Ilford HP5+ 400 ISO Black and White Film Review | All About Film
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- HP5+ can be grainy, if you want it to be. HP5+ can be grain-free, if you want it to be. HP5+ can have a nice and wide contrast profile, if you want it to. HP5+ can be high-contrast with no shadow or highlight detail, if you want it to. What you want or what you need HP5+ to be, it can be if you shoot it in the right format and use the right developers for it to deliver the results you’re looking for. HP5+ is pliable, fluid, dynamic, predictable, and reliable. HP5+ is also one of the only films that can deliver good results if you’ve never touched film before or if you’ve been shooting film since the Eisenhower Administration. If you wanted one film to use for your whole life, HP5+ would probably be your best choice.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Index:
0:00 Introduction
0:24 Skip the Intro
1:28 Subjective Characteristics
7:22 Spectral Sensitivity
11:31 Characteristic Curve
14:32 Reciprocity Failure
16:50 Some Camera Settings
20:43 Recommended Developers
22:27 Developers to Avoid
23:42 Closing Thoughts
Developer Samples Index:
Kodak XTOL+3: 0:29
D-76 Stock: 1:37
D-76+1: 1:54
D-76+2: 2:15
D-76+3: 2:40
LegacyPro 110 (HC-110)+31 (Dilution B) @400 ISO: 3:40
LegacyPro 110 (HC-110)+31 (Dilution B) @800 ISO: 5:12
LegacyPro 110 (HC-110)+31 (Dilution B) @1600 ISO: 5:45
Rodinal 23+1000: 6:59
Rodinal+50 @800 ISO: 16:51
Rodinal+50 @1600 ISO: 17:17
Rodinal+100 (Stand): 17:51
Rodinal+50 @400 ISO: 18:52
Adotech IV+75 (stand): 20:04
Silvermax Developer+19: 20:49
Silvermax Developer+80 (stand): 21:56
RPX-D+75 (stand): 22:32
Ultrafin+ 1+4: 22:52
Ultrafin+ 1+9: 23:08
LegacyPro Mic-X Stock: 23:48
LegacyPro Mic-X+3: 24:24
Ilfosol3+9 @50 ISO: 25:06
Ilfosol 3+14: 25:32
References:
www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/fi...
www.digitaltruth.com/devchart...
www.apug.org/forums/forum.php
istillshootfilm.org/
www.filmsnotdead.com/
groups/11993...
www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/FILMCON
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
www.covingtoninnovations.com/d...
home.comcast.net/~amitphotogra...
www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/h...
www2.optics.rochester.edu/work... - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
You went far & beyond what anyone could have anticipated for a 25min video on the HP5+ film. Thank you for your time, thoroughness, and efforts sir! Thumbs up + liked
Thank you!
I've been binge watching your channel. Hands down one of the most informative channel regarding films still in circulation.
Thank you!
Truly and utterly appreciate the level of knowledge and insight you bring with these videos. By far the best resource I’ve found. Thank you!
Thank you!
Yes back up this comment completely. Thankyou David ✋🏻🙏🏻
Wonderful! There's no good reason for you to put this much work into helping others understand film stocks. Appreciate it, thanks!
Thank you!
I love these AAF videos and I fully appreciate just how much time and effort goes into them. THANKS.
Thank you!
Brilliant work. I massively appreciate the depth and amount of work that went into making this. Irreplaceable resource keeping film thriving - not just alive.
Thank you!
Film still has its place and the variables of exposure and processing are still amazing.
While others have said so more eloquently than I am able, this video is absolutely the best video I have seen on the subject, and I look forward to watching other film reviews you have produced. Clear, insightful, massively researched - I will need to watch this multiple times to take it all in. I was already a fan of HP5+ - but now I am even more impressed with its capabilities as you have so superbly demonstrated. What a great contribution to the film world - thank you!
Thank you!
Those closing thoughts are a love song haha. HP5 plus sure is wonderful :) and this video is amazing, there's clearly so much more ahead of me in film photography. The fact there's so much to say about a single film stock (and there's surely even more to say about it than you did here) shows just how vast the world of film is, and how great.
Thank you!
Again you haven't failed on an awesome review, thank you David.
Thank you, Craig!
David this is a great video! I sometimes say that to TH-cam posters when I really like their work, but this video is beyond that. This is truly amazing work! I shoot this film @1600 on a regular basis and love it, but I am amazed and over whelmed at the info you are sharing. I need to watch this a video a few more times so I can absorb all this information better. I will write a follow up comment in a few days after studying this more closely and learning more from it. Thank you for sharing. Super nice work! Not just a big thumbs up, but a HUGE thumbs up!
Thank you, Jeffrey! I appreciated reading this more than I can put into words.
Wonderful review! I've been waiting for this one for a while.
Thank you!
This video series is really great. Your explanation about the color sensitivity and the cactus finally made it clear why all my HP5 images of cactus come out strange. One of my favorite images I have taken with HP5 is a landscape photo, with a red filter at 800 iso. The red filter made the clouds really pop. It added depth and texture to the photo. The 800 iso was not ideal (particularly on 35mm film), but I had already started the roll at that speed. The grain is substantial for landscape work, particularly in the 8x10 print, which is the largest I am comfortable printing this image, yet it works somehow. For most Illford films, I use DD-X for development and have been pleased with the results (and the simplicity). I agree this is a very versatile film, and I enjoy shooting it at 400 and 800 iso.
Thank you! I also like HP5+ pushed a stop and it really does handle most anything pretty darn well.
I’ve love your channel, review format, and assessments. While I’ve watched this video before, I had not noticed your notes on D-76+3. After processing 100ft of HP5 with D-76, I gave up on it, primarily due to the grain. I’ll give it another shot.
With Xtol
Thank you! X-tol SHOULD work well with HP5+, though I didn't try it myself.
Hi David, thanks for making these videos. I don't have a tonne of experience with film, but I enjoy using HP5+. I don't even know if I'm using it correctly, but i love my results and I restock it when I run out. I started watching your videos to understand better. There's still a lot of info in this video which i can't yet understand, but will eventually i suppose. So yea, thanks again. :)
Thank you! Film has a lot of secrets that it keeps and it's just a matter of listening to what it tells you by how it performs in different conditions.
Another excellent film review video. Thank you so much for doing these, they are sooo helpful to me! The three developers that I have found produce the best results with HP5+ are Xtol (1:1 for box speed, stock for pushing to 3200 or 6400), Clayton F76+ (also sold as Arista Premium and Photography Formulary FA-1027), and 510 Pyro semi-stand. This is a great film for a hybrid workflow because of its tremendous tonal range. You can then do a relatively “flat” scan which captures the whole tonal range, and then add contrast to taste in post. Higher contrast films like Tri-X appeal to many people because that is the contrast look that they like, but straight scans of it don’t produce the same tonal range. I would rather have the choice.
Lastly, HP5+ pushes extremely well to 3200 and even 6400 when developed in straight Xtol. It is the BW low light “Secret Weapon” of many film based weddings photographers especially in MF. It manages to lift the highlights without crushing the shadows and grain remains remarkably controlled. Give it a try. Thanks again for all your work, it is excellent and I really appreciate it!
Thank you, Steve!
I am really learning so much about all the available black and white films. This information is important to understand one film from the other film, and what chemistry to use. Thank you. RS. Canada
Thank you, RS!
I really enjoy the videos you make about different film stocks! HP5+ was the first B&W stock I tried. Whilst I found it reliable the results were somewhat underwhelming (flat) at first. I sort of had an “Ah ha!” moment one year after first trying it, and it came via a mistake. I shot a roll at 800 in my Olympus XA, and intended to develop it at 800, misreading the Massive Dev I ended up developing it for 1600... and the results were breathtaking! I was on the verge of giving up this film, finding far superior results for traditional grain with FP4, Fomapan 100 and Eastman Double X. But now I always have some on hand for low light work. I’ve subsequently had superb results shooting it at 3200 in really dark settings developed in DD-X! Not my go to film at all, but if I want gritty urban images it is a wonderful choice!
Oh nice! So it sounds like overdeveloping a bit gave you the contrast you wanted.
Hi David, thank you so much for this review! Very insightful. I love FP4+ but always preferred the look of Tri-X over HP5+. After having seen your video, this might not be fully fair. I used HP5+ before I started developing film myself (about ten years ago) and found it to be extreme grainy and contrasty. Did not like the look at that time, moved tot Tri-X and never looked back. Until now. Never realised that this film would be that sensitive to different developer combinations. So perhaps I should give this film another try (when I have run out of Tri-X). Prices for HP5+ are substantially lower than for Tri-X here in the Netherlands.
Thank you! Yes, it's definitely worth a shot again, and possibly trying a few different developers. Water chemistry can also affect developer performance. In general, I use filtered water (I keep a Brita pitcher in the darkroom) for film chemistry to eliminate water chemistry as a variable inasmuch as I can.
Fantastic presentation! That can very easily qualify as Theoretical BW photography. If you make a BPharm understand those graphs than everybody can understand them. Congrats David ! YOU ARE A REAL TEACHER!
Thank you!
Great format!
Thank you!
A fantastically detailed review. I have recently got back into shooting film again after a 25 year break! I will give your recommend developers a go. A 👍🏻s up from me.
Thank you!
HAH! great stuff David. Yesterday I popped in some Potra 400 into my new (old) Minolta Autocord. Each shot took about 5 minutes, and I was keeping notes on each shot as I have never shot a TLR before. No batteries were used in the making of the photos :) I just ordered some HP5 for my 35mm cams, and some 120 to boot. BTW, I have added you to my favorite links page on my website :)
Thank you!
Thank you for the time and effort to produce this video, I have a stock of HP5+ to use and I intend to use your findings to develop it.
Thank you!
Yes! It's arrived! I love this film!
Thank you!
Hi David I have found your tutorial on HP5+ most helpful, and am now using this film again because of this informative blog. Thank you. Have you ever tried Ilford Delta 400 I use it at ISO 320 processed in Ilford Perceptol 1+1 20c 15.5 minutes. Nice results, give it a try. I really appreciate your thoroughness on film testing, please keep it up.
Thank you! I love Delta 400. I forget which speeds I've shot it at, but it's consistently a good film.
Great review! The Ilford factory is 36 miles away by road. I really would love to go to one of their open days.
Definitely yes. I would love to visit Ilford someday.
Thank you, David. :-)
Thank you, Greg!
I’m getting back into film b+w and have much appreciated your detailed analysis of HP5, a favourite from before. A few questions I do have however are “which is your favourite 35mm bw film stock and developer combination and why”. Thanks again and wishing you safe 2022.
Hmm. Good question. Part of the challenge of asking that is that I liked HP5+ in 120 and larger formats, not so much in 35mm. Were I to shoot this again in 35mm, I'd look at ID-11 (which is Ilford's D-76) and HC-110 as options. And in both cases I'd go for weaker dilutions like 1+3 or 1+5 on the D-76 and 1+47, 11+63, or 1+119 for HC-110. I'm not positive that times for all of those are readily available, BTW.
@@DavidHancock many thanks for the quick response - and I thought it would be easy😁. Sorry to come back with another question but given your response, what would be your chosen 35mm film and developer.
This is a completely outstanding review. Greatly appreciated. I've been shooing XTOL stock and HP5 for years, and will try +3 on the very next roll. Would like to hear your thoughts on XTOL stock for this film? Thanks a million.
Thank you!
Thanks so much for your comprehensive and detailed film stock reviews. I would like to ask what your thoughts are about Ilford Delta 400 and Kodak Tmax 400. If you've worked with either or both of them, which developers worked well and which didn't? Thanks!
Thank you!
I have worked with both. I don't recall right now which developers are the best that I've used, but in general the standards -- D-76, Microdol-X (now LegacyPro Mic-X), and HC-110 (I use LegacyPro L110) -- are safe bets. D-76 and Mic-X tend to be flatter with more detail and tonal retention. L110 tends to be higher contrast with dramatic tones.
Both of these film stocks have tons and tons of data on the Massive Development Chart, too. Way more stocks with times and concentrations than I'll ever have time to try. I would think that in general any of the well-known sticks will perform well with either Delta or TMax.
Well done sir. Another fine technical documentary about a popular film, seemingly taken you literally years to make! Salute. I chuckled at your corrections..."By 30, I meant 20 sec" etc...I too have not had a great track record with HP5. I used it about ten years ago before I knew how to develop film myself, and the results I got always looked a bit too grey without enough punchy black and punchy white. So I gave up on it. More recently, as I use Ilford Ilfotec DD-X all the time, I figured I should give it another try, and I also shoot MF these days too. Your video has highlighted that success with this film seems to be more about the photographer knowing about HOW to shoot the film and in what circumstances it excels or not (your cactus with yellow needles being a prime example). So I am intrigued once more. Questions if I may : when you say "when developed properly", what do you mean exactly? Agitation, temp, developer choice, or all of the above? How do you define "proper development" in this context? And also I use Ilford Ilfotec DD-X mostly. Given that it's an Ilford dev for Ilford films, I would assume that is a good choice but I didn't see mention of it in your fine review? What's your view on my thinking? And when you say "Silmermax developer", do you mean ADOX Silvermax developer?
Thank you!
For proper development, I mean the whole bag: fresh chemistry, proper mixing before putting it into the tank, proper agitation practices and temperature, proper fixing, and good washing. I define proper development as being development with good quality, a good process, and replicable results. For Ilfotec DD-X, I haven't ever used it. All the developers I mentioned were ones that I personally used in this video (the samples follow the developer breaker cards.) I do think, based on my limited experience with Ilford developers (Ilfosol 3 and HC-110) that they pair better with Ilford films than they do with non-Ilford films. And this stands to reason -- chocolate pairs better with desert foods than it does with, say, steak. Ilford, I have to imagine, engineers their films to work with their developers, and vice versa. For SIlvermax Developer, that's exactly it, the Adox stuff. I LOVE it for Silvermax film and the bottle has times for other films on it, one of which is HP5+. Turns out that I love it for HP5+, too, at least at the agitation concentration.
David Hancock awesome! Thanks for the extra details. I’ve never tried the adox dev. The entire adox range I find very intriguing in a somewhat “film snob” kind of way, because I like finesse in film. But their lack of 120 options is somewhat limiting sadly.
Always enjoy your videos. 4 years ago, you also gave a glowing review to Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100. How do they compare (aside from the ISO), which ones would you use in what situations? Thanks.
Thank you! With Acros out of production, Any stock that's left would be suspect at this point, I think. When Acros II comes out, I'll be in a better position to give some thoughts on how it performs.
Nice and thorough
Thank you!
David, the amount of time, effort and dedication that must have gone into this seems a bit surreal (from a fellow OC enthusiast). This is technical research and deserves to be in published book format.
Greatly appreciated, my friend. Question - the superb photos at 21:22 , 21:27 & 21:31 ... are they developed with Silvermax ? The bookmark description before the images state it but you start talking about Kodak XTOL+3 in the voice-over so I wanted to be sure - the sharpness, tonality and grain is exceptional. What camera and film format were used for these 3 images? Your respect and fondness for this emulsion is apparent and this enthusiasm is a necessary factor in the elevation of our work. Thank you.
Thank you! These are the hardest, most time-consuming (and honestly most expensive) videos that I put together for this channel (which is why I only do about four a year, because I'd love to do one of these a month.) I do really enjoy getting into the weeds with the film stocks I review and understanding in-depth the reasons behind how they work,
For the images, go by the cards ahead of each batch. One of the limitations of the slideshow with voiceover format is that in order to fit all of the images in together is that sometimes I'll be showing one thing and talking about another (when I makethese I record the voiceover and then lay that out in the timeline in Movie Studio, then I insert the content breakers, like the Recommended Developers section cards with the 35mm film design. Then I'll insert the technical section overlays like the spectral sensitivity curve. The last thing to go in are the images and then it;s a matter of looking at how many I have of each and fitting them in like jigsaw pieces so that I avoid, if possible, splitting image batches across other sections).
The advantage, of course, is that of someone wants to look up a specific developer they can use the index in the video, skip to that part, and by looking at the index get an idea of how many images I had to share with that. But looking at the card at 20:47, those three images would have been Silvermax Developer+19. But that point in the video narrative was the recommended developers segment, so I was discussing the developers that I liked, which included XTOL+3. I totally understand how that can be confusing and it's something that I struggle with every time I make one of these videos.
@@DavidHancock Thank you for the concise explanation of the process - understand the complexity of weaving together the research, the output and narration structure into a video project format... big job! All good ... there is a lot to digest and its good to know what was used to produce the images that appealed to me. Thanks again and please keep doing this.
A great video and a very good review. Thank you so much! I have just started to shoot LF 4x5 again after a 20 years break. I got a good explanation why my red filter does not work to my satisfaction. I just ordered a gradual orange.
According to Ilford, Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 seems to perform very well. How would you rate that compared with Kodak XTOL 1+3 which you rated highest?
Thank you! I haven't used DD-X at all, so I can't comment on it directly. I did find, in general, that Ilford developers performed better with HP5+ than with equivalent, non-Ilford films.
@@DavidHancock Thank you for your reply. I got inspired by your video about stand development and will try Rodinal 1+100 with HP5 in 4x5 as soon as I get the developer.
I wish you a Happy New Year 2020!
Thanks for this video, it is even better your Ilford FP4 video as it is easier to understand the information better. I like the Ilfosol 3 so far development results compared to the rest in your video but is it possible to get more details and slightly less grain from it, more improvement from it?
Thank you! The FP4+ video was my first in this series as I was still finding my sea legs for it. This video is, I think, where I started to hit my pace and better organize and present the content.
HP5+ is going to have grain no matter what and it's hard to minimize it, especially on 35mm. A couple of things that will help are 1- having fresh fixer (pitch it at six months or after 60 rolls, and don't refresh it) or use your older fixer on lower-grain and flatter films like Foma and Kentmere where some grit and contrast can help. 2- Use weaker developer dilutions. So Ilfosol 3 1+14 should yield lower grain than 1+9. Give a low-grain developer like LegacyPro Mic-X at 1+3 a try. That was a combination that I liked with this stock quite a bit.
Enjoyed your review tremendously, thanks! (small note, dual system-bred here :-) 20 C is 68 F)
Thank you!
David, After I watched this HP 5+ video 2x, I've come to appreciate the efforts and details you share for us the viewers. I hit the "Bell" as I don't want to miss one. Any thought on a Hasselblad mirrorless camera review, i.e. SWC? Thank you, Stuart
Thank you very much, Stuart! I would love to review a Hassy digital of any sort (even the one that could fit on the back of my Moto Z.) However, they are way beyond my price range and I doubt Hassy has a gear loaner program for small YT channels.
I joked when I called the SWC a mirrorless which it truly is but with film back.
@@flipflopsLF LOL. I just looked that up. That's so ridiculous looking. I'd use it.
Thank you, very helpful. When you say Xtol+3 do you mean 1 part stock Xtol plus three parts water?
Thank you! That's exactly it. I write the developer name as the one part and then the amount of equal parts water as the plus number.
Whoa! What an amazingly valuable video. I have hardly used HP5, but the few times I have I've liked it. I have only ever used one developer : HC110 B 1:31 dilution, following notes from the massive dev chart for whatever film. I'm not particularly skilled in the darkroom 'cos I shoot many different formats, and it's not a daily hobby. I often screw up exposure and development best practice, and then forget my lessons by the time I get back to the same combo.
I had been settling down to Efke 25, Across 100, and Neopan 400, but we've lost two of those. Perhaps I should get myself some XTOL developer( any dev I use has to have along shelf life) and a bulk roll of hp5+ 35mm
Thank you!
David, was wondering about your thoughts of HP5+ vs Tri-x. On a sidenote: I've developed HP5+ at 25,600 in HC-110+31. I had underexposed a roll I was pushing to 3200. Contrast was very low, but there was good detail.
Interesting on the 25,600 ISO. I would have expected no image at all at that sensitivity. For HP5+ vs. Tri-X, I might go with HP5+ for the ability to get it in all formats, and because the grain is a bit less perceptable.
Hey David! I enjoyed this series very much but have one question. When you were talking about HP5+ and XTOL +3. you meant a 1 to 3 solution correct? Thanks!
Correct, one part XTOL to three parts distilled (preferably) water.
@@DavidHancock Thanks, I am going to try your suggestion of 1/3. I have been using Xtol stock on this film for a long time. I programmed my film processor today with the new info.
Thank you for the video, very much appreciated! How does Kentmere 400 compare to HP5+ in your opinion?
Thank you! I like HP5+ more but I'm starting to learn how to use Kentmere and I generally like the stock. It's not as flexible, in my experience, in terms of how much it can be pushed and pulled. I've pushed Kentmere 100 to 400 a number of times and it works okay, but the Kentmere stocks seem to have a narrower operating window than the Ilford stocks.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for your reply. Did you also notice the same sensitivity to blue as HP5? I contacted Harman (Ilford) and they told me that Kentmere 400 (despite having a different) emulsion shares the same "sensitising dyes" with HP5+.
Between Kodak Tri-X or HP5 what would you choose as your go to? I like that classic black and white photojournalist look but I’m having such a hard time deciding. At the moment, I’m shooting hp5 and pushing to 800 to get a boost in contrast. Hp5 seems to be cheaper too
Would you also recommend hc-110 as developer?
I think you'd be happy with either. I'd say get a couple rolls of each and see which you prefer with your chemistry. Film will look different based on chemistry and also based on the water used to mix the chemistry. For both, HC-110 ought to be fine. I don't think I used it for Tri-X, but I do think I did with HP5+ (the developer index in the video's description will confirm or refute.)
As for the films themselves, HP5+ has slightly better tonal range whereas Tri-X is a bit higher in contrast, especially pushed.
What is the “banding” on a number of your photos on the sides going vertically? Some sort of artifact.
Minutes: 9:15, 10:25, and others.
TH-cam and ISP compression
Real convenient timing, just got about 12 rolls of hp5 in the mail in 120
Fantastic!
I’m a little curious. At the end of the video you mentioned HP5 Plus would not be your go- to stock. Why not? Thanks! Great video series!
Thank you! For my take on HP5+, 100% aesthetic choices. HP5+ is a staggeringly good film. I just prefer the look of Delta 400. If someone told me HP5+ was their favorite film and all they ever planned to shoot again, I couldn't fault them for that.
@@DavidHancock Thanks David... I have not used any of the Delta films... I have heard they are like Kodak's TMax as far as grain goes. I just got back into film after 35 years and am looking for a good 4x5 landscape film that has a great tonal range and is generally low contrast and great for scanning as I don't have room for a dark room. I'm also looking for a 35mm BW film with minimal grain... also for landscapes. I'll probably stick with HP5 for 4x5 but I may also try HP5 on 35mm and develop in Xtol per your recommendations. Thanks!
@@davidpalermo4695 HP5+ in 4x5 s is spectacular. That's the best format for it, I think.
I don't know what i'm doing wrong with HP5+ but I just cannot like the results I get with it. The best way to describe it is muddy. The midtones end up being one shade of gray and hard to separate. I've tried various combos of dilution, developer, agitation and temp over the years. I get better results with anything but HP5+. Maybe one day I'll finish off the 100ft roll I bought.
I found that at first, too. HP5+ is a flatter film, in general, than some other black and whites which makes it a bit muddy out of the box. It needs some contrast enhancement in post to really deliver the best results. When I started using this I had the exact same experience and didn't like the stock for it.
David, Regarding the affiliate links (I would like to help by using those as well): I see a link for eBay and B&H for HP5 specifically. Are there "General" links for both I Can save as bookmarks to use for all my purchases?
If there are, I don't know how to find those. But if you were to click on a B&H link, regardless of what you buy during that session (without leaving the site) I would get a few percent of that purchase.
@@DavidHancock I'll try that, Going with the link and then to other items as well.
@7:45
The spectrum graph confused me at first because I'm a physics technician, and the wavelengths Are ordered the opposite way round to whenever I ever see them. We always go longed to shortest wavelength. Radio wave to gamma. So we end up with IR and red on the left and UV and blue on the right.
A very useful chart though.
I am still very new to film, but I'm going to have to look more into these spectrum graphs because they make a lot of sense to me!
Thank you! Yes, for film charts, the orientation would be reversed from what you're used to.
@@DavidHancock I've spent a little time looking into them and the charts make so much sense now! Thank you for a great explanation.
It's amazing the amount of little details I pick up just listening to you talk about subjects.
Incidentally, have you tried HP 5 plus with any caffenol recipies as an alternative developer?
@@Blizzardmane I did not, but I've had a number of requests for caffenol samples so I'll be adding that to many of the black and white film videos starting with next year's class.
Thanks for this Video. But what is the time for XTOL 1+3? I couldn't find it in the video.
Kodak XTOL+3: 0:29 Right up front. I put it first because I thought the results were the best. There's an index of developer types and concentrations in the description if there are other developers you're interested in.
@@DavidHancock thanks..... i didnt read the comments this time :)
David,
What’s your current favorite 4x5 black and white film and best developer for it?
Phew. Hmm. Boy. I don't know. They all have different looks and uses. If I had to pick only one for the rest of my life, I might go with TMax 100 because it can be pulled pretty well and the results are great. RPX 25 might be another I would go with. As for developer, that all depends on the look that I'm going for. I like aged DK-50 a lot, but it's not easy to get DK-50 any more and it takes a while for it to be used enough to bring out some interesting image character. Polydol, another discontinued developer would be another I like as would HC-110.
@@DavidHancock I am surprised. I would never thought to buy RPX 25. I thought it is some low quality film
I really appreciate all the info but I found it difficult using the photos as a guide to what you were saying as most of them seem to have uneven development. Many are quite lighter on one side than the other and a few seem to be showing what looks like the result of a light leak. Again, I really appreciate the work and the info.
Thank you. Some of the 4X5s have uneven development (I forget if I was learning how to use my B&W tank or if those were from the batch with my Nikkor tank that made me recycle the reel.) The Anniversary Graphic did develop a light leak that I didn't know about when the bellow glue didn't hold.
This is my main film stock, though I do prefer Ilford developers such as DD-X and Ilforsol 3. The only time I step out of Ilford is for D-76 because I had a boat load given to me, and for Rodinal +25. I think the latter gives the best DMax right through to very high highlights. It looks 'crisp' to me, which I think is another way of saying great dynamic range. I’ve never been successful with HC110 as I tend to get muddy shadows. It looks the same as a digital image someone has tried to raise the shadows too much in an underexposed image. It must have been the recipe I used, yours looked excellent. I definitely don’t think it was a +35 dilution. It was this experience that made me try to stick with the Ilford developers.
I especially liked the tunnel at night and the two people climbing in the snow with the sky lacking detail. There’s incredible skill in both those images, and they work exceptionally well.
I actually have my V800 scanner up for sale, but I want a larger enlarger and I will concentrate on B&W images. I also want to concentrate on the darkroom and increase my skills, which are very sadly lacking.
Somehow the fact your wife (or at least I hope it’s your wife) has a beautiful warm smile doesn’t surprise me in the least. After all she’s married to one of the most genuinely generous people on TH-cam.
The amount of work gone into this video is absolutely phenomenal and that is really appreciated. The fact I understood all the video and followed it all with deep interest is also appreciated. Another great video, thank you.
Thank you, Mark! For HC-110, I use LgacyPro 110 at +31. One thing that may be a variable is water chemistry. I have a Brita pitcher that I use for all my developer water, or I buy distilled water to use. If you use tap water, that could have an effect.
The wife is pretty fantastic. She's good people. She's letting me foster a pit bull-lab-mastiff mix right now (for another week) while the long-term fosters are on vacation (davidhancock.smugmug.com/RMLR-Charlie-13/). She also wants to rescue a retired military dog and give it a nice, quiet, stable home where it can live out it's last few years and we can help it overcome any trauma that it may have.
David Hancock There’s a good chance it is the water chemistry. We have all sorts of nasty chemicals in our water, I thought I’d killed my sourdough starter once forgetting to filter it.
It great being married to an amazing lady. Mine won't let me have a dog though. She points out she can’t walk a dog at all because of her hemiplegia and I frequently can’t get out at all. Then when I go to the great darkroom in the sky she'd have to re-home it which would break her heart. This is the first time in my life I haven’t had one.
Have you tried to develop it for microphen? I always shoot HP5 at either 800 or 1600 and used to develop it with D76. Since I switched to microphen I have the impression to get better results, but I've never done any controlled test. Anyone else has experience with pushed HP5 + microphen?
I have not. Microphen is a develop I've not used much of.
So do we go up or down on the ASA ring? Or safe ride it at 400 iso?
Ilford does a great job at accurate box readings. So shooting at 400 is always good.
Hi why does hp5+ perform better with ILFOSOL 3 +14 vs. +9. do you have comparisons?'
what qualities don't you prefer with ILFOSOL 3 in general?
Thanks
I don't have apples-to-apples comparisons in +9 and +14. I only used +9 when pulling HP5+. As for why I don'g generally like Ilfosol 3, I find that the results are unpredictable across film stocks. It works well with Ilford films (stands to reason) but it very hit and miss with others. Also, once its opened, it has a VERY short bottle life compared to other chemistry which means that it ends up being very expensive since I can't go through a bottle fast enough to use it all. What I like with Ilfosol 3 on Ilford films is the tonal range that it delivery and the general grain quality on the negatives. My general take on Ilfosol 3 is that it pairs well with Ilford films and that Ilford film shooters probably can't find a consistently better option.
Right on time! Just wanted to go back to it and use it for some time
Fantastic! I like it. It took time for me to get there, but it's one of the best films on the market from both technical and usability perspectives.
David Hancock great to hear. I was curious about how would you analyze it, given your depth and experience when doing these (with all due respect to 16 year old boys reviewing film...) and Given the iconic nature of the stock, being one of the pillars of Bw, on par with maybe only Tri-X, It’s great to know we can revert to it. I’m at a stage I wanted to settle for a “bread and butter” BW stock and I wondered if HP is the one, Also giving them the benefit of never quitting on film. And price point of course.
I also liked you mentioned a few “film noir” looks because I really like that look in most film stocks I use.
By the way, I wanted to suggest again some sort of a table with your best/worst development suggestions. I just jump through the video after I watch it a few times and look for the white slides, But for example on TRI-X i re watched yesterday, I didn’t really see a 400 recommendation.
Oh, and your explanation of things like spectral sensitivity is something to admire you for. Thank you for that! Maybe a good follow up series about just terms in film, with comparison for a few graphs for example next to each other.
By The way: D76+1 means 1:1 from powder, then the dilution mentioned in the devchart?
@@sharonleibel Thank you and the table, I totally forgot. I'm heading over to my outline to add that as a section right after I hit enter. In each of the video descriptions for the AAF series, there's a developer index and on a computer they're time-linked so you can click right to the cards. Usually I pit those after the video index that has all the sections.
@@sharonleibel I think yes. So when diluting a developer you first have to make stock. The stock is the mix you get from the directions (with D-76, it's the powder then enough water to make 3.8 liters.) Then 1+1 is taking, say, 500ml of stock and 500ml of water (distilled or filtered is preferred for the best results.) Mixing those results in 1,000ml of D-76 1+1 (or as I write it D-76+1 because the first one in 1+1 is the stock.) It's just like mixing a cocktail where the recipe states a volume in parts instead of ounces.
I use Rodinal stand development at 1:100. I do not like the grain at all. To get much less grain should I switch developer or film, ie Delta 400? How about pulling it to 100?
Rodinal+100 will give you grain. I'd try a different developer if you like HP5+ in general. The video description contains a time-linked Index of developer combinations I tried and each one has a card up front that details my feelings on it. Also, Flickr and Photrio are good places to see what other people are doing. There are way more developers than I can use for these videos. So find results with your format that you like and try that developer combination.
Where do you stand on the whole Tri-X vs. HP5+?
It’s basically Ilfords answer, so how does it stack up?
Personally I’ll stick to Tri-X if I can, but sometimes I don’t want to break for a whole brick of 120 Tri-X.
HP5+ is very nearly as good in 120 IMO.
Good question and I'd never thought about it specifically. I might go with HP5+ for the ability to get it in all formats, and because the grain is a bit less perceptable.
HP5 is actually older than Tri X
Just got a roll of 35mm developed in 1:100 Rodinal out of the tank. It will be interesting to see the results.
Nice! I would be curious about that. I liked it in roll and sheet with that combo.
@@DavidHancock A bit too much grain for me. The Massive Dev Chart has it at 80 min semi stand which is what I used but I saw that you used 70 min stand. I might try that next time.
How can there be such a difference between Rodinal 50:1 and 100:1 please?
Good question and I think there may be multiple factors. A big one is that the concentration difference between 1+50 and 1+100 is actually huge. It's sort of like the difference between a ten-inch and a 20-inch pizza. Sure, the 20 is twice the size BUT the ten-inch pizza has 78.54 square inches of surface area whereas the 20 inch has 314.16 square inches. That's an exaggerated example for illustration and the difference between chemical concentrations isn't quite that extreme, but the effects of doubling the dilution are major. The other factors include chemistry age (I tend to use fresher chemistry, but sometimes a bottle sits a while), contamination in the water (especially if my Brita filter was new and some charcoal got into the mix or old and some chemicals from the tap water got into the mix,) and water temperature (the water supply in my area has wildly fluctuating temperatures, sometimes even within the same day, and while keeping my Brita on the counter can counteract that, it wouldn't if I had to refill it right before running a batch.) most likely the issue is just how much different the dilution is between 1+50 and 1+100.
Please do Delta 100!
It's on the list. I'll be buying more Delta 100 in my next film purchase (not sure when that is but early next year) with the goal of finishing that video. I'm working through some Delta 100 in 4X5 right now, too.
this is the ONE vid to watch
Thank you!
I think it has a little bit more of an ethereal quality than Tri-X. But most of the time, I prefer Tri-X. I shoot both of them a lot, though.
I think that's a great way to describe it. Yeah, I like that observation a lot.
There are so many light leaks on your images presented here. What is the reason for that?
The glue on the Anniversary Graphic's bellows didn't hold and a gap kept opening in the corner.
Have you ever used Pyro?
I have not. I know a lot of people love it and I understand it to be a nice developer, but I've not yet tried it.
@@DavidHancock I'm a little biased having been using it exclusively for the las 20 years for my LF (and I recognize that pyro users can be kind of 'cult' like in their reverence for the process. I respect your opinions since you delve into the science aspect of photography was hoping to get your thoughts. I understand that there is only so much one person can do. Thanks for all that you do.
So what WOULD be your top ‘go to’ film?
That depends on the use. Horses for courses. For C-41, generally Ektar. For E-6, generally Velvia 50. For black and white, I don't have one that I can think of that I would use all the time as often as possible.
David Hancock I am one of those who love experimenting with different b&w films. But I had never heard of diluting Xtol 1:3. Did you find that by experimenting? Or did someone turn you on to it? I use it 1:1 all the time.
@@gchristopherklug I found the times on the Massive Dev Chart. I think Kodak publishes some 1+3 times, but don't quote me on that. In general, D-76 and XTOL, I think, perform the best at 1+3. The slower developing time gives a flatter negative that allows better contrast control in post (contrast can always be added, it usually can't be removed.) Also, I'm pretty cost conscious so I like to stretch developer unless doing so would leave me with wasted and spoiled developer (for instance, I like stand developing with Ilfosol 3, but I would not get a 500ml bottle to stand develop with exclusively as the developer would spoil before I used 25% of it.) XTOL has a nice and long shelf life as stock, so mixing it 1+3 stretches the cost out and gives better results for digitizing and printing.
David Hancock well, I’m going to have to try it. Thanks!
David Hancock have you ever worked with Pyro?
A significant error in the video (a mistake in degrees C to degrees F conversion) was noticed; 20 degrees C is equivalent to 68 degrees F, an international physics and mechanical standard, and is not the same as 72 degrees F. One consequence of developing at a higher temperature would be faster development, so your film could be over-developed at the suggest 6'30" time I think was given, and you would want to follow the manufacturer's time unless desiring the effect, whatever that would be, from over-developing the film.
Thank you for the correction.
Holy light leak Batman. ;-)
Yeah.... My Anniversary Graphic had some issues and my first few uses of the B&W King 4X5 Tank had some uneven development, too.
HP-5 and HC-110 is a good combo. Actually HP-5 has high acutance if shot at the right speed.
Thank you! I use LegacyPro L110, same stuff, and love it.
@@DavidHancock Hmm...I didn't know, although I've heard of it. Isn't that a knock off that's available through Freestyle Photographic? Anyway, this developer compensates for the flatness you can sometimes get with HP-5, I think.
@@igaluitchannel6644 I forget where all is available, but Freestyle at minimum, yes. And yeah, it's definitely a higher contrast chemistry.
Take a shot everytime David says HP5+ *dies*
I’ve just gotten through the whole scanner thing. Almost all scanners that are worth something can scan to Tiff or raw. The once that don’t can really be thrown alway. There is no point in owning a shitty $90 scanner that just takes a photo of the film with a phone level camera when you can do the same thing with your phone. You can get a flatbed for around $130 bucks but they don’t resolve any grain and are pretty bad IQ wise anyway at this Level. There’re somewhat decent dedicated film scanners form company’s like Plustek but they takes forever to make the scan, they also don’t really focus all too well and when scanning color there is far too much sensor noise for what I call acceptable these days. I’m now using my Canon EOS M50 (which is a great small digital camera for who mainly shoot film but need something digfal) and a used 60mm Macro lens to scan my images and of course Negativ Lab Pro to edited them. The results are just amazing so far and I can get the color of the Fuji Frontier that I love so much. It’s a pain in the ass that I have to use Lightroom now. Since I’m a happy Capture One User and I found LR to be rude and obtrusive but I’m really just using NLP and not much more. For anybody who doesn’t want to bay $10 a moth for LR you can get a license of LR6 and the plug in work fine with that too. Anyways I’m really interested in what your DSLR scanning workflow is, David. And also BTW just developed HP5+ on my own for the first time in CineStill DF96 in room temperature and intermittent agitation and I got nicely pronounced grain, surprisingly high resolution and very nice gamma.
Thank you. I'll do updates to my digitization workflow next year. I have made a few changes to it and it would be good to make new videos of those. I'm working on building a digitizing tool that can be used with DSLRs and macro lenses for digitizing, but I need to finish a few details on it first, like prototyping it. In essence, with 35mm, I use a slide copier and an enlarger lens (they're ideal for copying flat surface to flat surface) and for 120, 127, and sheet film I used an illuminated artist's tracing pad, some translucent acrylic, and an enlarger easel to digitize the images. That works very well.
David Hancock What software do you use to convert them?
VariTimo really Kodak would be very wise in investing in development of some (real) reversing software released for free to their customers.
Helge Frisenette Kodak would be wise to produce a new Pekon that also takes slides and B/W for under a thousand buck and sell it to consumers.
Good video as always David but I have to disagree with you on using a red filter with this film. I decided to try it and used a light red #23 and it definitely made a nice difference in the sky and cutting through haze. Here is an example of two images: www.davidpalermophotography.com/LightRed.jpg
Those are very nice photos. I admit I could be wrong about the red filter.
you diddnt even try it @320...?Go down with the iso and the film will blow your mind.
I try to use as many combinations as possible, but there will always be something, often multiple somethings, that I miss or don't have the time to try. These videos should be a baseline to give people an understanding and ideas.
@@DavidHancock don't get me wrong. I am more than thankful bthat you do it. It's just the most obvious iso setting and a verry effective one for this film especially
The worst thing, that you can shot on BW film is a trees and grass
In general, yes.
HP5 higher end Tri-X
Hmm. I'm trying to decide if I agree or not. I think in some ways yes and in some no. HP5+ is a way different beast from Tri-X. Their similarities are pretty skin deep -- 400 ISO, older emulsion type, black and white. But the image character between the two are way different. In addition, they have different grain and contrast profiles, different levels of push and pull capacity, etc. I think of HP5+ as a really good compromise between a traditional film like Tri-X and a more digital-look-inspired film-like TMax. I think HP5+ walks the line between those two exceptionally well.
Yeah, but is it sharp. Ha ha
Decently, yes. I forgot to look up the lp/mm, but I think it's in the top half for Ilford's films.
@@DavidHancock I was being facetious.
@@ZommBleed Oh I know. But you know me, I try to treat every comment like a heart-felt question, even the ones that read "why do your photo suck?" :D
@@DavidHancock I already know why your photos suck-- you dropped your camera and lenses. lol