Pushing HP5 to 800/1600

southernjessie

southernjessie

Messages
602
Name
SJ
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone

Does anyone push HP5 to 800 or 1600 and what are your views on this with the results?

I mainly shoot Tri-X but was thinking of trying this to allow for shooting in lower light or where I need faster shutter speeds.

I do have another question which I'm embarrassed to say is pretty stupid but just reflects that I've never tried this: if I rate HP5 400 at ASA 800 on my camera, do I have to indicate to the film lab to PUSH the film one stop?

I mean, if I don't tell them anything and they just develop the film at 400, it'll come out looking a mess won't it?

Thanks guys :)
 
If you don't tell the lab to push it then the film will be 'thin' with little detail in shadows, but not a mess unless your exposure is all over the place. Pushing will increase contrast and grain, but 1 stop won't be too obvious.
 
I've pushed it to 1600 in 35mm and 3200 in 120. I used Ilfotec DD-X to develop it and it produced excellent results with little noticeable grain (far less than when I've used a dedicated 3200asa film). @Harlequin565 has done similar pushing, including with other developers. I think he had similar good results with DD-X.

Here are a few of my examples:

1 - 135 HP5+ pushed to 1600asa

FILM - Hi-fidelity selections by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

2 - 120 HP5+ pushed to 1600asa

Misty woods #2 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

3 - 120 HP5+ pushed to 3200asa

Rother Valley willow by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
ancient_mariner said:
If you don't tell the lab to push it then the film will be 'thin' with little detail in shadows, but not a mess unless your exposure is all over the place. Pushing will increase contrast and grain, but 1 stop won't be too obvious.
Click to expand...
Thanks Toni - so you reckon it might be better to rate it at 1600 and tell the lab to push it 2 stops?
 
FishyFish said:
I've pushed it to 1600 in 35mm and 3200 in 120. I used Ilfotec DD-X to develop it and it produced excellent results with little noticeable grain (far less than when I've used a dedicated 3200asa film). @Harlequin565 has done similar pushing, including with other developers. I think he had similar good results with DD-X.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nice - those pics of 35mm HP5 pushed to 1600 look great and what I'm after I think
 
First - format plays a huge part. HP5 can easily be pushed to 1600 in 120 without noticing anything unusual, no matter the dev because the negs are so much bigger.

So assuming we're talking about 35mm...

By pushing to 800, 1600 or 3200, you are under exposing and then relying on over development to compensate. What tends to happen is that by under exposing, your shadow areas still stay quite dark, but the mid & highlights get more dev and thus get lighter. This is why pushing appears to increase contrast. [my understanding]

But by leaving the film in the dev for longer, the developer actually plays (IMO) a more important part in the process. And DD-X seems to be a very "slow" developer which is why I think it gives such excellent results.

In my experience, I get the best results from Tri-X in HC-110, and from HP5 in DD-X. Both films look very different, and Tri-X's "gritty" feel that can be seen in so many of the old classic photographs is very different to the smooth, almost "vanilla" character of HP5. However as you start to push HP5 - especially to 1600 & 3200, you start to get that Tri-X @ 800 vibe.

Best is very subjective though, and whilst I have developed Tri-X in DD-X, with really good results, I prefer the grittier feel of Tri-X in HC-110 - even though DD-X is "technically" better.

Futher reading on posts I've made here...
HP5 @ 6400 for the giggles
HP5 @ 3200 vs Kodak P3200
Tri-X at 1600 in DD-X
HP5 Head to Head with HC-110 vs DD-X @ 800

All the above is moot though if you're getting a lab to develop it as you get no control over the developer. At the price point, I suspect most labs will use powder developers which I have 0 experience with.
 
Harlequin565 said:
First - format plays a huge part. HP5 can easily be pushed to 1600 in 120 without noticing anything unusual, no matter the dev because the negs are so much bigger.

So assuming we're talking about 35mm...

By pushing to 800, 1600 or 3200, you are under exposing and then relying on over development to compensate. What tends to happen is that by under exposing, your shadow areas still stay quite dark, but the mid & highlights get more dev and thus get lighter. This is why pushing appears to increase contrast. [my understanding]

But by leaving the film in the dev for longer, the developer actually plays (IMO) a more important part in the process. And DD-X seems to be a very "slow" developer which is why I think it gives such excellent results.

In my experience, I get the best results from Tri-X in HC-110, and from HP5 in DD-X. Both films look very different, and Tri-X's "gritty" feel that can be seen in so many of the old classic photographs is very different to the smooth, almost "vanilla" character of HP5. However as you start to push HP5 - especially to 1600 & 3200, you start to get that Tri-X @ 800 vibe.

Best is very subjective though, and whilst I have developed Tri-X in DD-X, with really good results, I prefer the grittier feel of Tri-X in HC-110 - even though DD-X is "technically" better.

Futher reading on posts I've made here...
HP5 @ 6400 for the giggles
HP5 @ 3200 vs Kodak P3200
Tri-X at 1600 in DD-X
HP5 Head to Head with HC-110 vs DD-X @ 800

All the above is moot though if you're getting a lab to develop it as you get no control over the developer. At the price point, I suspect most labs will use powder developers which I have 0 experience with.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian - that's also really helpful. I will be sending it away - probably to Filmdev as I send my colour rolls to them as well. I've no idea what they use but hopefully the results will be good. I haven't tried HP5 before because from what I'd seen with other images they looked a bit too flat for me as I prefer higher contrast. However, with a good tonal range if it's pushed 1-2 stops it might suit me really well, plus as I said, it's a bit cheaper than Tri-X.
 
I have a blog post with a few examples of HP5+ rated at 1600 and developed in HC110:

filmphotography.blog

HP5+ @EI 1600, in 35mm

I’ve only started using Ilford HP5+ film in the last year, as I used to find the examples images I saw online too grainy. But then I tried it out in medium format and liked it, and it’s…
filmphotography.blog filmphotography.blog

If you're looking for "atmosphere" then it can work well.
 
Last time I asked, Filmdev used XTOL, gives lovely sharp contrasty results from Tri-X, not at all "gritty" IMHO. It's weird how we're all different, I've shot relatively little HP5 and in 135 I'd probably have labelled it "gritty" rather than "smooth" any day!
 
Kevin Allan said:
I have a blog post with a few examples of HP5+ rated at 1600 and developed in HC110:

filmphotography.blog

HP5+ @EI 1600, in 35mm

I’ve only started using Ilford HP5+ film in the last year, as I used to find the examples images I saw online too grainy. But then I tried it out in medium format and liked it, and it’s…
filmphotography.blog filmphotography.blog

If you're looking for "atmosphere" then it can work well.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kevin - I'll take a look!
 
ChrisR said:
Last time I asked, Filmdev used XTOL, gives lovely sharp contrasty results from Tri-X, not at all "gritty" IMHO. It's weird how we're all different, I've shot relatively little HP5 and in 135 I'd probably have labelled it "gritty" rather than "smooth" any day!
Click to expand...
Cheers Chris - I do like Tri-X and I'm about to send a roll off to Filmdev so I'll see how the results look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top