Topic: FP4+ vs HP5+ (let the battle begin)

[Jack Johnson]

Hey Everyone!

FP4+ has been my go-to film for a long time now, and since getting back into developing my own film I had been souping it primarily in Caffenol-C-M. In general the tones with FP4+ match the tones in my head: chocolatey blacks and rich skin tones.

I wanted to shoot some faster film and save some time prepping development, so I started doing HP5+ in HC-110 (first dilution B, then dilution H). Also in general, the skin tones in HP5+ always seem pale approaching pasty to me, and more so in HC-110. In direct sunlight and other instances it can have a certain charm, but for me nothing compares to FP4+.

Having said that, I'm sitting on another 70 ft or so of HP5+, and thanks to some garage sales at least a liter of HC-110 syrup, and I like the faster film speed.

So, suggestions? Does anyone have any tricks for shooting HP5+ (yellow/green filter, maybe?), a preferred developer or digital workflow that shifts the tonal range to something they prefer? Or do you think I'm crazy and HP5+ is the winner?

I'm scanning & developing this sunny Sunday, hopefully I'll make the tail end of the weekend thread!

[Jack Johnson]

I don't know if many of you have seen or are using FilmDev or not, but I stumbled across a few of these shots on Flickr. FP4+ @ EI400 in HC-110 @ 1:49 for 16 minutes, the highlights seem extremely tame compared to Dilution B at box speed and the skin tones fall back into the standard FP4+ range:

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/11348

[02Pilot]

I've shot and developed both in Caffenol C-H(RS), though HP5+ is my go-to choice because of the flexibility, so I have more experience with it.

I really like FP4+ in 120; I don't feel like I have as much of a handle on how to get the best from it in 35mm. It does seem higher contrast than HP5+ in general, but the tonality on a big negative is very nice.

I shoot HP5+ at EI200 and develop normally, which is probably not what you want to do, as it results in light tones across a fairly broad range. I've found HP5+ to be somewhat less responsive to filtration than some films (say Tri-X); if you want to filter, I'd go for orange (my preferred option for more contrast with HP5+) or deep yellow in general use. Yellow/green will lower contrast further in many cases. I'm not much help on skin tones, as I don't really do portraiture.

HP5+ will take a fair bit of abuse and still turn up usable negatives, so the best thing to do is experiment and see what works best for the look you want. If you look at any of my photos from the last few years in the Photo Essays section and want to know details of how they were shot, let me know - all the B&W is on HP5+.

[cs1]

I'm not particularly fond of HP5+ at box speed. However, at EI 1600 I love it (2 stops push developed in Rodinal for example). My subjective impression is that the contrast is nicer and the grain is pretty without being too dominant. I've never tried 120 HP5+ at EI 1600 but 135 HP5+ definitely is worth a try at EI 1600.

[02Pilot]

I'm not particularly fond of HP5+ at box speed. However, at EI 1600 I love it (2 stops push developed in Rodinal for example). My subjective impression is that the contrast is nicer and the grain is pretty without being too dominant. I've never tried 120 HP5+ at EI 1600 but 135 HP5+ definitely is worth a try at EI 1600.

Funny you mention that (and that I forgot to). I've shot some @1600 when I needed to, but I just shot an entire trip (8 rolls) pushed to 1600; I used a deep yellow or light red filter to dial it back during daylight hours, so I'm expecting plenty of contrast. Just got home, so no samples yet, but give me a few days.

[Francois]

It may sound a bit crazy but I recently used a roll of PanF+ and fell in love with it. I know ISO50 might sound low but I think that if you plan on using some 100 film, there's probably enough light for one less stop in order to get the ultra fine grain.

And in medium format, the grain is virtually non existant.

[cs1]

Funny you mention that (and that I forgot to). I've shot some @1600 when I needed to, but I just shot an entire trip (8 rolls) pushed to 1600; I used a deep yellow or light red filter to dial it back during daylight hours, so I'm expecting plenty of contrast. Just got home, so no samples yet, but give me a few days.

Make sure to let us know how you like the results.

I've found a photo that I shot with a Canon A-1 and a Canon 50mm f/1.4 on HP5+ @ 1600 (dev. in Rodinal). I remember that I loved that I could shoot the HP5+ @ 1600 in ridiculously bad lighting conditions but still got good results.

[imagesfrugales]

Hi Jack, I doubt that HP5+ produces worse skintones than FP4+. Imho it all depends on proper developing. If highlights are blown, you develop too long or expose too much. Sensitation may be an item to think about, theoretically an orthopan film should give more skin tone differentiation than a panchromatic. But I also got very nice results with superpan films like RR 400s or TechPan. And avoid greasy glaring skin of course.

[02Pilot]

Also, I've mentioned this here previously, but if you haven't looked at it, I think it might help differentiate between the films in question: http://www.merillot.fr/photo-graphie/tests-croises-films-revelateurs/films-scan-order-note.php . It's extremely comprehensive and cross-indexed, so take some time to browse around. Google Translate is your friend if you're not comfortable in French.

[cs1]

I forgot to mention: thanks to O2Pilot's hint I started using orange filters which really give a nice contrast to landscape pictures. It also gives subjects a very flattering skin tone. Maybe it's worth trying with the HP5+.

I use FP4+ at box speed and HP5+ pushed two stops from time to time and I think that it's hard to compare them because they cover very different scenarios (finer classic grain vs. low light with more pronounced grain). I think that I personally prefer the HP5+ for its more grainy look over the FP4+ because at lower speeds I prefer other films (don't get me wrong, the FP4+ is an excellent film, it's just a matter of taste).

[Jack Johnson]

Thanks everyone. I've done orange and red on FP4+, but haven't tried either with HP5+. I'll try both!

I do like PanF+ (especially in MF), but I don't shoot it enough. It might be a latitude problem, but not with the film.

Reinhold, to my eye FP4+ skin tones fall in a more natural range. HP5+ shifts them maybe 2/3 stop darker. I wonder if FP4+ is less sensitive to red?

[Francois]

it does come down to the light...
Here we're at about the same latitude as Bordeaux, so there's plenty of light when it's not raining.

[Jack Johnson]

it does come down to the light...
Here we're at about the same latitude as Bordeaux, so there's plenty of light when it's not raining.

Wikipedia says I'm about the same latitude as Lillehammer. 

[cs1]

Wikipedia says I'm about the same latitude as Lillehammer. 

Wait, the sun doesn't completely disappear at your location right now? Then your mission is clear: push the HP5+ 2 stops to 1600 and take some cool night shots.

[imagesfrugales]

Reinhold, to my eye FP4+ skin tones fall in a more natural range. HP5+ shifts them maybe 2/3 stop darker. I wonder if FP4+ is less sensitive to red?

Hmmm, some examples from me on HP5+, EI 400 - 1600, different developers:
https://flic.kr/p/bVmCuy
https://flic.kr/p/9sD3HM
https://flic.kr/p/bAjyPp
https://flic.kr/p/9Liy78
https://flic.kr/p/7DAbFt
https://flic.kr/p/9piZY9

Recently, I used a lot of ISO 400 Kentmere = APXnew = RPX (last batches), sensitzed probably like HP5+:
https://flic.kr/p/VNSkms
https://flic.kr/p/VAUWbf
https://flic.kr/p/TN5iuN
https://flic.kr/p/RM3vEs

I don't have much experience with FP4+. But flickr is often very helpful imho, I can't see a significant difference overall:

FP4+: https://www.flickr.com/search/?page=&text=fp4%2B%20portrait
HP5+: https://www.flickr.com/search/?page=&text=hp5%2B%20portrait

If you want a different, darker skin tone rendering, you might try an orthopan film or light blue filter:
https://flic.kr/p/aF5fU8


"HP5+ shifts them maybe 2/3 stop darker. I wonder if FP4+ is less sensitive to red?"
Then HP5+ would be less sensitive to red which is very unlikely.

[Faintandfuzzy]

Wikipedia says I'm about the same latitude as Lillehammer. 

Wait, the sun doesn't completely disappear at your location right now? Then your mission is clear: push the HP5+ 2 stops to 1600 and take some cool night shots.

Just curious...what is your dilution and processing time in Rodinal for a 2 stop push for HP5?  Inhavent pushed it is Rodinal and I may give it a try for some street photography.  I love it in DDX pushed to 1600 and 3200. 

[cs1]

Just curious...what is your dilution and processing time in Rodinal for a 2 stop push for HP5?  Inhavent pushed it is Rodinal and I may give it a try for some street photography.  I love it in DDX pushed to 1600 and 3200.

I used Rodinal 1+25 @ 20 °C. Developing time was 12 minutes, agitating during the first minute then agitate every 1 minute (I usually tip the developing tank 3 times).

[Faintandfuzzy]

Thanks CS1.  I'll try that.  I just got 4 rolls of 100' of HP5....so some Rodinal street is coming.