HP5 at 6400...

[Harlequin565]

tl;dr - well I won't be going any higher!

After seeing my results with HP5 in DD-X at 3200 I wondered what 6400 would look like. With no times that I could find, I guesstimated 26 minutes in Ilfotec DD-X at 1+4. The results were... inconclusive...



I put this through my EOS-1v because I wanted to be sure that the metering was right, and could then tell if any developing was off. The negatives look pretty thin to me which makes me wonder if I under-developed. The top images were all taken in normal daylight and they look almost 2 or 3 stops under exposed, but I know the camera meters well.
I made the decision on 26 minutes because 3200 is 20 minutes and my own rule of thumb was "x1.3" per stop. Maybe pushing further has a reciprocal effect and needs more?

So even with the thin negative the blacks weren't fully black and needed a bit of pp to get things right with then sole exception of frames 9 & 10 which looked fab sooc.



Black cat with lots of mid tone background. A good test. Here's the before and after with the edit.



I might have been a bit heavy handed with the shadows, but a black cat just has to be black!
Grain is heavy as you'd expect for a 4 stop push and sharpness is also compromised. Here's the mid-tone image.



And the before/after



I may try one more test roll to see if I can get it looking a bit better. Anyone have any pointers for developement, or thoughts on this?

 

[Peter B]

An interesting experiment Ian, and they still look better than some Delta3200 shots to me. I don't know if you've seen the review of HP5+ by Keith Moss, but he's suggesting 3200 as his limit for the film. The article also invites comments from those who have tried HP5+, so possibly worth doing this by email or Facebook?

 

[FishyFish]

Thanks for posting this Ian, it's interesting to see your results.

I wonder if the dev time might not be considerably longer. In DD-X the increase in dev times are:

800asa +1 minute
1600asa +3 minutes
3200asa +7 minutes

So...

64000asa +15 minutes ???

I could be talking absolute bobbins though.

There's an article on Emulsive which also suggests 3200asa might be the limit for HP5+ with DD-X. Microphen looks to be the way to go for pushing it further.

Push processing ILFORD HP5 PLUS from EI 800 to EI 6400

Hi! My name is Daniel and I live in Helsinki, Finland.

emulsive.org

 

[Harlequin565]

There's an article on Emulsive which also suggests 3200asa might be the limit for HP5+ with DD-X. Microphen looks to be the way to go for pushing it further.

I read that when I was looking for times. I never was much good at listening to others. Always worth double checking those internet sources anyway

I just find it strange that 3200 looked so damn good and 6400 fell off a cliff. I'm more convinced it's my own error with development. I'm thinking I might shoot a roll and cut it in half, devving one half at 35min (your 20+15) and the other half at 30 min (split the difference between 26 & 35). The bulk roll of HP5 I have ends up being £3/24xp anyway so it's not a huge waste.

 

[Boots]

Ian, thanks for doing the research. I replied to your other post, but should have read this one first!

I attempted to plot a graph and a regression curve, but didn't really learn much - perhaps an indication that 27 minutes would be right. But since that is so close to 26, that's not very helpful. Given that you have given it 26 and found the negs to be thin, I'd go all in and give it 35 or even 40. It certainly would give you another data point.

You could also shoot a couple of frames at 1600, a couple at 3200 and then the rest of the film at 6400. Develop it all for 6400 and see what comes out. If the first four frames are not all pretty dark, that might lend weight to the theory that 3200 is as far as the film+dev can go.

I still think that the results are impressive, even if the negs are thin.

 

[Harlequin565]

Well I think that the internet is right. This isn't good at 6400...

This at 35 mintues in DD-X at 1+4. Very little difference from 25 minutes suggesting the film can't do 6400 that well.



The only frames that came out reasonably ok, were the cat photos and frame 20. All of which had decent light in that I was shooting at narrow apertures and fast shutter speeds. The rest were in poor light, which tells me that this film needs light if you're shooting it at 6400 which kinda defeats the object.

The mic shot is about the best. And as above, there is a "grayness" to the blacks that needs pp



And a zoom



Excuse the filthy negs... Before pp on the left, after on the right. I found these negs harder to get to black on, but with such different subject matter it's not scientific. I think the lesson here is "don't shoot at 6400 unless you have to"

Got my fruit for the 52 though which was a "phew" moment... Also may have some entries for Dim...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It all depends what you're after. Umpty years ago I got to a job and discovered the Metz's battery was dead. It was a once only chance so I treated the HP5 as if the speed was somewhere north of 5,000 ASA and processed it in Acuspeed. It was never going to win a camera club competition but the pictures got used and I got paid!

 

[Boots]

Yes, I think you may have found the limit for that film/dev combination. There's still Microphen to try!

But, it is useable, so if needs be.

 

[excalibur2]

It all depends what you're after. Umpty years ago I got to a job and discovered the Metz's battery was dead. It was a once only chance so I treated the HP5 as if the speed was somewhere north of 5,000 ASA and processed it in Acuspeed. It was never going to win a camera club competition but the pictures got used and I got paid!

View attachment 304724

Looks alright to me using HP5 north of 5000 ASA esp as the lens was probably set wide open?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looks alright to me using HP5 north of 5000 ASA esp as the lens was probably set wide open?

30 years after the event I only know that it was made on a Nikon F because I wrote that on the negative page and almost certainly with a 135mm because at that time it was the lens that lived on the Nikon. My guess is I stopped down to f5.6 to get some depth of field.

 

[excalibur2]

30 years after the event I only know that it was made on a Nikon F because I wrote that on the negative page and almost certainly with a 135mm because at that time it was the lens that lived on the Nikon. My guess is I stopped down to f5.6 to get some depth of field.

Well the last time I used a 135mm for my grand daughter's speech on stage....even using 800 ASA colour film had to use the lens wide open and had to use a slow shutter speed..ok I got a picure and it wasn't sharp even though I used a pillar to prevent camera shake.....so well done in thinking of bumping up the ASA and developing.