Film Problem with HP5 ?

[levelcamera]

Asking for help and advise, I have been processing my own film for 25 years all large format, but I'm a little stumped,
I ordered Ilford Hp5 through the ULF program last year and I received in November last year the size is 7x11.
The first negative is processed in my standard Pyrocat-hd, water bath and Formular fixer TF4... They seem to have a base fog ? I check the holders by processing a loaded sheet but unexposed
it came out perfectly clear.
246530

The second negative is processed in kodak HC-110 with stop bath and ilford fixers, same effect ?

246531

[paulbarden]

I've occasionally had problems using Pyro developers on HP5, with results like yours: excessive base density (which HP5 is inclined to do anyway). No idea why it happens, but I avoid Pyro with HP5 now.

[Drew Wiley]

I exclusively used PMK pyro for HP5; never a problem. But that's pyrogallol based, not pyrocat. Still, the effect should be similar. Plus I always used an acid stop bath. HP5 behaves slightly like an old school thick-emulsion film, and retains the developer deeper and longer than typical modern thin emulsion films. So the culprit might be your use of plain water in lieu of a real stop bath. But you get a little more edge fbf with HP5 than most other films regardless. Have you tried actually printing these?

[ic-racer]

I'm not really seeing elevated base density in the examples. Looks pretty clear to me.

[Doremus Scudder]

The rebates on the film look fairly clear, so you're not dealing with base fog.

The Pyrocat negative is flatter than the HC-110 negative, but that's to be expected. The stain adds photinic density that the eye does not perceive. There is a lot of density in the shadow areas of both negatives. That has more to do with your E.I. rating and your metering technique. Still, neither neg looks unprintable to me.

The proof of the negative is in the printing. Have you printed either of these yet?

Doremus

[levelcamera]

The rebates on the film look fairly clear, so you're not dealing with base fog.

The Pyrocat negative is flatter than the HC-110 negative, but that's to be expected. The stain adds photinic density that the eye does not perceive. There is a lot of density in the shadow areas of both negatives. That has more to do with your E.I. rating and your metering technique. Still, neither neg looks unprintable to me.

The proof of the negative is in the printing. Have you printed either of these yet?

Doremus

I will have to wait until this weekend to get back in the darkroom and I will try to contact print them but I do not expect much, I will also open another box and try a sample from that…
Here is a sample from two weeks ago when we had snow in Kentucky Ilford hp5 in pyrocat-hd 1-1-100 5x7 negative makes a beautiful contact print.
246578

[Willie]

Make your contact prints before obsessing on the negatives. Judge how well they work from prints. Unless you are way off/over/under exposed making a print will tell you a lot more about the quality of your negatives.

[Drew Wiley]

The effect of pyro stain can indeed be a little hard to evaluate until you're used to printing with it. Try looking at the neg with strong direct light in front of a flat black background, instead of on the light box. You'll see a slightly reflective positive image which will give you a better idea of what's actually down in the deep shadow values.

[esearing]

I'm not a fan of HP5 in Pyrocat. But someone here told me about diluting Ansco 130 (Formulary 130) at 1:10 and develop for 10 minutes @ 68deg - it produces very nice negatives similar in contrast to HC110. I have since used it at 1:15 for 15 minutes for similar results, its basically linear to the dilution for time. I have not tried N+ or N- . Jay Defer's Obsidian Aqua (mostly cachetol) does seem to work for HP5 if you want some easy mix options to try. HC110 is a good standard too but I find it a bit too contrasty for waterfalls and the items I tend to shoot, or maybe its my technique.

[Fred L]

I'm going to have to try 130 as others have mentioned this as well. My expired 7x17 HP5 has the expected fbf and exposure times for Pt are quite long, when processed in Pyrocat. I really should have done side by sides with HC 110 etc. in the beginning, to have a kind of baseline for comparisons.

as for the OP, if this is base fog, I'd gladly take this ;)

[Michael R]

Fred, you might also try something like Ilford PQ Universal. The "operating principle" underlying usage of things like Ansco 130 or D-72 etc. is essentially to develop more density/contrast with lower fog - because print or universal/multi-purpose developers need to be balanced for minimal chemical fog. You typically pay a penalty in emulsion speed but it's probably not huge.


I'm going to have to try 130 as others have mentioned this as well. My expired 7x17 HP5 has the expected fbf and exposure times for Pt are quite long, when processed in Pyrocat. I really should have done side by sides with HC 110 etc. in the beginning, to have a kind of baseline for comparisons.

as for the OP, if this is base fog, I'd gladly take this ;)