I gave up using HP5 a few years ago (though I still have some left, getting staler by the minute) because I found that when compared to FP4+, it looked "flat" in the higher values: poor separation of details in the near-whites. Its a great film for many applications, but for me it lacked "sparkle" in the high values, where a lot of texture information is conveyed. I believe that it is this characteristic, however, that makes HP5 an excellent portrait film.Originally Posted by Roberto Nania
Completely agree with Roberto and Paul. I have seen marvelous images from HP5 so I know it is fully capable of excellent results. But one has to ensure you stay on its wheelhouse or you could be disappointed. Moving too far up the film curve (whether intentional or unintentional) for me caused a host of aesthetic and logistical issues I was not willing to work through as it induced two things I strive to stay away from. One of these is inefficiency in my darkroom processes and the other is having to spend time trying in the field to strategize around these limitations. With T Max 400 (the old version) I can photograph literally anything I choose with zero limitations because it can handle far more than I need from it (ie. straight line up film curve to the moon). I gave away a box of 11x14 HP5 (less two sheets) and tossed out the other HP5 I had in my freezer and moved on to Delta 100 and FP4+ to continue my desire to support Ilford.
Michael - I too moved along to TMY400 as the most direct answer to high contrast issues. I've posted before how I tamed HP5 in such situations, not by beating the life and sparkle out of it using heavy-handed compression or minus development, but by deliberately overdeveloping it for sake of optimal midtone and highlight tonal separation, and then going back and registering a suitable contrast mask, in effect, having my cake and eating it too. Additional to that was the highlight control afforded by PMK staining developer, along with, nowadays at least, excellent VC papers, and the end result can be stunning tonality-wise. But I fully realize that the extra masking step might not be appropriate for everyone. So the longer inherent scale of TMY is a wise investment; or if one cannot afford that particular film, they could gamble with the dicey quality control and lower speed of Foma/Arista 200, with its own exceptionally long straight line.
But neither the original recipe Tmax 400 nor Col. Sanders extra-crispy current version of it had as much scale of Berrger 200 or good ole Super-XX. I sure miss those options, at least in 8x10 format (too grainy for me in 4X5; and so is HP5). In smaller roll-film formats, TMX100 is my current answer, with long-scale Efke 25 now gone.
Drew -- any experience with HP5+ in normal to medium-high contrast situations and getting more out of it...say a DR of 2.8, give or take a couple tenths...not where a lot of people hang out. Certainly not for silver gelatin printing (or for most printing needs for that matter). I like marching those mid-tones and higher values forward and getting them to spread out a bit.
So far, HP5+ just doesn't want to get up there easily for me, even with the stain giving a contrast boost for Alt processes. I have a bunch of 11x14 that I might want to use eventually if I ever go thru my FP4+. I just need to work with it more...see how it records an 8 to nine stop SBR and what I can do with it afterwards to boost it some.
Having fun with Kodak Copy Film, too, but that film has ideas of its own about how high the highlights ought to go...and when to start taking off. Neat stuff! Can be wonderful for kicking in that contrast from low contrast situation...though not necessarily 'realistically'.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I should add that my comments are to be viewed in context of the fact that I am now working almost exclusively on making negatives for Salted Paper printmaking, to which FP4+ is ideally suited. HP5+ simply has too much base density to be ideal for that purpose. Butr the last time I did use HP5+ (in 8x10 format) it was developed in PMK and exposing at 125 ASA, it delivered a very nice negative - better than 95% of the work I had done on HP5+ prior. But it still wasn't suitable for POP printing. For that I will rely on FP4+ and Delta 100, which is also delivering excellent negs for what I'm doing.
Yes indeed. My personal choice in minimizing my time in the darkroom involves one major step - avoiding any and all masking iterations. Those of you that became comfortable with this process in the world of color materials I tip my hat to you. Myself I would rather dominate my photographic commitments to the wilds outdoors. Agree with you on Foma 200 (long scale and cross your fingers on QC) and the Efke 25 (have a stash in 11x14 that because of its low ASA should last a long time).
Vaughn - there does seem to be some fly-fishing tension controlling the highlights in HP5 while at the same time boosting negative density. Other than my salvage method involving masking, I simply learned to avoid high-contrast scenes when shooting HP5. I found TMY far more versatile in that respect. But back when I was still shooting a lot of HP5 in 8x10, I opted for Bergger 200 instead for the long-scale images. But even it wouldn't accept serious "plus" development to the degree of either old Super-XX or current TMY, even TMX.
Delta 100 expands well, and has been mentioned on this thread. It's closer to TMY than TMX grain size, but, unlike the two TMax sheet products, has a fair amount of toe to it, and an especially slick surface which gives me Newton Ring issues. I don't find it an acceptable substitute for mountain photography, where extreme contrast abounds, just like in the redwoods once the sun is fully out.
Given present film cost, I'm pretty much relying on whatever sheet film is stockpiled in my freezer, which fortunately contains a fair amount of both TMax emulsions, along with certain others, but not at this time any HP5. It's also nice how the TMax products apply to my personal usage clear down not only to 120 roll film, but even 35mm. And in 120, the extra expense over other films is negligible. I'm not a machine-gunner. One film I am running low on but will undoubtedly restock is FP4. It can handle a decent development boost, but can't dig way down into the shadows to the same extent as TMax, and is a bit too slow for windy days.
I was under the general impression that it can be difficult retaining upper highlight tonal distinctions in carbon printing. Dye transfer printing has that difficulty too.
As of the last Kodak price hike, TMY is no longer within my budget (well, I may buy an occasional roll of 120, but no more sheet film TMY). Delta 100 barely is.
Pretty stunning either way, either brand. But better than no film at all. I hope my stash of 8x10, especially color, handles my needs until I'm 80. After that it might starts showing signs of expiration, or I certainly might too, at least in terms of lugging around 8x10 gear any longer. But it is comforting to know what 8x10 I am shooting cost me about a fourth as much as the going rate today. And I dilute that expense itself quite a bit by resorting to 120 roll film far more often than before. That whole big freezer I stash it in cost less than the typical 10-sheet box of 8x10 color Kodak today.
But what is really killing me is the staggering price hike in museum board and plexiglass. Glad I'm not as ambitious as when I was younger.
Well you know, chip shortage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks