 260.


Tri-X is non-specific. Assuming TXP (ISO 320) that is something like 1/3 stop increase in exposure, which isn't exactly earth shattering. I'm seeing a recommendation of EI 320-400 for HP5, which is also "somewhere around 1/3 stop overexposure".

[Tim V]

Yes, it’s almost splitting hairs in some cases, it’s just that I know PMK usually requires a bit more light to get a good, full range of tones that are well separated. I’m mainly contact printing from 8x10” on CB paper, so don’t need contrasty negs however. Just want to get a good starting point consensus on the EI with standard development so I can then refine for my own look. Tri-X 400 at EI250 is great in 120 format and would use that for 8x10” except for the high price for 10 sheet box.

[Peter De Smidt]

My use of this combo was from about 20 years ago. I simply exposed a scene at various EIs and made prints. I like the print from the frames with more exposure. That's easy to test if you agree.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Tri-X 400 at EI250 is great in 120 format and would use that for 8x10” except for the high price for 10 sheet box.One cannot use TX400 in 8x10 since it's not manufactured. The 8x10 version of TRI-X is 320TXP, an entirely different film with a very dissimilar characteristic curve.

[Tim V]

I've never shot it in sheets, only shot the 400 version in 120 format. I didn't know it was entirely different though, interesting.


One cannot use TX400 in 8x10 since it's not manufactured. The 8x10 version of TRI-X is 320TXP, an entirely different film with a very dissimilar characteristic curve.

[Drew Wiley]

Tri-X, either version, is a different animal from HP5 anyway, so not an appropriate analogy. But even though the roll film and sheet film emulsions of HP5 seem identical, the visual effect in the print itself relative to degree of enlargement can be dramatically different, esp per edge effect. So after a reasonable ASA has been determined, you really need to fine tune things actual, per both film format and print. I don't personally shoot it in anything but 8x10. Even 4x5 enlargements look mushy to me, while 8x10 sings up to around a 20x24 print.

[Tim V]

Drew, can you explain what you mean by edge effects? Do you mean sharp transitions between highlight and shadow/midtone?

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, that's basically the meaning, also known as "Mackie line" effect. With the combination of HP5, PMK, and sufficient development, you can get a wonderful almost etched effect. But this also depends on the degree of enlargement. Over 3X it starts falling apart on HP5 and goes mushy. PMK induces what is called "watercolor effect" with HP5, which blends and hides grain grittiness, while at the same time enhancing edge effect. That is why, for the exact opposite reason, some street photographers like HP5 in small formats - for its softness when significantly enlarged (not my cup of tea). If 8x10 HP5 is used for moderate contrast scenes then slightly overdeveloped, it's simply wonderful for microtonality and edge effect. For higher contrast scenes, as long as shadow exposure is sufficient, overdevelopment plus supplementary unsharp masking yields a similar result. But I greatly prefer TMY400 or now-extinct old "straight line" films like Bergger 200 or Super XX for true high contrast work.