PDA

View Full Version : Developer for better highlight seperation w/ HP5



brian steinberger
8-Jun-2006, 21:24
I'm currently using D-76 1:1 with HP5 and some of my recent negatives are a bit flat in the highlights. Since many people in this forum shoot HP5 and FP4 I was wondering if anyone knows of, or is using a certain developer that gives better highlight seperation (a shorter shoulder) with this film.

ronald lamarsh
9-Jun-2006, 09:09
I've never really experienced this problem with either film. You stated that recently you have run into this problem or should I say lately. Have you changed any of your other procedures?
I have never used D-76 so I cannot comment about it. I have used D-23,PMK Pyro,Beutlers,Rodinal and the Stoeckler 2- bath formula and have never felt that I experienced a highlight separation problem. In fact if developed to the same contrast levels for printing I really don't see any difference in any of these developers at my modest enlargement ratios(4x max). I know this will cause a great stir and argument but differences in developers in my opinion are subtle at best when doing modest enlargements from large format negs. 35mm is a different story though.

Bill_1856
9-Jun-2006, 09:57
Any compensating or staining developer wil work extremely well. PMK and Diafine come to mind.

N Dhananjay
9-Jun-2006, 11:57
If I understand you correctly, you want better lcoal contrast in the highlights, a shorter, steeper shoulder. HP5 unfortunately, in my experience, is a film that does have a bit of a shoulder. You might want to try FP4, or if you cannot live with the speed loss, TMax400. If you want to stick to HP5, a staining developer like ABC or Pyrocat HD is probably your best bet to increase the local contrast in the highlights relative to the rest of the curve. Compensating developers will exacerbate the problem. Cheers, DJ

brian steinberger
9-Jun-2006, 14:49
D-76 1:1 is giving me great sharpness ( hence the reason to dilute) and I'm hesitant to give it up. If HP5 does have a long shoulder than is there a paper that might help the problem? I'm currently using Ilford MGVI glossy FB. If not, then I guess I could look for another fast film. I just prefer the additional speed, and since I'm only printing to 11x14 from 4x5 it doesn't matter at all. Tmax is too finicky from what I heard. I used tmax 100 and got some good results, but I'm not consistant enough with temp and processing, that's why I like D-76 with tradition emulsions (HP5, Tri-x), it's very forgiving.

What about Forte, Foma, Efke.. etc? Any of those manufactuers making any nice 200, 400 speed films in 4x5? Anyone with any experience?

brian steinberger
9-Jun-2006, 15:00
I just looked on Ilford's website and saw that their characteristic curve for HP5 has a very short should, while the curve for FP4 has a long shoulder. So going by that info, HP5 has better highlight seperation. I know the curve may change based on developer, temp... etc. but that gave me a general idea. How can I create and plot my own curve? Does anyone do that?

Marko
9-Jun-2006, 15:01
Brian,

There's two Ilford developers that you may want to try: DD-X (liquid) and Microphen (powder).

I haven't tried DD-X yet but I heard it does exactly what you are looking for. Microphen, on the other hand is a speed-increasing developer which will give you one full f-stop at its most conservative use.

tim atherton
9-Jun-2006, 15:06
I would give DD-X a try either the 1:4 or 1:9

brian steinberger
9-Jun-2006, 15:31
Marko & Tim, I'd rather use a high-energy film developer to keep the sharpness. I think fine grain developers look mushy. Tim, will diluting any fine grain developer make it more of a high energy developer? That's why I dilute D-76 1:1.

Marko
9-Jun-2006, 15:44
Brian,

I loved my HP5 in Microphen... Granted, it was 20+ years ago, right before it became "Plus" and it was 35mm, pushed two or even three stops in extreme cases for low available light, but I still remember how much I liked the contrast and tonality of it.

If you don't like the look of your particular combo, you can either try to change ISO/development time/development method combination OR you can try and change film/developer combination.

Either way, you won't know what works for you until you try it. Since you are already settled on your film, trying out different developers and times is not really all that expensive.

tim atherton
9-Jun-2006, 19:30
Marko & Tim, I'd rather use a high-energy film developer to keep the sharpness. I think fine grain developers look mushy. Tim, will diluting any fine grain developer make it more of a high energy developer? That's why I dilute D-76 1:1.

well - HP5 in DD-X printed to 24" or 30" looks fine and sharp to me...

I'd describe the negs I get as "crisp"

You could always use Xtol...

paulr
9-Jun-2006, 20:26
Any compensating or staining developer wil work extremely well. PMK and Diafine come to mind.

you actually want the opposite of a compensating developer. compensation compresses highlight values. a starting point would be d76 straight. it loses all compensating qualities at this concentration. if you're developing with intermittent agitation, you might also try continuous.

there's the possibility that something is wrong ... maybe even with the paper/paper developer, that's leading to the flat highlights. would be worth eliminating that possibility before changing up your development in a direction that could result in blocked values.

David Karp
9-Jun-2006, 20:48
If you are working in a traditional darkroom for your printing, you might want to check your safelight. I had a problem with my highlights, and John Sexton solved the problem in about 15 seconds. He looked at my prints, and asked me what kind of safelight I was using, and then asked me if I spent a lot of time fighting with my highlights. I told him the safelight brand and answered "yes" to the second question. He than told me to replace my safelight with a Kodak "bullet safelight." I did what he suggested, and immediately saw an improvement in my highlight separation and the brilliance of my highlights. No extra work, no change in developer. Sexton recommends using Kodak's safelight testing routine. They used to have a document with the procedure on their website. Now, who knows?

Maybe this will help.

paulr
9-Jun-2006, 21:47
yeah, good point about safelight fog. that would do it.

i don't know kodak's routine, but an easy way to check is to expose a sheet of paper without a negative just slightly ... so that with normal development you'd get a just a hint of tone (zone ix or so). and then leave it out under the safelight, with a coin or something on it that would cast a solid shadow. don't leave it out all day ... just for the longest stretch of time you think you might actually have the paper sitting out. then develop normally and see if you can make out the shadow.

robc
10-Jun-2006, 04:10
just to add to paulr's test which is the one I use. After the initial exposure of all of paper then put 1st coin on paper and then place further coins on paper at 1 minute intervals. Make sure paper and coins don't move during safelight exposure. That way you get to find out exactly how many minutes safety you have.

Note that different papers give different times and some such as some forte papers are very short depending on your safelight.

David Karp
10-Jun-2006, 07:21
I found the Kodak test:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/k4/k4TestSafelite.shtml

paulr
10-Jun-2006, 08:33
Note that different papers give different times and some such as some forte papers are very short depending on your safelight.

right ... forte recommends a red safelight (like in the movies) for their papers, so that's what i always used.

you can get ruby lith for cheap at a graphics supply house and turn anything into a safelight. it works really well. i've never had problems with it fading.

some people find the red light gloomy, but i always liked it.

robc
10-Jun-2006, 08:49
I use a Duka 50 safelight which uses a sodium bulb and have had no problems with forte papers I have used, notably polywarmtone VC which is supposed to be particularly susceptible to safelight fogging.

If the problem is not safelight related, then other options are to use Kodak TXP 320 which has an upswept characteristic curve so will give better separation in the highlights or if you want to stay with HP5 then develop in PMK but then print on Graded paper and not VC paper.

Also worth doing is to get hold of a transmission step wedge and print it to several papers which then gives you immediate visible information of the tonal separation of the paper. i.e. best in shadows, midtones or highlights.

In an ideal world, having available 3 films, one with a marked shoulder, one straight line and one upswept curve. Then make your choice of film depending on subject and where you want the most separation, i.e. shadows, midtones or highlights. Then also 3 papers, one with most tonal separation in shadows, one in midtones and one in highlights. With that combination at your disposal you should be able to achieve the most easily printed negs assuming you make the right choices and dev etc.
Those that take the the time to find those films and papers reap the rewards...

Oren Grad
10-Jun-2006, 09:04
In an ideal world, having available 3 films, one with a marked shoulder, one straight line and one upswept curve. Then make your choice of film depending on subject and where you want the most separation, i.e. shadows, midtones or highlights. Then also 3 papers, one with most tonal separation in shadows, one in midtones and one in highlights. With that combination at your disposal you should be able to achieve the most easily printed negs assuming you make the right choices and dev etc.

Alas, back here in the real world, VC FB papers with a short toe are pretty thin on the ground these days. More's the pity...

robc
10-Jun-2006, 17:11
I just looked on Ilford's website and saw that their characteristic curve for HP5 has a very short should, while the curve for FP4 has a long shoulder. So going by that info, HP5 has better highlight seperation. I know the curve may change based on developer, temp... etc. but that gave me a general idea. How can I create and plot my own curve? Does anyone do that?

Ilfords characteristic curves in their data sheets should be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are for illustration purposes only as far as I can tell and from having complained about obviously incorrect ones in the past. They fixed the problem by making one up which was also wrong!

Donald Qualls
10-Jun-2006, 19:19
Alas, back here in the real world, VC FB papers with a short toe are pretty thin on the ground these days. More's the pity...

Careful preflashing can shorten the toe of pretty much any paper -- effectively, it pushes the highlight information up onto the more linear part of the paper's curve. Worth a try, it can really help highlights a lot when it works. With VC paper, you'd want to preflash with something like a #0 or 00 filter.