HP5+ Reciprocity

[zack kl]

Hi,
I am still new to 4x5 and have been running tests on the the reciprocity factors for Foma (Arista)100 which are quite different than other films it seems.These are going to take a while and so was hoping that somebody might have experience with HP5+ which I have choosen - for no particular reason -as my 400asa film. The reciprocity figures that Ilford gives in their tech sheet are quite different from the tests shown on
http://www.phototechmag.com/articles/articles/200705/0403Bond_Reciprocity2.pdf, a site recommended by "willwilson"(thank you). Anybody have experience as to which work better?
thanks, Zack

[Kevin Crisp]

I've used the basic Kodak table for non-T Max films and had good results with it. The room for error in really long exposures is huge.

[kev curry]

Zack,

I've been using the reciprocity table and development time adjustments for HP5+ for 2 years that I found in ''Using the View Camera'' by Steve Simmons and they've been bang on so far.

Heres the reciprocity table and the necessary development time adjustments ie minus 5%, minus 8% minus 10% and so on from the book....


Metered Time- (2sec / Actual Time Necessary-3sec.) (MT-4sec / ATN-7sec.) (MT-8sec / ATN-19sec -5%) (MT-12sec / ATN-33 sec -8%) (MT-16 / ATN-50 sec -10%) (MT-24 / ATN-93 -12%) (MT-32 / ATN-145 -14%) (MT-45 / ATN-250 -16%) (MT-60 / ATN-378 -18%) (MT-90 / ATN-853 -20% ) (MT-120 / ATN-1670 -24%)

[Ken Lee]

"...HP5+ which I have choosen - for no particular reason..."

Perhaps now you have a good reason to consider a film with better reciprocity characteristics. TMax 400 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf) is nice in this regard.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/tmyrecip.jpg

[zack kl]

Thanks kev, I looked it up in my copy and I noticed that he offers a suggested EI of 250-320, just out of curiousity what EI do you use? For a start I was going to go with 320.
Thanks for the recommendation of Tmax Ken but I already have my box of HP5+, once I get that under my belt then I'd like to try Tmax.

[Ron Marshall]

Another vote for TMY. I find it a very easy to get the results I want with XTOL. It is more tolerant of less than optimal exposure and development than is TMX.

[Jehu]

I've been shooting Tmax-100 and Tmax 400 while I'm learning this LF stuff. I've been wanting to try the HP-5 because, as I understand it, you can make more adjustments to the contrast with development times. It sounds like it won't work to well for long exposures though.

[zack kl]

Something I just noticed, comparing the corrections offered by Ilford, Howard Bond and Steve Simmons is that, as far as I can tell Simmons is the only source that offers recommended adjustments for developing which might be the reason that his 'actual times necessary' are up to 5 times the figures offered by Bond. Simmons times are in the same ballpark as Ilfords - which only go up to a 35 second measured exposure but offer no development adjustments.

[David Karp]

"I've been using the reciprocity table and development time adjustments for HP5+ for 2 years that I found in ''Using the View Camera'' by Steve Simmons and they've been bang on so far."

I agree completely. Simmons's numbers have worked perfectly for me, even when using 2 bath developers that do not require time adjustments.

TMax 400 reciprocity is most certainly better. However, to date, I like the way my photos look with HP5+ better than anything I have used to date. Although I have not yet tried the new TMax 400, I am very happy HP5+, so have no reason to change. I would suggest you try both if you are just starting out. Then pick one and stick with it until you are satisfied you know how it responds in varying situations.

I was tempted to buy some WP size TMax400, but then decided that since I like the HP5+ and Ilford seems to make WP size available every year, and Kodak requires a minimum purchase, why take sales away from the company that makes my favorite film in that size for a film made by any other company?

[Leonard Metcalf]

I use the Illford chart, and don't change the development time. This is for exposures up to 30 seconds or so... and I am very happy with my results. I use D76 expose for 400 iso.
Regards,

Len

[Jerry Bodine]

Zach,

This is a subject I’ve been wondering about also. In July 2004 I queried Ilford to find out why the data sheets for ALL of their b&w films were showing the same exact reciprocity correction curves, knowing that testing certainly requires a lot of time and expense. This situation still exists today. Their response was not unexpected, and I share it with you here: “We do use the same curve for all our films and it is essentially an average curve designed to be a reasonable guide for all our films. However, we are conscious that this is a weakness in our current Technical Information and we intend to provide curves for individual films when time and resources permit. However, there will be some batch to batch variability in this characteristic and so careful workers will need to run their own tests.” Steve Simmons has obviously done many of us a big favor by publishing the results of labor-intensive expensive tests for HP5+, my favorite as well. Kodak has maintained for decades that reduced development time is called for. Saint Ansel explains: "The reciprocity effect is not identical throughout the scale of negative densities. For long exposure, the low values tend to be affected (i.e., underexposed) more than the high values, causing a decrease in their density, and there is thus an increase in contrast in the negative. It is therefore necessary to decrease development to avoid excessive contrast." Although I do not yet have Steve’s book, I see that Kev’s values above do agree pretty much with Ilford’s curve, albeit with somewhat less exposure correction. And I, too, wonder if this data is influenced by EI/developer combo. Some time ago to get started with HP5+, I did my film speed and expansion/contraction tests with HC-110’B’ and, using Ansel’s criterion, I arrived at an effective speed of ISO 200 (meters checked for accuracy). In any event, Steve has provided a terrific starting point and possibly the final one, a wealth of small-increment data that facilitates plotting the curve (making interpolation unnecessary) and labeling it with dev time adjustments – a handy thing to include in one’s pocket-sized exposure notes.

Jerry

[kev curry]

Thanks kev, I looked it up in my copy and I noticed that he offers a suggested EI of 250-320, just out of curiousity what EI do you use? For a start I was going to go with 320.
Thanks for the recommendation of Tmax Ken but I already have my box of HP5+, once I get that under my belt then I'd like to try Tmax.

Hi Zack,

After testing Hp5+/ID11 (Picker Method) -tray development with 30sec initial agitation then 5sec every 30sec -I get an IE of 320. Hp5 is a beautiful film:)

[ki6mf]

At New England School of Photography we use this table as a starting place for black and white. I think that HP 5, the only film i shoot, can handle a 1 second exposure without going to the table. You should test to be sure.

Shadow Increase Exposure to:
Reading
shutter
speed

1 Second 2 Seconds
2 Seconds 4 Seconds
4 Seconds 10 Seconds
8 Seconds 25 Seconds
15 Seconds 1 Minute 10 Seconds
30 Seconds 3 Minutes 10 Seconds
1 Minute 9 Minutes
2 Minute 22 Minutes
4 Minute 48 Minutes
8 Minute 1 Hour 30 Minutes

[Jehu]

So you've tested that table with HP5?

[ki6mf]

I have used HP5 and gotten good results with exposures before reciprocity correction of 2 and 4 seconds. I have not tested for longer exposures.

You must use a compensating developer too!

I use d 76 diluted 1 part developer to 5 parts water, agitate once every two minutes and do the first negative for 15 minutes. I then print and depending on how good the first negative is will develop the second for 17 minutes if the first is bad.

[3312easy]

Bump, i want to konw

[seawolf66]

To: ki6mf: I just did some shooting with FP-4 : I also took Nick's course at NESOP:

I was In winchester, Ma. shooting a vine covered bridge with a horse shoe falls behind it :

I was using a red filter 3.00 but took reflected reading thru the filter with a seconik L-358
:

Now my high reading was 1 second and low reading was 30 seconds ,

so I shot at F-22 for 15 seconds :

Now according to the this chart you posted, below:

Shadow Increase Exposure to:
Reading
shutter
speed

1 Second 2 Seconds
2 Seconds 4 Seconds
4 Seconds 10 Seconds
8 Seconds 25 Seconds
15 Seconds 1 Minute 10 Seconds
30 Seconds 3 Minutes 10 Seconds
1 Minute 9 Minutes
2 Minute 22 Minutes
4 Minute 48 Minutes
8 Minute 1 Hour 30 Minutes

Its says 15 seconds EQUALS 1minute and 10 seconds SO was I suppose to expose that shot at 1 minute and 10
seconds ?:???????

Still Learning and Preplexed !: Attached is a digital foto of the shoot:

[venchka]

or..............

A person could use Fuji Neopan 100 Acros.

According to Fuji: No increase in exposure up to 2 minutes. From 2 minutes to 16 minutes & 40 seconds: Add 1/2 stop.

On the other hand, I have my last 10 sheets of HP5+ loaded and hope to expose them this weekend. I'll be using Steve's table from his book.

[CG]

Seawolf,

I'm not sure exactly what you did, but as best I get it, I've tried to show your photograph in terms of zones of exposure. I'm not sure I trust metering through filters but assuming it works with your meter ...

Your photograph - indicated exposure. . . . . placed on which zone and why

32 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 4 - meter said longer exposure so this was darkest zone
16 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 5 - where you placed your mid tone before reciprocity correction.
8 sec. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . zone 6
4 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 7
2 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 8
1 sec . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .zone 9 - meter said shortest exposure so this was brightest zone
It sounds like you shot at 1 min 10 sec. The basic exposure you gave is pretty heavy.
You did correctly in remembering that reciprocity is the last item to calculate once you've sorted everything else out.
So, your reciprocity correction was correct. But, I suspect the neg came out pretty dark if you did shoot at 1 min 10 sec.


The scene could have come out like this had you shot at 2 sec indicated:
32 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 1 - meter said longer exposure so this was darkest zone
16 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 2
8 sec. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . zone 3
4 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 4
2 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 5 if you want this to be your middle gray
1 sec . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .zone 6 - meter said shortest exposure so this was brightest zone
In this case I'd bump from indicated 2 sec to 4 sec. actual to compensate for reciprocity failure.


or:
The scene could have come out like this had you shot at 4 sec indicated:
32 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 2 - meter said longer exposure so this was darkest zone
16 sec . . . . . .. . . . . . . .zone 3
8 sec. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . zone 4
4 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 5 if you want this to be your middle gray
2 sec. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . zone 6
1 sec . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .zone 7 - meter said shortest exposure so this was brightest zone
In this case I'd bump from indicated 4 sec to 10 sec.actual to compensate for reciprocity failure.

I don't know if this helps make the exposure placement and reciprocity make sense but maybe you will see that the meter tells you the longest exposure when it "sees" the darkest areas, and the shortest when it sees the brightest areas.

Once you know the relationships between brightest, darkest and midtones, you can choose where you want to place the exposure. More exposure will lighten everything, but the relationships are preserved. Less exposure darkens everything but tonal relationships are, again, preserved.

In the absence of particular info on what parts of the scene you were metering, I'd have probably shot somewhere between 4 and 8 sec indicated - and after reciprocity that comes out between 10 and 25 sec.

Best,

C

[ki6mf]

I checked in Nick's book and it states:

If after placing shadow Increase exposure time to
the exposure time is:

1 sec 2 Sec
2 sec 4 Sec
4 sec 10 Sec
8 Sec 25 Sec
15 Sec 1 Min 10 Sec
30 Sec 3 Min 10 Sec
1 Minute 9 Minute
2 Minute 22 minutes
4 Minutes 48 Minutes
8 Minutes 1 1/2 Hour

If your shadow was at 30 Seconds then per the chart the exposure time would be 3 minutes 10 Seconds. With this method you don't worry about the developing times based on highlights you develop your first negative at 15 minutes for HP5 and FP4. Print and see the results if highlights are to thin develop the second negative for 17 minutes.

You should use this as a guide line and test and adjust as needed. For you original shoot you may want to shoot several negatives to get the right highlights.

I asked Nick about the one second minimum and he though that you could start if the placement is after 2 seconds. You should test for this.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have been using my own reciprocity correction data for HP5+ for 10 years.

for 1 sec give +1/3 more exposure.
2 secs give 3 seconds
4 secs give 6 secs
8 secs give 12 secs (1.5x)
16 give 32 (2x)
32 give 80 (2.5x)
64 give 192 (3x)
128 give 640 (5x)
256 give 2048 (8x)

You can take this data and draw a graph where time is on the bottom and exposure is on the vertical, connect the dots. The curve will give you inbetween compensation times.
Development compensation is not necessary.

[seawolf66]

CG & ki6mf : here is how I computed my exposure which is probly wrong :


1sec 2 5 25 50 100 are my shutter settings:

since the meter is reading are zone 5 or so I am told by a lot of folks !

so that would mean that zone seven is 1/5 sec ???


Now since the dark zone reading was 30 seconds

ok here is where I get screwed up


since 30 sec's is zone 5 thus zone 7 should be 15 sec's


the more I look at this the more I get screwed up in my thinking :

I meter for two places in a picture the darkist place and the brightist place trying too balance the greys out!!


thanks for all the info here :: Lauren

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now since the dark zone reading was 30 seconds

ok here is where I get screwed up


since 30 sec's is zone 5 thus zone 7 should be 15 sec's


No. If your shadow reading indicated 30 seconds, that's zone 5, therefore your zone 7 exposure would be two stops more or 120 seconds...and then you have to factor in reciprocity. Using my data, that would mean increasing by about 5 times.

[zack kl]

Seawolf
Hopefully not to confuse things too much- If you are using a red filter ( assuming #25 red filter) and taking your reading thru the filter you still have to increase exposure by 2 STOPS. You can see the chart and reasons in Steve Simmons book p.28. I've personally found this to be true especially with the #25. ( with Foma/ Arista 100 film)

[CG]

CG & ki6mf : here is how I computed my exposure which is probly wrong :
1sec 2 5 25 50 100 are my shutter settings:
since the meter is reading are zone 5 or so I am told by a lot of folks !
so that would mean that zone seven is 1/5 sec ???
Now since the dark zone reading was 30 seconds
ok here is where I get screwed up
since 30 sec's is zone 5 thus zone 7 should be 15 sec's
the more I look at this the more I get screwed up in my thinking :
I meter for two places in a picture the darkist place and the brightist place trying too balance the greys out!!
thanks for all the info here :: Lauren


You're bringing up a number of issues here, and I don't think it makes sense to try to sort them all out at once. But maybe we can get started with the most fundamental. Let's break this into manageable chunks. If I tell you something you already know, don't take offense. I'm just trying to make sure you get a solid grounding.

The most basic issues look to me to be:
1. How to interpret what the meter says.
2. How to see that as zones.

How to interpret what the meter says.
Basically the meter is dumb. It doesn't know how you want to "see" something. It has no idea you want to interpret a scene as darker or lighter. It has no idea you are pointing the meter at an area under a table or under a tree, and that you may be thinking of that area as something that should read as dark in your intended print.

Take for example that shadow under the tree. You shoot a landscape and the shadow under the tree should read as a dark tone, maybe black. You read the highlights elsewhere and you read the shadow under the tree, and you read some mid tone that should render as a middle gray.

Now, perhaps you move your camera much closer to that same area under the tree and items that were in shadow in your last photograph are now much larger and are now a closeup. You want the whole thing to appear well illuminated. The meter can't know your interpretation.

What the meter does, all it can do, is give you a reading that should, give you a middle gray. Once you know that, you can visualize that area as lighter or darker, and you can add or reduce exposure to "place" a part of the picture on a tone you actually want.

The numeric languauge of exposure in the meter, film and the camera runs by jumps or increments we call steps or "stops". Each jump is doubling or halving the previous increment. Exposure times are just as they look. The basic series of 1 sec, 2 secs, 4 secs, 8 secs, 16...32...64...126... is doubling at each step if you go up and halving if you go down. It's fine to simplify a little and use 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240.... makes it easier to think in terms of minutes. So, two steps up quadruples, and two steps down divides exposure by four. Three steps up multiplies by eight, and three steps down divides by eight.

Lens apertures, or "fstops" have a different looking series, but the meaning is the same, a halving or doubling with each step along the series. Lenses wide open at this end of the list F1.4, F2, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8. F11, F16, F22, F32, F45, F64 and lenses closed down to small apertures at this end of the series. But you double or halve with each step.

Why all this doubling and halving? Why not just go 1 sec, 2 secs, 3 secs, 4 secs, 5 secs...? Because a series like 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8... doesn't take you very far when you consider that photographers have to be able to work with vast differences in light intensity, and sequences that double and quadruple and octuple etc, can deal conveniently with huge ranges of light intensity. Additionally, the eye responds weel to doubling and halving sized jumps as it's next step up or down in brightness. It's hard for the human eye to detect modest changes in brightness. These jumps roughly correspond to our perception.

And that takes us to zones.

The zones look much the same - each is doubling exposure on each step up, or halving exposure on each step down.
The zones:
Zone 0 Blank transparent negative, just film base density plus fog. Prints totally black.
Zone 1 First tone above complete black. Slight tone with no texture.
Zone 2 First hint of texture. Deep tone, the darkest areas in which detail begins to be seen.
Zone 3 Average dark materials showing texture.
Zone 4 Average dark foliage. Open shadow in landscape.
Zone 5 North sky. Darkish skin. Middle gray The meter tries to produce this tone.
Zone 6 Average Caucasian skin value.
Zone 7 Very light skin. Light gray objects.
Zone 8 Whites with texture. Snow in shade. Highlighted Caucasian skin.
Zone 9 Glaring white surfaces. Snow in flat sunlight. White without texture.
Light sources will render as blank white paper tone.

So. Example...The meter just says how much light you need with a given film speed to get to middle gray, zone 5. Lets say you meter something and want to to be a little lighter, say someone with average caucasian skin. Generally it wants to read as one zone or one stop brighter than middle gray. Your meter pointed at the skin says F11 at 1/60 sec. There also was a piece of paper that read F/11 at 1/250th. It's two steps, or two "stops" brighter. If you shoot at the reading off the skin, the skin will print on zone 5, and the paper will print on zone 7. That two stop difference will be preserved no matter how we change the camera settings.

It turns out that caucasian skin usually looks right if it is visualized at zone 6, just a step brighter. So add a stop to your exposure to brighten the skin. If you shoot at F8 at 1/30th, or if you shoot at F5.6 at 1/60th, the skin should look right.

In addition, all the other parts of the scene will be brightened also. The paper will now be at zone 8. In the lingo of the zone system, you "placed" the skin on zone 6 and the paper "fell" on zone 8.

Does that help at all?

There are a lot of good resources out there on seeing your photograph in terms of zones. Since you are new at it, I'd urge you to steer clear of the more technical treatments. From Ansel Adams series of books: "Natural Light Photography" and "The Negative" might be a good starting point.

Best,

C

[seawolf66]

CG: Looks like I better take another course for this stuff: thank you all for your advice and help and information on this matter, It does present a mass of information to absorb and consider in getting good B&W Negative's :
I never gave Reciprocity any thought since I felt it only came into play for I minute or longer exposures?

If I can find some one to scan my negative then I will post the out come of them!

[seawolf66]

Ok Here the finished Product : this was shot as follows , about 1:00pm some clouds
meter reading thru a red 3x filter and exposed at F-22 @ 15 secs no adjustment to reciprocity correction : and was Developed in ID-11 at 68 degrees with a dilution of 1-3 and for 9 Minutes : Oh the film was FP-4 metered at ISO 50 and here are the results