FP4 vs HP5- when to use one over the other?

[timbo10ca]

I've been mainly using FP4 since I started processing my own film a few years ago. I've always been happy with it, but am wanting to add HP5 to my repetoire. Other than its faster speed, what other situations would I want to use it over FP4? I've heard that HP5 is a low contrast film so doesn't really like low contrast N+ dev type situations and FP4 is contrasty so better for N+ and less suitable to N- situations. Have others observed this? It seems less convenient as it's the low contrast/darker lighting you'd want a faster speed film for. I also notice that the HP5 curve doesn't have a shoulder- does this mean that past a point of + processing, you'd just get blocking and no seperation compared to FP4? How would I use these 2 different curves to greatest benefit? Lastly, how does the grain compare? I would be contact printing and enlarging to 16x20 max from 4x5 and 5x7 negs. I also hope to eventually start doing diginegs for Ziatype. I guess I'm just wondering if I need to keep the FP4 around for any reason....

Thanks,
Tim

[BrianShaw]

For LF I use FP4+ any time the shutter speeds are fast enough for what I'm shooting. When the light gets dim I start metering more and thinking of using HP5+ if I must.

[BrianShaw]

p.s. given the option I'd still be using Plus-X.

[IanG]

I've never particularly liked HP5 but then I've always disliked Tri-x. But that was based on 35mm use back in the 70's/80's.

I started with HP3 :D

Since starting to use a Crown Graphic hand held I've found a need to use a faster film, so that I can use a speed of 100th or more as well as apertures like f16 or preferably f22.

So while in Turkey for hand-held work it's HP5 I'm not used to the look of the negatives yet, I can read more in a negative tahn looking at a contact sheet, but the prints are superb. I should add that light levels are usually near the maximum a Luna Pro will read :D

I tried it in the UK using a tripod and didn't like it, it's too fast, I prefer a 50 EI film like Tmax or Delta 100 and long shutter speeds at f22/32 or even f45 depending on the lens.

For tripod work I find Delta 100 is far better alround, but in reality HP5 is an excellent film and has plenty of flexibility.

FP4 is equally as good, ultimately it's knowing your films, I used Delta 100 & 400 for a long time, I've only changed because Kodak films are harder to find (for me).

Ian

[Eamonn Doyle]

Ian G .. I'm curious to know how Delta 400 compares to Tri x or Tmax 400 ? Any thoughts ? Delta seems easier to find.. and a bit cheaper too I think ?
Thanks
Eamonn / Ireland

[Gem Singer]

I don't understand why you would want to replace FP-4+ with HP-5+.

You are used to working with FP-4+ and are perfectly happy with it. Don't replace it. Make use of both types of film.

I use HP-5 for 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10 negatives and FP-4+ for 120 roll film negatives. I usually to enlarge to 11X14 or 16X20.

Both are conventional grained films. You are correct in assuming that developing HP-5+ to N+ will tend to blow out the highlights. However, when developed in Pyrocat-HC. I have found that a 4X5 HP-5+ negative easily holds detail in the highlights and can be enlarged to 16X20 without exhibiting unacceptable grain.

Fp-4+ is a slower film and finer grained. A 16X20 enlargement from a 6X7 FP-4+ negative not a problem as far as grain is concerned.

[Ron Marshall]

I used FP4 for a few years and it is still one of my favourites.

I then began to use TMY when I needed more speed, and now it is the only film I use.

FP4 has better exposure latitude, but TMY I prefer for the extra speed. The grain is similar between the two films, at least in XTOL 1:1.

I prefer TMY to Tri-X and HP5.

If you don't need the speed stick with FP4.

[Eric Woodbury]

I'm the opposite of Ron. If you don't need the grain, stick with HP5. In general, I see the choice of film speed as blur vs grain. I'd like to know more about FP4, but I've always found that when I carry two films, I never have enough of the right one for the moment.

[IanG]

Ian G .. I'm curious to know how Delta 400 compares to Tri x or Tmax 400 ? Any thoughts ? Delta seems easier to find.. and a bit cheaper too I think ?
Thanks
Eamonn / Ireland

Delta 400 is close to Tmax 400 in it's qualities, unfortunately it's not available in LF, it was discontinued some time ago, I shoot it occasionally 6x6 & mainly 6x17.

Ilford films are significantly cheaper in the UK compared to Kodak, one reason I switched back, but the main one was Tmax was almost impossible to find when I was in South America, and it's the same here in Turkey. On my last trip back to the UK only Ilford and a little Fuji was stocked by my local store.

I will always use the slowest possible speed film.

Ian

[eddie]

i use faster lenses and like to shoot them wide open or close to it. FP4 is my film of choice as a result.....i find it frustrating that in 11x14 it is easier to get HP5......

[Drew Wiley]

I have used both films in both 4x5 and 8x10 formats. I prefer HP5 in the larger camera
because of the extra speed and exquisite edge effect; but it starts getting a little mushy-looking with 4x5 (or potentially grainy if you use certain developers). Both films
have a moderate toe but less than Delta films, and have better acutance than Delta.
Since you have 5x7 in mind, both films are tempting. Lately I've been carrying both
films around with the the 8X10, since each has its advantages. I develop in Pyro.

[Steve Sherman]

First let me say that I believe strongly in one film one developer, learn them and stick with them.

That said, the two films you mention have distinctively different profiles (characteristics) I have both films but considerably more FP than HP5.

Very basically, the FP 4 has much more "built in contrast" shorter toe and sharper rise to the straight line. While the HP5 has a longer toe and longer shoulder, in other words the HP5 is capable of handling more contrasty scenes than the FP4.

If your concerns lie solely in film speed than we are decidedly photographers and therefore my preferences will not matter.

2 cents, Cheers

[Gem Singer]

Steve,

I look at the difference between HP-5+ and FP-4+ in a more simplistic way.

FP-4+ is a higher contrast film than HP-5+. Therefore, it adds contrast to a flatly lit scene (fog, or overcast conditions). However, has a lower sensitivity to light.

HP-5+ is a lower contrast film. Therefore, it reduces the contrast to a harshly lit scene (outdoors in bright sunlight). However, it has an increased sensitivity to light.

The problem is that on a dull overcast day (less light) I usually need a faster film, like HP-5+, to hold my exposures within reasonable bounds.

[Drew Wiley]

What Steve mentioned reminded me of another functional distinction. When you have the shorter toe of FP4 you get better separation of shadow details, PROVIDED
your exposure is sufficient to boost the shadow values onto the straighter section of
the characteristic curve. With HP5 you have better odds getting "something" in the
shadows with an exposure that is a bit off, but it won't be well distinguished. The
longer toe tends to lump shadows together. I don't really like either film for extreme lighting ratios, where a true straight-line film can do a better job. But for
general work, I like HP5 when I don't have to trust shadow values below Zone III.
Overexposing this film will blow out the highlights, unless you develop with certain
secret elixirs or print using a silver contrast mask. FP4 will tolerate a bit of overexp,
so I generally rate it as ASA 50 for "normal" pyro dev. Of course, you can always do
N-1 development or something equivalent, but then you lose that wonderful internal
contrast and excellent edge effect which these films are prized for.

[timbo10ca]

Thanks everybody for your responses. I never really seriously considered dropping FP4 entirely but was curious if HP5 could cover the majority of its application. It sounds like what I have read elsewhere has been confirmed, and that these 2 films are different enough to use in different applications (low contrast =FP4 and high contrast =HP5). Like I said previously and Gem reiterated, The low light scenes where you need the speed of HP5 don't seem to be its best application, so I wonder how to approach those situations- stick with FP4 and just use the longer shutter speeds like I have already been doing?

Steve- I'm glad you chimed in, as you've really helped me in the past. I'm wondering how you feel about semistand with HP5 in Pyrocat HD- I tried some tests using your article (1.5:1:150) and time adjustments from what I found doing FP4, but I haven't printed them yet to see the results. I'm wondering if semistand is the way to go with HP5 or just stick to Sandy King's recommendation of 2:2:100 tray processing for this film. I don't think I'll worry too much about dev past N+ with it, because if I had to go that far I'd be better off using FP4. I'm thinking tray shuffle for N and semistand for N+1 and various N-. Any thoughts/input?

Thanks.

[Kerik Kouklis]

I've used both of these films for many years in 14x17 and other sizes. In a nutshell, I use FP4 for soft light and HP5 for contrasty light (assuming other factors like shutter speed aren't important).

[Drew Wiley]

Kerik - you are no doubt contact printing? With enlargement the equation might
change, as it's easy to blow out the highlights with HP5, unless one knows some
advanced dev or printing techniques like masking. Contrary to some of the stereotypes above, I find HP5 at its best in softer lit situations, because when you apply expanded (plus) dev you also get the best internal contrast and edge effect.
But this is quite a versatile film if you spend the time to learn its options.

[Ken Lee]

I'm not a sensitometry expert, but looking at Sandy King's study of these films (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html) in Pyrocat HD, I gather that HP5+ is quite linear - in the visible spectrum - in its response to changes in development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but HP5+ appears to be as linear as TMY - and superior in that regard, to FP4+.

Because TMY is unavailable in 5x7, I've been trying HP5+ lately. The combination of HP5+ and Pyrocat HD seems to do quite nicely, and hasn't blocked up (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/58.jpg)in the high values.

[timbo10ca]

I'm not a sensitometry expert, but looking at Sandy King's study of these films (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html) in Pyrocat HD, I gather that HP5+ is quite linear - in the visible spectrum - in its response to changes in development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but HP5+ seems as linear as TMY - and superior in that regard, to FP4+.

Because TMY is unavailable in 5x7, I've been trying HP5+ lately. The combination of HP5+ and Pyrocat HD seems to do quite nicely, and hasn't blocked up (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/58.jpg) in the high values.

Ken- how are you using the P-HD (tray/etc, dilution,temp...etc)?

[Ken Lee]

I "tray-develop" my negatives in these Sterilite food containers (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html). Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 for ~12 minutes at 70 degrees. I learned about affordable plastic containers from Carl Weese (http://www.carlweese.com), who uses large ones instead of photo trays, when making Platinum/Palladium prints.

I perform development by inspection (using an Infra Red viewing device (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#Monocular)), and prefer the greater dilution because I prefer a longer development time. Because the Sterilite containers are deep rather than wide, I routinely develop up to 20 or more negatives at a time. Longer development time allows some latitude or "fudge factor". Greater dilution also saves developer - but Pyrocat HD is already so affordable, it hardly matters.

Speaking of saving money and other resources, you might find this interesting: how to make your own Dishrack Film Washer (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/dishrack.html) for a few bucks.

I shoot HP5+ at a speed of 200, just as I do for TMY. I shoot FP4+ at 50. Giving one extra f/stop is an old habit, left over from the 1970's, which I can't shake, but which seems to work OK (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/tr.html).

[timbo10ca]

I "tray-develop" my negatives in these Sterilite food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html). Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 for ~12 minutes at 70 degrees. I learned about affordable plastic containers from Carl Weese (http://www.carlweese.com), who uses large ones instead of photo trays, when making Platinum/Palladium prints.

I perform development by inspection (using an Infra Red viewing device (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#Monocular)), and prefer the greater dilution because I prefer a longer development time. Because the Sterilite containers are deep rather than wide, I routinely develop up to 20 or more negatives at a time. Longer development time allows some latitude or "fudge factor". Greater dilution also saves developer - but Pyrocat HD is already so affordable, it hardly matters.

Speaking of saving money and other resources, you might find this interesting: how to make your own Dishrack Film Washer (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/dishrack.html) for a few bucks.

I shoot HP5+ at a speed of 200, just as I do for TMY. I shoot FP4+ at 50. Giving one extra f/stop is an old habit, left over from the 1970's, which I can't shake, but which seems to work OK (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/tr.html).

Interesting you use the 1:1:100 dilution- Sandy King recommends 2:2:100 for HP5 to get contrast up. Obviously you like how it's working for you though- have you tried the stronger dilution? Do you find it blocks highlights more?

Re: the night vision goggles-I've been using the cheapo plastic toy ones- great for everything but FBI- too low res/dark or something. Just can't see the film. They are a huge time saver for all other stuff though. I can't afford the Vipers yet but am wondering if the monocular cups over your eye so there's no light leakage to affect the film.

[Steve Sherman]

Steve- I'm glad you chimed in, as you've really helped me in the past. I'm wondering how you feel about semistand with HP5 in Pyrocat HD- I tried some tests using your article (1.5:1:150) and time adjustments from what I found doing FP4, but I haven't printed them yet to see the results. I'm wondering if semistand is the way to go with HP5 or just stick to Sandy King's recommendation of 2:2:100 tray processing for this film. I don't think I'll worry too much about dev past N+ with it, because if I had to go that far I'd be better off using FP4. I'm thinking tray shuffle for N and semistand for N+1 and various N-. Any thoughts/input?

Thanks.

Generally speaking I would agree that the HP 5 need not be used to expand contrast rather to contain or reduce contrast in the original scene. The FP 4 as Kerik says is an ideal film to separate shadows better and expand contrast in general.

The semi-stand process is uniquely appropriate for the photographic situations I seem to get myself into, extreme lighting conditions in either direction. For those situations there is no process more conducive to controlling / altering contrast.

So it is hard to say without understanding exactly what your photographic interests are. With all that goes into the SS process it may not be appropriate for everyone's desired end results.

Hope this helps, email if you'd like to discuss further

[Drew Wiley]

Ken - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less
of a straight-line than FP4, and much less than TMax films (at least in their
current rendition). I've done more than my fair share of densitometer readings using
step tablet tests with all these films, with quite a variety of developers, filters, etc.
But even the mfg published tech sheets will confirm this. In fact, TMax100 will
separate shadows far better than either of these Ilford films (I've used it for color
separation work, which is the most demanding of all film applications - doesn't
necessarily mean I like it for everything, however). Unfortunately, I think there tends to be a bit of confusion on a thread like this simply because all us tend to
develop and print a bit differently. Contact printers have somewhat different needs
than projection printers, and photojournalists like HP5 for its "latitude" in 35mm,
whereas large format zone-system types like myself despise the entire notion of
"latitude". I "zone"even my 35mm work. But on the bright side, what all these
seemingly conflicting bits of advice tells us is that these Ilford film are very versatile, and that there's more than one way to skin a cat!

[Ken Lee]

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less of a straight-line than FP4, and much less than TMax films"

Sorry for any confusion. I am referring to Sandy King's study of these films (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html), where he plots how changes in development time, affect Contrast Index. These graphs give us a sense about how long you need to develop a film, to get a certain level of contrast, and how easily that is done. His tests were for Pyrocat HD.

TMY and HP5+ seem very well suited for contraction and expansion via development, especially when compared to Tri-X, Bergger BPF 200, and TMAX 100.

I am merely pointing out that HP5+ appears to be more easy to control, via changes in development, than FP4+.

[Ken Lee]

Interesting you use the 1:1:100 dilution- Sandy King recommends 2:2:100 for HP5 to get contrast up. Obviously you like how it's working for you though- have you tried the stronger dilution? Do you find it blocks highlights more?

I have never tested the higher dilution. Sandy King's tests show that either dilution is capable of giving good control over contrast. One of the virtues of staining developers like Pyrocat HD, is less block of highlights to begin with.

My guess is that the recommendation of 2:2:100 will give greater contrast, in a more reasonable time. Not everyone likes a 12 minute time, but my feeling is that the whole process takes so long, a few extra minutes during the critical phase, is well worth it.

I can't afford the Vipers yet but am wondering if the monocular cups over your eye so there's no light leakage to affect the film.

I've never had a problem. In my humble opinion, the use of IR viewing device is one of the greatest improvements to come along since... the thermometer. ;)

[timbo10ca]

Ken - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less
of a straight-line than FP4

Looking at the curves on the fact sheets at the Ilford site, I'd say that the HP5 has a longer straighter line with no shoulder. Am I reading this wrong? What are the implications of the lack of a shoulder?

[Ken Lee]

For our purposes, having no shoulder in the Characteristic Curve, is great. It means we can capture a longer scale of brightness on the film, with greater fidelity and a more natural feeling of luminosity.

The fact sheet for HP5+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2007321132461251.pdf)

The fact sheet for FP4+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

If these charts are accurate, they suggest that HP5+ does not block high values: greater exposure just leads to greater density, in a linear or proportional manner.

In this regard, HP5+ is similar to TMY and TMX, whose spec sheet can be found at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

FP4+, however, has a shoulder. Exposure beyond this point, does not lead to greater detail, but blocked high values instead.

[Jim Noel]

I've been mainly using FP4 since I started processing my own film a few years ago. I've always been happy with it, but am wanting to add HP5 to my repetoire. Other than its faster speed, what other situations would I want to use it over FP4? I've heard that HP5 is a low contrast film so doesn't really like low contrast N+ dev type situations and FP4 is contrasty so better for N+ and less suitable to N- situations. Have others observed this? It seems less convenient as it's the low contrast/darker lighting you'd want a faster speed film for. I also notice that the HP5 curve doesn't have a shoulder- does this mean that past a point of + processing, you'd just get blocking and no seperation compared to FP4? How would I use these 2 different curves to greatest benefit? Lastly, how does the grain compare? I would be contact printing and enlarging to 16x20 max from 4x5 and 5x7 negs. I also hope to eventually start doing diginegs for Ziatype. I guess I'm just wondering if I need to keep the FP4 around for any reason....

Thanks,
Tim

The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well. Slower films expand well but contract less.
I use HP5+ for female portraits and scenes in which I want only normal or lower contrast and FP4+ for scenes requiring greater contrast and portraits of older men.

I also use FP4+ for all of the several alternative processes upon which I print.

[timbo10ca]

The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well. Slower films expand well but contract less.
I use HP5+ for female portraits and scenes in which I want only normal or lower contrast and FP4+ for scenes requiring greater contrast and portraits of older men.

I also use FP4+ for all of the several alternative processes upon which I print.

Great- this is kinda the ideas I was thinking of. The thing that really kicked me into trying HP5 at this point now is ironically my work in Ziatype. I have been urged by an excellent Ziatypist to use HP5 in HC-110 to a contrast range of 1.5 to 1.8 then print on Crane's Kid Finish. I had been using FP4 in Pyrocat HD on Platine and Weston Diploma Parchment and having real problems with highlight separation. Apparently this combo (although good for traditional Pt/Pd) is poor for Ziatype......

[Ken Lee]

"The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well."

How does this square with what Sandy King has shared (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html)? According to his tests - in the visible spectrum particularly - even Tri-X is capable of expansion and contraction via development: not as nicely as TMY or HP-5+, but it's certainly doable. FP4+ appears a bit harder to control than HP5+, but not drastically.

Am I overlooking something ? Perhaps Pyrocat HD gives different results than classic non-staining developers like D-76, HC-110, etc ?

[sanking]

I'm not a sensitometry expert, but looking at Sandy King's study of these films (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html) in Pyrocat HD, I gather that HP5+ is quite linear - in the visible spectrum - in its response to changes in development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but HP5+ appears to be as linear as TMY - and superior in that regard, to FP4+.

Because TMY is unavailable in 5x7, I've been trying HP5+ lately. The combination of HP5+ and Pyrocat HD seems to do quite nicely, and hasn't blocked up (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/58.jpg) in the high values.

Ken,

Just one small caveat. My testing of HP5+ for that article was done quite a number of years ago. My understanding is that HP5+ was "improved" since that time in a way that make it much better for expansion development. I tested HP5+ more recently and found it to be a much better film than the stuff I used back in the late 1990s, which was probably the film I tested for the article at unblinkingeye.com.

It is very good, of course, to see real improvement in our materials.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

Sandy, we need to send you back to the basement to do more testing ! ;)


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/mad-scientist.jpg

[timbo10ca]

FP4+ appears a bit harder to expand than HP5+, but not drastically.

Is this not the opposite of what has been discussed here though? Has it not been confirmed that FP4 expands (N+ develops) better and HP5 contracts (N- develops) better?

The fact sheet for HP5+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

The fact sheet for FP4+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...6115141521.pdf


These are the curves I was looking at- the line for HP5 is definitely longer and straighter than FP4 (to my eyes).... This would support it being a lower contrast film that handles high contrast scenes (ie alot of really bright areas) better, yes?

[timbo10ca]

Ken,

Just one small caveat. My testing of HP5+ for that article was done quite a number of years ago. My understanding is that HP5+ was "improved" since that time in a way that make it much better for expansion development. I tested HP5+ more recently and found it to be a much better film than the stuff I used back in the late 1990s, which was probably the film I tested for the article at unblinkingeye.com.

It is very good, of course, to see real improvement in our materials.

Sandy

Sandy, does this mean that using a 1:1:100 dilution, like that used for FP4 (and what Ken is finding works well for him) would be the more appropriate approach for HP5? If so, I'm wondering what times and temps I'd be looking at using. Also, if I decide to stick with 2:2:100, will the suggested times and temps on the graphs in that article still be usable as starting points? I'm just looking for N dev in trays right now and using SS for + and -. Unlike Ken, I'm not crazy about shuffling film for 20+ minutes (more chance for scratches) so am ok to stick with higher dilutions.

Tim

[sanking]

Sandy, does this mean that using a 1:1:100 dilution, like that used for FP4 (and what Ken is finding works well for him) would be the more appropriate approach for HP5? If so, I'm wondering what times and temps I'd be looking at using. Also, if I decide to stick with 2:2:100, will the suggested times and temps on the graphs in that article still be usable as starting points? I'm just looking for N dev in trays right now and using SS for + and -. Unlike Ken, I'm not crazy about shuffling film for 20+ minutes (more chance for scratches) so am ok to stick with higher dilutions.

Tim

Tim,

The major difference I found in the old HP5+ and the newer version is that the new film will develop to a higher CI. The old HP5+ developed to a fairly low CI, and then additional time in the developer simply increased both shadow and highlight density equally, which left the CI the same. I don't see a lot of difference in toe shape or curve type otherwise so what you have been doing should work fine, just remember that if you develop for too long you may get more contrast than you would have gotten with the old version of this film.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Ken -thanks for the explanation. One thing I've tried recently as an alternative to
PMK or Pyrocat is the new PMK-max, which Gordon Hutchings formulated specifically
to get better performance from HP5. It does indeed get a little more out of the
shadows and hold the highlights better, but is pricey, plus you lose some of the edge
effect which I treasure in HP5. Still, this is nothing like a true straight-line film. For
very long-scale scenes I do have an unusual pyro tweak which seems to work only
with this specific film and does not require stand development. But I should probably
test it again before I say too much, since I haven't used it in quite awhile. It works
by printing from only the pyro stain under deep blue light, using select VC papers
capable of high contrast, with no visible silver image on the negative! Wonderful scale, but takes some courage to try it.

[Martin Aislabie]

I push and pull HP5 in ID11 @ 1+1 without problems.

It does seem to have a very long shoulder - which is nice to catch those very bright details in clouds (which used to block up in FP4)

HP5 has a different tonal response to FP4 - this may or may not be to your liking

Martin

[kev curry]

Recent BTZS (view camera store)Testing gave a max full contraction of N-3 and a max expansion of N+1.40 with HP5/ID11/1+1@20' continuous in tubes.

[Ken Lee]

Recent BTZS (view camera store)Testing gave a max full contraction of N-3 and a max expansion of N+1.40 with HP5/ID11/1+1@20' continuous in tubes.

Did you do any testing of FP4+ ?

Correction:

FP4+ Fact Sheet: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

HP5+ Fact Sheet: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2007321132461251.pdf

Ilford April 2004 FP4+ Characteristic Curve: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/fp4curve.png

Ilford July 2004 HP5+ Characteristic Curve: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/hp5curve.png

[kev curry]

Ken, sorry, no just the HP5.

[sanking]

Recent BTZS (view camera store)Testing gave a max full contraction of N-3 and a max expansion of N+1.40 with HP5/ID11/1+1@20' continuous in tubes.


What was the setting for Exposure Scale in Winplotter than gave those results. As you no doubt know the actual values for N- and N+ will vary directly to the value of ES.

Sandy King

[kev curry]

Sorry I don't use Btzs/Winplotter. I use the basic test results for speed and dev times with the zone system. I would be happy to send anyone the full PDF of the test if that wasn't violating Fred Newmans information in anyway.

[Ken Lee]

Here's an N-- shot I from two days ago, using HP5+ in Pyrocat HD. The sun was setting on the other side of the building, and the clouds were quite bright. It's a pleasant surprise to see how much range was captured in the shadows, without blowing any high values. This was not semi-stand development: the negative was simply pulled out of the developer a few minutes early, by "inspection".


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/img174.jpg
Sinar P, 360mm APO Nikkor
5x7 HP5+, Pyrocat HD

[Rick Olson]

Ken ... beautiful, moody image. I think that HP-5 is one of those under-appreciated films. Probably because of the large following using Tri-X, which is also a great film. I use HP-5 and FP-4 for my 8 x 20. I do have to say that HP-5 really surprises me with the quality it records.

Rick



Here's an N-- shot I from two days ago, using HP5+ in Pyrocat HD. The sun was setting on the other side of the building, and the clouds were quite bright. It's a pleasant surprise to see how much range was captured in the shadows, without blowing any high values. This was not semi-stand development: the negative was simply pulled out of the developer a few minutes early, by "inspection".


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img174.jpg
Sinar P, 360mm APO Nikkor
5x7 HP5+, Pyrocat HD

[neillat]

I have used both films in both 4x5 and 8x10 formats. I prefer HP5 in the larger camera
because of the extra speed and exquisite edge effect; but it starts getting a little mushy-looking with 4x5 (or potentially grainy if you use certain developers). Both films
have a moderate toe but less than Delta films, and have better acutance than Delta.
Since you have 5x7 in mind, both films are tempting. Lately I've been carrying both
films around with the the 8X10, since each has its advantages. I develop in Pyro.

Gents,

I have some questions.... what is this "edge" you speak of? Can you describe this to me.

Here's my scenario:
I am shooting a horse project. The first shoot I did with FP4... the negs looked good, and the prints came out very nice. I thought they were a big soft to be honest, I shot everything at F11 due to available light.

The project will be ultimately printed on 40 x 50, given this does it matter which film to use either the fp4 or hp5? I did not realize I was supposed to be in the f32-45 range for resolution, probably why they came out a bit soft. The scene is always very contrasty with lots of hard sun. I guess my other question is will hp5 go up to 40 x 50 to the same quality as fp4. The only place I have to go on the fp4 is slower shutter speeds, and I can push the film to 200 (not sure how much quality I would loose by pushing to 200), I guess my other question is if a horse moves 1/30 or 1/125 will not matter or will it?

So I guess if I use fp4, I will need to come down to 1/30 sec to be in the exposure range @f32
or use hp5 and get back up to 1/125th @32

Thanks for any input you may have.

[Drew Wiley]

Wow. Old thread. You don't identify your format. But anything taken on HP5 and printed that big is going to look pretty mushy except at a distance. The distinct
edge effect won't help you much there, and the only advantage HP5 will have is speed. If you want a 400-speed film with better detail, use TMax 400, which will
handle harsh contrast better than HP5 anyway.

[Peter Gomena]

Ditto Drew's comment. I assume you're using a 4x5 camera for this project. Enlarging to 40x50 is a big leap, and I'd reach for T-Max 400 for its finer grain. The extra shutter speed may solve some of your softness problems.

[neillat]

Wow. Old thread. You don't identify your format. But anything taken on HP5 and printed that big is going to look pretty mushy except at a distance. The distinct
edge effect won't help you much there, and the only advantage HP5 will have is speed. If you want a 400-speed film with better detail, use TMax 400, which will
handle harsh contrast better than HP5 anyway.


Thanks Drew... I'm using 8 x 10. Will FP4 look any better at 40 x 50? I just read some info on the TMAX400 sounds like it's suited well for enlargement.

How would you say it compares regarding dynamic range higher/the same/lower? Compared to fp4 and hp5

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Drew... I'm using 8 x 10. Will FP4 look any better at 40 x 50? I just read some info on the TMAX400 sounds like it's suited well for enlargement.

How would you say it compares regarding dynamic range higher/the same/lower? Compared to fp4 and hp5

You'll have to judge this for yourself, but if you are shooting moving horses (just shaking their head, if they are physically walking or running you need even faster speeds) but I wouldn't go below 1/125th on your shutter. And f/22 or smaller aperture.

As far as film, if shooting 800 speed film is fast enough for your look, TMY-2 (tmax400) can be shot at 800 with no adjustment (no pushing) to the development. But if you need to go faster than 800ASA like 1600 or even 3200, I have to say that HP5+ pushes BEAUTIFULLY to these fast speeds in DD-X.

You will have less grain from TMY-2 at 800 than you would from HP5+ for sure. But sometimes having the extra speed for high shutter speeds is good (and the film is cheaper if that's a factor for you).

I can't comment on pushing FP4+ as I've never pushed that.

With horses I prefer Acros100 because of it's unique spectral response, but it's hella-expensive.

Best of luck (and yea old thread, Delta isn't even available in 400 anymore).

[Jim Noel]

I've been mainly using FP4 since I started processing my own film a few years ago. I've always been happy with it, but am wanting to add HP5 to my repetoire. Other than its faster speed, what other situations would I want to use it over FP4? I've heard that HP5 is a low contrast film so doesn't really like low contrast N+ dev type situations and FP4 is contrasty so better for N+ and less suitable to N- situations. Have others observed this? It seems less convenient as it's the low contrast/darker lighting you'd want a faster speed film for. I also notice that the HP5 curve doesn't have a shoulder- does this mean that past a point of + processing, you'd just get blocking and no seperation compared to FP4? How would I use these 2 different curves to greatest benefit? Lastly, how does the grain compare? I would be contact printing and enlarging to 16x20 max from 4x5 and 5x7 negs. I also hope to eventually start doing diginegs for Ziatype. I guess I'm just wondering if I need to keep the FP4 around for any reason....

Thanks,
Tim

faster films are by their nature less contrasty than medium and slow films. Fast films contract (N-) better and slower films expand (N+) better.

[Drew Wiley]

8x10 will definitely help in terms of the intended size of enlargement. But there's a tradeoff, because you need fairly small f-stops to get depth of field, unless you're deliberately aiming for shallow depth of field. I'd strongly recommend TMY400 either way. FP4 will be a little bit finer grained, but realistically is an ASA 50 film if you want to utilize the straight line part of the characteristic curve. Neither FP4 or HP5 will handle high contrast as well as TMY (and I've used a lot of all these films). I find domestic horses to be a very difficult kind of subject with an 8x10, simply because they're so curious and want to walk up and see what you're doing. I've actually had better luck with both wild mustangs and regular horses shot from a distance with very long lenses and TMY. It takes some patience. Fast shutter speeds simply aren't an option with typical 8x10 photography outdoors. There's a real discipline to timing thing. But back to the film - when you mention dynamic range, don't confuse that with a concept of latitude. TMY does need to be carefully metered, but if your shadows are correctly placed, it does have a
very long range, and is quite amenable to expansion and contraction in development. You can get good shadow detail way down into maybe Zone 2 even 1 at
full 400 speed (if you happen to subscribe to Zone System technique), but trying to expose the film at 800 will just lop a step off the bottom, which is likely to
go full black in a high-contrast situation. With HP5, you might get "something" in the shadows, but the separation will basically be mushy, and not worth it.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd strongly disagree with Noel when it comes to TMax films. TMY will handle plus development quite well. But in this case, when high-contrast lighting is in question,
there would be no need. But there would be a big advantage in minus development, because you are more likely to get away with it without having to cut your ASA yet another step, like you'd have to do with either of the Ilford films in question. But regarding HP5, it seems to have a sweet spot in terms of enlargement. I realize street photographers aim for a different effect than we view camera types do; but it's distinct "watercolor" grain and edge effect only hold up to about 4X enlargement, then things start becoming mushy. But the bigger problem is with the curve shape. HP5 has quite a bit of toe to it, so shadows simply don't separate
very crisply in high contrast situations. It's a wonderful film for some things, but I'd question it's use in this application. And FP4 would be just too slow, and sometimes has a problem handling the extremes as well. When TMY is excessively enlarged, as in this case, the grain remains fairly crisp, and there is still a good
impression of detail - all developer and focus related, of course - but all things being equal, will give a much crisper final image. I just can't visualize doing horses
with a slow film unless I was shooting small format and a very shallow field (which I have certainly done many times, but it's a completely different ballgame).

[BenJT]

Drew, are you saying that fp5 performs best when exposed at 50? Also, does fp4 and hp5 lack something in the highlight range? I'm pretty new to ilford films, recently switched from tri-x 400 and acros to hp5 and fp4, to support ilford. I know that hp5 is not a fine grain film, but I wasn't aware of it being more prone to blown highlights (read that earlier on in the thread). Also, and this is probably a dumb question and shows my lack of technical knowledge, does black and white neg film have less highlight range then CN films like portra? I've always thought black and white films had the same ability to take a lot of over exposure and still hold onto the highlights. I guess I thought the ilford films would be less finicky then this thread makes them sound.

[Drew Wiley]

No. Did I make a typo? It is FP4 which I would generally recommend being exposed at 50. With HP5, most people will use either full speed (400) or maybe 320.
Everything needs to be fine-tuned according to your personal development style, of course, just as with all film work. But I can certainly state that both from experience and formal lab testing, that you can get more contrast range onto TMY400 than onto either of the Ilford films, that is, if you factor in clearly visible
tonal gradations. TMY is a bit fussier in terms of getting the initial exposure correct, however. Color neg films differ one from another too, but certainly aren't capable of crisply handling the same kind of contrast range as most black and white films, which can be developed all kinds of ways to tweak contrast, without worrying about what will happen to color rendition per se. But I think you're making all this a bit too complicated. Take your best guess (and I've at least attempted to skew that in favor of TMY400), and then just experiment with a single film and development and printing method until you're comfortable with that.
When you're working subjects like horses, you'll need all that exposure business to become subconscious and second nature, so you're attention will be on the
subject. But due to the cost of 8x10 film, you might want to experiment with the same film in a smaller format, making smaller prints, first.

[BenJT]

Thanks drew. I'm definitely making it more complicated then it is, but its probably because in the end I want to wet print and have never done so, but will at the end of this month. I'm sure seeing prints finally will help me see it all clearer.

[Drew Wiley]

I know printing big is popular these days, but there are some logistical hurdles that are perhaps best learned a step at a time. But each step does have its rewards, and as your confidence builds, you will have a better idea of where you want to go. Or of course, once you have learned the hands-on basics and have the relevant negatives, you could simply sub out the really big prints, and their mounting, to an appropriately equipped commercial lab. But even in that kind of scenario, it really
helps to have enough darkroom skill yourself to communicate exactly what you want. Often I just enjoy looking thru an 8x10, and seeing how it renders the world
on that opalescent ground glass. I do that more often than actually exposing film. View cameras are a lot of fun, and as a side benefit, can keep you in shape too!

[neillat]

Thanks all for sharing your deep experience, I appreciate you doing this. I would make a comment about subject and tools. You will never produce anything interesting doing it the way others have always done it. I do shoot a lot of commercial and magazine work, and I get very bored with what the industry is pumping out. It's a magazine culture that is simply too easy and boring, at least for me. Commenting on people's style and how they achieve it, is tricky... my advice to anyone beginning or trying to learn something new is... DO IT, you will learn far more, than not doing it.

I did end up buying some TMY400, and will give it a go for this project. shooting horses is extremely difficult with this format, it takes time and a LOT of patience (often reshooting)

[Mark Barendt]

Looking at the curves on the fact sheets at the Ilford site, I'd say that the HP5 has a longer straighter line with no shoulder. Am I reading this wrong? What are the implications of the lack of a shoulder?

Just for giggles let's say we have developed just as Ilford suggests for FP4 to get the curve they show.

107618

The normal print range is roughly between the red lines.

So; What are the implications of the lack of a shoulder?

[Drew Wiley]

Just for giggles, let's just imagine that the real world doesn't consist of just one standardized illuminance range, and that films are not always developed to the same
level of contrast. So what are the implications of the "normal print range" involving something beyond those little red lines?

[Mark Barendt]

107619

Forgive the roughness of the drawing, it's freehanded on a small screen.

This shows expansion and contraction.

Same basic idea applies to HP5.

The longer the straight line the more you can over expose without hitting the shoulder.

With FP4 there's probably room for another 3-stops maybe 4 with a normal scene before you start bumping the shoulder in a way that matters. HP5 more yet.

[Mark Barendt]

Just for giggles, let's just imagine that the real world doesn't consist of just one standardized illuminance range, and that films are not always developed to the same
level of contrast. So what are the implications of the "normal print range" involving something beyond those little red lines?

The lines represent very roughly a straight print to grade 2 paper.

Post 60 kinda answers your question.

[Drew Wiley]

Ever try printing HP5 overexposed to the degree necessary to push the whole subject way up the curve? Good luck. I used to do it routinely, simply to get incredible
midtone microtonality. But even with VC papers, I had to add a supplementary unsharp silver mask, and have a plutonium-powered cold light with enough punch to
do it correctly, or else the highs would just plain blow out. HP5 has its distinct look, but with regard to strong luminance ranges, TMY or old-school straight-line films like Super XX and Bergger 200 make it SOOOOO much easier. So yeah, you are kinda reading the curves unrealistically.

[Mark Barendt]

I don't disagree that there are challenges as exposure goes up but plutonium-powered? ;)


So yeah, you are kinda reading the curves unrealistically.

How?

The paper has a certain range, a negative generally has more, TMY might qualify as a lot more.

We can play with the shape of the film curve (make the curve steeper or flatter), we can play with the print grade (spread or close the red lines a bit), or we can burn and dodge (to print from the areas outside the red lines).

What am I missing?

[Drew Wiley]

Oh you can do it, all right. But with what implications? I earned a phD in HP5 from the school of Hard Knocks. It might be a little bit easier nowadays given the superior quality of recent VC papers, as well as the PS curve-reconfiguration route. But the traditional way - compensating or minus development, or lower grades of paper (as if there were many graded paper left) - pretty much sacrifices the lovely midtone tonality potential which makes HP5 so special. I did it with masking, which I was pretty comfortable with anyway, due to all my color printing need of it. In this case, combining the need for a relatively fast film speed with big enlargement and high-contrast lighting conditions just made TMY the obvious candidate. I've certainly taken my share of shots under analogous conditions with both HP5 and FP5 and understand the practical shortcomings all too well. Under softer lighting, or without much wind or motion, that's a different story. These are all superb films, but each one has its particular strengths and weaknesses. None are cheap in 8x10, so I'd rather not guess.

[Roger Cole]

Drew, are you saying that fp5 performs best when exposed at 50? Also, does fp4 and hp5 lack something in the highlight range? I'm pretty new to ilford films, recently switched from tri-x 400 and acros to hp5 and fp4, to support ilford. I know that hp5 is not a fine grain film, but I wasn't aware of it being more prone to blown highlights (read that earlier on in the thread). Also, and this is probably a dumb question and shows my lack of technical knowledge, does black and white neg film have less highlight range then CN films like portra? I've always thought black and white films had the same ability to take a lot of over exposure and still hold onto the highlights. I guess I thought the ilford films would be less finicky then this thread makes them sound.


No. Did I make a typo? It is FP4 which I would generally recommend being exposed at 50. With HP5, most people will use either full speed (400) or maybe 320.
Everything needs to be fine-tuned according to your personal development style, of course, just as with all film work. But I can certainly state that both from experience and formal lab testing, that you can get more contrast range onto TMY400 than onto either of the Ilford films, that is, if you factor in clearly visible
tonal gradations. TMY is a bit fussier in terms of getting the initial exposure correct, however. Color neg films differ one from another too, but certainly aren't capable of crisply handling the same kind of contrast range as most black and white films, which can be developed all kinds of ways to tweak contrast, without worrying about what will happen to color rendition per se. But I think you're making all this a bit too complicated. Take your best guess (and I've at least attempted to skew that in favor of TMY400), and then just experiment with a single film and development and printing method until you're comfortable with that.
When you're working subjects like horses, you'll need all that exposure business to become subconscious and second nature, so you're attention will be on the
subject. But due to the cost of 8x10 film, you might want to experiment with the same film in a smaller format, making smaller prints, first.

I think he made the typo. He wrote "fp5" which of course doesn't exist. I knew what he meant but you apparently read it as HP5. ;)

[Mark Barendt]

Oh you can do it, all right. But with what implications? I earned a phD in HP5 from the school of Hard Knocks. It might be a little bit easier nowadays given the superior quality of recent VC papers, as well as the PS curve-reconfiguration route. But the traditional way - compensating or minus development, or lower grades of paper (as if there were many graded paper left) - pretty much sacrifices the lovely midtone tonality potential which makes HP5 so special. I did it with masking, which I was pretty comfortable with anyway, due to all my color printing need of it. In this case, combining the need for a relatively fast film speed with big enlargement and high-contrast lighting conditions just made TMY the obvious candidate. I've certainly taken my share of shots under analogous conditions with both HP5 and FP5 and understand the practical shortcomings all too well. Under softer lighting, or without much wind or motion, that's a different story. These are all superb films, but each one has its particular strengths and weaknesses. None are cheap in 8x10, so I'd rather not guess.

So, given that a mask just modifies the curve, I'm not missing anything.

[Drew Wiley]

There are quite a few disadvantages to printing an overexposed "thick" negative. (Don't confuse this with "thick emulsion" terminology). That habit seems to be a
tradition carried over from alt contact printing, but can be problematic in ordinary silver printing. Once you get too much density, it just equals headaches. And if
you add a mask, you need more firepower (though many of us do have relatively strong light sources to print from). So not having time to elaborate at the moment,
I'd just point out the distinction between "salvage" printing of less than ideal negs, and doing it the fast and easy way with something more reasonable. I break quite
a few rules myself from time to time, so understand the implications in terms of practicality.