HP5 at ISO1600

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by RattyMouse, Mar 8, 2014.

  1. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have often read that HP5 pushes nicely to ISO1600 so I thought that I'd give it a try. I bought a brick of HP5 and had a roll in my camera for experimenting. Last night while out walking, I shot about 6 shots or so in very low light. Sadly, I can't recall the shutter speeds needed but they were 1/30th at least if not a bit faster. My lens is f/3.5. Then today, I shot the last 4 images on that roll in much higher light, but still somewhat low as they were indoor shots.

    Then, I souped up the roll in HC-110 @ 20 C, dilution B, for 11 minutes.

    The film is hanging in my shower now and looking at the negatives I see many frames with virtually nothing in them. There is a bit of the subject, but huge swaths of empty negative, clear as day. It's too early to make any firm conclusion until I get the scans back but my initial impression is that this experiment did not work. If the scans look as bad as the negatives, then it would seem to me that I cannot use HP5 at ISO1600 in low light.

    Perhaps I was not paying attention. Would pushing HP5 to ISO1600 be for higher shutter speeds in moderate light? Is that what most people are doing when they push this film?

    Oh by the way, the last 4 shots on the roll came out excellent. These shots were the ones done today in-doors in much better light. So I am confident that my developing was fine.

    Thanks for any feedback!
     
  2. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It sounds like a case of gross underexposure.

    How did you meter ?
     
  3. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I metered in camera, with my Fujifilm GF670, a pretty reliable meter.
     
  4. geostog

    geostog Member

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Ioannina, Gr
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I will also have to say that it is probably underexposure.

    I've pushed HP5 to 3200 and got some usable results ranging from a bit underexposed to some very satisfying negatives. I used a fast lenses 50-1.4 and 135-2.8 wide open. I could go handheld at about 1-15 for the 50mm and about 1/60 for the 135mm. I was photographing some street theater performers and some of the audience. In most cases the lighting was just the light from the street lights, those were a bit underexposed. But when there were some strong lights or for some indoors shots with average light, the negatives where magnificent.

    I low light I use the slowest shutter speed I can go handheld and my lens wide open. Then with a general metering rule (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light Intensity Chart) I get the ISO I have to push.
     
  5. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I guess I need to understand why my meter is failing me now.

    Thanks everyone.
     
  6. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,947
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Compare your Fuji meter in the same conditions to a digital camera, point it against a flat object, like a piece of paper.
     
  7. Xmas

    Xmas Member

    Messages:
    6,451
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    You need to bracket...

    You need to understand how your meter averages a high contrast scean, if your night environment was high contrast.

    You may need a heavy tripod and long exposures.

    Uprating film only moves the toe a small amount it also makes a print more difficult unless the shadows can be dark...

    It is not like digital increasing ISO.
     
  8. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,920
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Another thought, rule of thumb 25% more development for each stop, 11 minutes wasn't long enough
     
  9. Bundesphotograph

    Bundesphotograph Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lower Saxony
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The Ilford HP5 data sheets says 14 min with Ilfotec HC (same as HC 110) dil.B at 1600 ASA.
    4 agitations per minute.

    Cheers
    Wolfgang
     
  10. markbarendt

    markbarendt Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,508
    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Beaverton, OR
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The meter is most likely not failing you. More likely this is just a learning opportunity.

    Is this the camera you just bought a few weeks ago?

    Look at each shot and think about exactly where in the scene you metered (how bright was that spot?) and how far you were from the scene (what were all the subjects that were in the angle of view that the meter saw?).

    It uses a center weighted meter and it may simply be that the meter saw fairly bright subjects where you pointed it.

    Back when I was using cameras with center weighted meters I had to learn what it saw by trial and error then remember to point it appropriately when metering. That's not as tough as it sounds.
     
  11. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    it also says 11m for HC110 Dil B @ 1600, which is what the OP used.

    Ilfotec HC & HC110 are better described as "equivalent" rather than "the same as".

    They are not the same developer
     
  12. momus

    momus Member

    Messages:
    2,697
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Location:
    Lower Earth
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If it was very low light, then 1/30 w/ a 3.5 lens sounds way too high, even considering a 1600 ISO setting. Your meter may not be that accurate in very low light.
     
  13. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thank you. I will bracket next time, to the extent that shutter speed allows. Great idea.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yep. I need to learn. Correct, this is a new camera.

    Once I have the scans in place, I'll be able to study them in better detail. More tests are needed.

    Thanks!
     
  16. Fixcinater

    Fixcinater Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,172
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Tungsten sensitivity is quite likely different (read: worse), which would require even more light.
     
  17. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,793
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You need to remember as well that "pushing" a film doesn't really increase its low light sensitivity.

    What it does is increase contrast.

    So if you underexpose a film by two stops, the push development will increase the contrast in those parts of the negative that received enough light to have some image on them, but it will not add detail in the areas (shadows) where there wasn't enough light in the first place.

    You need to meter the tones that are midway between the shadows and the mid-tones- they are the parts of the negative that will be shoved up into the mid-tones by the push development. The full shadows and near shadows will drop into nothing with two stops under-exposure.
     
  18. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,200
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    For what it's worth, I have had a lot more success pushing HP5+ in DD-X than in HC-110(B) {which I only tried once with HC110 I will admit so I didn't ever dial it in} but a few times now in DD-X and the results have always been very good, here are a few after my own thread about this, shot and pushed HP5+ to 3200 in DD-X for 20 minutes, a variety of different light situations and these were all scanned not traditionally printed, but the negs were not thin or anything.

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303960.550947.jpg

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303979.217525.jpg

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303989.801651.jpg

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303999.285886.jpg
     
  19. RattyMouse

    RattyMouse Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,477
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The images I shot were similar to your 3rd one Stone. Outdoors, at night, with very little light. Except that mine seem to have huge areas where nothing has been recorded on the negative. I dont think HC-110 is the culprit as literally NOTHING is on the film. Surely if exposed properly some part of the image would appear during development. DD-X might make it look better but it is not like HC-110 cant cause the image to form.

    I need to take metering more seriously when doing shots like this.
     
  20. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,200
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Yes correct, HC-110 would work fine to produce a good image, even pushed.

    I suspect what others said, under exposure. Good luck with your next try!
     
  21. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,706
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Would it not be better to rate 3200 film at 1600?
     
  22. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,200
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Oh and Ratty, what I did to meter with that is use my old Sekonic Deluxe incident meter, went to the sign on the left (you can't see it, but you can see the reflection if it on the ground in the 3rd image) and metered for that, leaving about a 6 foot distance from the light source, I assumed the two signs being similar would give similar results (and I couldn't reach the other "merit canteen" sign words, anyway I wanted them slightly less than fully blown out, and the interior to have some light from the inside, which is why I chose 6 feet from the light source, it seemed to be about the same amount of light as what would be inside the restaurant.... This was mostly just experience with metering this kind of scene, I certainly wouldn't have trusted my internal meter to this, I always carry my incident meter or spot meter when shooting low light.

    This was probably f/3.5 @ 1/30 or 1/15 with my yashika44LM 127 film (46mm re-rolled ilford special run).
     
  23. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,200
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    From my PERSONAL experience, HP5+ pushes almost better than D3200 and is finer grained. Also, if you rate 3200 film (really 1000 speed) at 1600, the film will be VERY low in contrast, almost too much for most people, giving a very flat image.

    PLUS D3200 isn't available in all formats, so it's nice to be able to utilize HP5+ for many different uses, it will also certainly be around longer than D3200... And fogs less... Is cheaper... Etc.

    Plus I think the OP just wanted to see if it would work.
     
  24. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,706
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    That depends on how you expose and develop it.
     
  25. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,200
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    We will have to agree to disagree... I'm not getting into a pissing match over something obvious, a 400 speed film like HP5+ has normal, if not almost less contrast shot at 400 than "average" contrast, so shot and developed at 1600 would have a lot more contrast being 2 stops under exposed and pushed...

    If you take the same equation, with D3200 that's truly 1000 in speed, but is designed to give "normal" contrast at 3200, if shot and developed at only 1600, it will have a lower contrast than normal... Being shot only 1/2 a stop faster than it's speed....

    So given those factors, HP5+ will always have more contrast than D3200 if both shot at the same EI and developed to the same EI...
     
  26. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,199
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The final contrast of your negative is going to be mostly under your control. Sure, the under exposure will lessen shadow detail, but after that it's all about how long you develop your film. So a D3200 neg shot at EI1600 can still have practically any contrast you want.