Kyle, I’m grateful for your experimentation and clear presentation of your results. My negatives go into the darkroom. HP5+ at EI 200 (I’m using Pyrocat HD, per Steve Sherman’s technique.) serves me well. I don’t want to give up detail in the shadow zones. Yes, HP5+ negatives look flat. That kind of negative is easier to print than a contrasty one. Using split-grade printing, I can add lots of contrast if I wish. Once I’ve established an almost-dark-enough print with a multi-contrast #2 filter, I add contrast to the darker regions by exposing (and dodging & burning) with a #5 filter. That said, I’ve begun experimenting with metering HP5+ at 800 & 1600 (with DD-X) for the option of hand-held shooting in the fall, winter & spring here (Victoria, BC). I’m using TLRs and usually work between f/5.6 - f/11. Thanks again! I appreciate your work. So many films, so many developers! We’re tremendously lucky.
In my experience, HP5 in DD-X with Ilford’s recommended times is really more like 500 and a G-bar of 0.50, so exposing it at 800 and push processing for 800 is actually processing it closer to a ISO standard contrast (which is 0.615), and only under exposing it by 2/3 stop, which is almost no difference, as you’ve seen. If you really want to dial it in, a small investment in a densitometer and working out a development time for a G-bar of 0.62 will let you shoot it at 500 with a healthy amount of contrast while still maintaining good shadows, and then a one stop push would be 1000 (with even more contrast), and a two stop push would be 2000. You’d have to work out those times for the new one and two stop pushes as you’d be outside of Ilford’s recommendations, but your new baseline at 500 and close to ISO contrast would be a pretty healthy negative and wouldn’t look so flat.
Thanks for the efforts! Just wanted to suggest you take a look at HP5 exposed at @200asa developed in neat Perceptol. Has to be neat as even at 1:1 the magic is reduced, and what you get is remarkable tones and much reduced grain. Even with 35mm you can enlarge and enlarge and love it.
I've developed HP5 a lot as ISO 1600 back in the day, and even as ISO 6400 here and there. But I've never did it using a large format camera. So I'm amazed how this images are still looking nice and highly detailed despite that process...
Thank you Kyle. Great exercise pushing HP5 for us to see. Surprising how subtle the variation from 400 to 1600 but the added contrast does show up. Lots of latitude for that film stock. Hope you and family are doing well in your new location. Until next time, all the best from Nova Scotia.
Thank you for detailed comparison. From my perspective as long as negative (especially hp5) gets decent light conditions there is no worries to under-expose it even 3 stops. The problem for me is starting when I tried to push it in night / dusk condition.
I almost always push my black and white some amount having shot hp5 at 6400 and the results come out amazing with loads of contrast and just enough detail in the shadows for my needs.
Agree with the flexibility of HP5, I've often pushed it 2 stops as I like a bit more contrast and I really like the graininess. The increased grain shows much more on 35mm., so HP5 @ ISO 1600 on 35mm is my go to for B&W.
Cheers, John. And yes, the results would definitely be a little more noticeable as the format size get's smaller. I've noticed that even my 6x7 seems a bit grainer.
I’d be interested to see this with Tri-X for sure. Maybe even compared to HP5 shot for shot. I moved away from Tri-X because I felt like it was contrasty enough at 400 and was wary of pushing it and losing too much detail.
This is awesome! I’ve loved shooting HP5 at box speed and just started my first test roll of it @800. Your content is always so helpful! thanks for producing shut great videos :)
Definitely feel like HP5 is at its best for printing at 400 as you can always add contrast with contrast filters in the print, but you can't add shadow detail if it isn't there. However, because most of what I do is using DSLR scanned negatives I love how it looks pushed two stops, and I love the flexibility when shooting it in 35mm as a single 36-shot roll could easily need to be used in a wide range of lighting conditions. It's also just a great look, so much so that I even have my default B&W settings and film simulation on my Fujifilm XT-20 set up to replicate it when shooting digitally.
Really nice seeing the comparison on 4x5! Choosing to push (or pull) also depends on the lighting conditions and inherent dynamic range of the scene. I for one am just a boring boxspeed guy 😅
Kyle, excellent video. Randall and Gianni are on the right track here. You can not push a film. This is a common misnomer. You can develop longer to move the zone V-X tones further up the scale, ie. make the middle grays and highlights have more density on the negative (brighter). The lower values, those less than zone III, do not increase in density much with additional development, especially zone I tones. They remain very thin on the negative never building density. Shadows should be up off the toe for best performance with HP5. If you are scanning, one way to think about it is you want as much information on your negative as possible, so you always want to place your darkest shadows, metered with a 2 degree spot on zone III. Your 400ISO negative looks close to this but hard to tell neg density in a video. That said there are some developers that will give you some added speed (raise the ISO of your film) a bit, like Xtol. I shoot HP5 at ISO200 dev in xtol 1:1. Low shadows placed on zone 2/3. HP5 can take some high contrast scenes well.
Very interesting. I scan with Epsom V800 and Silverfast which gives the option of adjusting the contrast at the scanning stage. Because 35mm has 36 different exposures each requiring different lighting considerations I have found using box speed for HP5 my best option. Cheers and regards.
Oh man pushing the film made it look so good. But, I agree with not baking in your settings and having the flexibility with shooting at box speed and standard development
I’m glad to see you taking these comparison videos to push tests. Thanks, Kyle. I always appreciate these videos. Do you think the comparison transfers equally to 35 mm and 120?
Cheers, John. And yes, as mentioned below, I'd imagine you can expect the results to increase a bit as you drop down to a smaller format. I've pushed HP5 to 800 using 6x7, and there's slightly more grain.
Film sensitivity si referred ti the toe of the curve, this means that you have to expose for the shadows. Moreover exposing for the middle gray and then overdevelop means that the density you will have for these tones will be higher because middle gray is very sensitive to development. Developing times,especially for large format, has to be calibrated according to the scene not to the rate of your meter. You could have an high contrast scene (night scenes) where pushing film can be a big problem.
HP5 @3200 is my favourite on medium format. Grain is still not an issue and I like the higher contrast look. 3200 is fantastic because I highly dislike tripods :D On 135 it might be a bit too much, but 800 and 1600 is still very usable. Even 3200 is usable in a pinch. HP5 is my go to b&w film stock because of how highly flexible it is. I also love how it looks pushed with little post processing.
Agree that HP5 at 3200 is completely usable, even on 135. During the first and longest covid lock down I did my own informal test shooting life around the house on Delta 3200, TMAX 3200 and HP5 shot at 3200. I found that the HP5 kept up with the Delta no problem at all, maybe shadows blocked a bit more and a slight bit more contrast but it told me that for my occasional indoor/evening use there's no point in keeping the Delta around. TMAX held it's own though, finer grain and sharper details, I just hate the way it handles highlights.
I really like the look I get shooting 35mm HP5 at 1600 and stand developing with HC-110. Actually, with stand development I’ve gotten decent results metering at 400, 800, & 1600 on the same roll.
Hey man! Amazing video. I’m quite new to medium format film photography, I got my very first medium format film camera just few days ago (Mamiya M645 Super) I’m interested in pushing this B&W film stock too, in order to achieve more contrast. In my case I’ll just bring the film to the lab for the develop and scan. Let’s say I shot the HP5 400 at 800 ISO, underexposing the film one stop; what should I say to the lab when I’m going there to hand over my roll of 120? Thanks in advance for the time you’re spending reading this and replying Have a nice weekend from Berlin 📷
This was a very interesting and very useful exercise. The video was very clear. Just one question: for me (straight D-76 and darkroom wet printing,) I use +15% time for +1 stop. Can you say what you use for DDX? The dork in me would find that interesting. 😉 Thank you!
Cheers, Michael! I'm assuming you're talking about extra time for development? For this test, I stuck to Ilford's numbers for DD-X. 400 was 9 mins, 800 was 10 mins, and 1600 was 13 mins.
Thanks for this super helpful video, Kyle! I'm curious; If you have a digital post workflow, is there an advantage to pushing it rather than just shooting at box and crushing the shadows a bit in Lightroom? This is assuming, of course, that you're pushing for creative purposes and not due to low light. I haven't been able to find a clear answer on this.
I think this will be different for everyone. For me personally, choosing to push will likely always be a practical reason. That being said, the 120 version I've been shooting of HP5 does have a little bit more noticeable grain when it comes to pushing it, even one stop. So I may keep doing that. But when it comes to contrast, I find that regardless of what film stock I'm shooting, I'm tweaking the contrast and look afterwards in post.
@@KyleMcDougall ah, I hadn't thought about the change in grain as well. That's definitely something to consider. I don't find HP5 quite punchy enough at box either. Thanks for the response!
Hi, just wondering if you've ever thought about doing a video on how to make audio sound natural. Your voice always seems. so clear and natural sounding and mine always seems like I'm speaking inside a box. Just thought you might like to share you setting or workflow on how you go about adjusting it. I've tried following other tutorials but they always seem to use third party plugins which cost loads of money and I'm just trying to use the default stuff in Adobe Premiere.
ive often wondered whether you can just get a similar level of contrast in post (ie either in the scan or in lightroom or something). also i expect the effect is more pronounced with smaller formats due to more grain. have you ever used coloured filters?that’s an effect you can’t reproduce in post really, at least with b&w film scans. you can with digital/colour obviously)
Yeah, that's the thing when it comes to scanning. For me, I'd rather have the most room to work with afterwords in post, so 400 or 800, in this scenario. As for 1600, I liked the fact that even though there was more of a look, there was still flexibility and nothing was baked in too strong. So for me, it's more of a practical reason to push, rather than creative. As for colour filters, not yet, but I do have some here to shoot with. Hopefully soon.
@@KyleMcDougall So I should look forward to a video on it then?. It is very high contrast and the latent image tends to fade, if you leave it in the camera for a while, but in the right lighting conditions you can get more shades of grey that you can shake a stick at.
Have you ever tried Diafine? It's interesting because they recommend shooting HP5 at 800 ISO for roll film and 640 for sheet film. Their recommendations for Tri-X I think is 1250. I've read that it is so flexible that you can shoot images on a roll of medium format at different ISOs (say between 400 & 1600) and the developer will compensate appropriately.
Kyle, this first comparison at 7:41 prooves how 'safe' this film is, you lose a fraction of data, BUT the image IS SAFE, not a white/ black sheet of paper!!, so has given me the confidence to get this film, as if I go two stops by accident while learning how to meter, MY investment in the sheet ($2-$4/sheet) is safe, barring any mistakes of shutter/darkslide, in the "dance" as Mat Marrash calls it. ONE other pointer, this means as the light goes down, you DON'T have to change emulssions!!, as this film can still take the reduced light, no problems!!, so for reduced light, or the chance of it, you have 3 films in one, a 400/800/1600 all in the one holder!!
Hey Andy, yep, that's how I look at it. Very flexible if you're shooting sheet film. It basically gives you the option of deciding what you want to rate it at right before you make your image. And then you can adjust when you go to develop.
I think it's very important to note how much different the grain of pushed B&W will appear, depending on 35mm vs 120 vs Large Format. Also the developer you use, how the film is agitated, and whether you stand develop. You really need to present those caveats. I would have liked to see this comparison done with different developers, not just DDX. Perhaps DDX vs. Rodinal or D76 or HC-110 @ 400 vs 1600 ISO.
Of course, when approaching anything that revolves around B&W developing, there's a lot of different ways of approaching things. To make a video that try's too cover them all for one film stock would be big challenge. At the moment, I'm just sharing my process, which is DD-X with a pretty simple developing process. As for smaller formats, indeed, it's a good point that I should have mentioned.
To my eyes the differences were immediately clear even via RUclips . There’s not one I would prefer the box speed at - reminds me of how boring HP is unless manipulated / toned in printing. The 1600 versions looked a bit like running a Highpass filter in Photoshop?
You could try Kodak TMAX 400 or Ilford Delta. Lot's of other options as well depending on how much of a look you want. Both of those are great films though. I'm a big fan of TMAX.
What I don't understand is, why go trough all this trouble and then digitise the film to produce a print, instead of using and develop photo paper for the print.
Your results show about the same as mine in HC110... HP5 is a weird film to me. At 400, I find it far too flat. The mid tones are mush to my taste. I shoot it exclusively from EI 800-3200. At 3200 it gives a bit of crunch and grit that can work well in some scenes. But I also shoot it exclusively in medium format. In 35mm, the grain is too much pushed and contrast is too flat not pushed. In 4x5, I prefer Rollei IR 400 for the flexibility to shoot infrared or normal black and white. That film also pushes pretty well.... Of course these are just my opinions. I just prefer the separated mid tones. The minor loss in the shadows isn't important to me.
Cheers, Bryce. Yeah, it seems like HP5 is a film that everyone has different feelings about, and approaches differently when it comes to exposing, push/pull, etc. I haven't yet tried pushing to 3200, but may in the future just out of curiosity. The only issue for me, is that being mostly a landscape shooter, working with a ISO 3200 film is definitely not ideal.
@@KyleMcDougall Thank for the reply. I definitely understand. I use HP5 more as a walk around medium format film, preferring slower films and 4x5 for landscapes... Like you said, everyone has their own approach to how it fits their vision and use case.
Hey Rachel, they don't as they're really two different things. For example, if you're underexposing, you're recording less information, and then trying to compensate for it by over developing. But of course, you can only pull detail that already exists. Over developing will also change the look of the film, as seen in this video.
I know I'm missing something but could you explain why it's still necessary to push it one stop in development? I thought the whole point of exposing +1 stop at ISO800 is to then have it developed normally at box speed for the desired undexposed/higher contrast effect. What would happen if you just rate it at ISO800 and have it developed box speed?
When you expose it at 800, you're underexposing by one stop. If you just develop it normally, without compensation, then you'd be lacking density in the shadows on the negative, and they would be muddy when scanned. When you push the film in development, you're trying to compensate for the underexposure, by developing for longer, and therefore trying to squeeze more out of the underexposed areas.
@@KyleMcDougall Right, thanks for the explanation, it just sounded a bit like they would cancel each other out. So you'd shoot it as an 800 and then develop it as an 800 as well?
I recently pushed a roll of 35mm Ilford HP5 and noticed a lot of grain... what causes a lot of grain when shooting with this film? Is it the 35mm format? Or the fact I overexposed it to 800 and developed at 800? Or my exposure etc? Curious to know for the next rolls
I shoot HP5+ exclusively at 1600, mostly because at box speed is too flat and I cannot get the look I like. Maybe video on how you process your BW scans including how to apply proper contrast? Pretty please 🥺
Something I could do in the future for sure. My process is pretty straightforward. I get a lot of the look from conversion with NLP, just adjusting my exposure. And then sometimes add a bit of contrast using a curve in LR.
Why not shoot medium format, which most viewers shoot, but change the back? You'll probably notice far less grain on large format, unless I'm mistaken?
kyle, if you are wanting more or less contrast, why not just add an Ilford Multi-grade filter on the enlarger later on?, as there is something to be said for the manufacturers' own testing regeme and the numbers they come up with; so if you change the 'box' speed, doesn't this invalidate all the times, etc. on the Ilford data sheets too??, as you ARE departing from instructions!
Hey Andy, as mentioned below, I'm not printing in a darkroom, only scanning for the computer. As for the manufacturers instructions, they actually list times for pushing and pulling on their data sheets for different films.
Yep. Underexpose by 2 stops, then overdevelop by 2 stops to compensate. Pushing only can add more to information that is already there, so it has the effect of increasing contrast.
Yep, basically this. As mentioned in the video, you still need to make sure that you have information in the important parts of the area, as pushing won't bring something back that doesn't exist.
I've come to the conclusion that adding grain in post just doesn't work. Digital grain doesn't look the same, it looks like noise rather than grain. If you want grainy shots, I'd bake them into the negatives instead of relying on Lightroom to do it.
I don’t think DD-X does HP5+ much justice. This is not what the contrast curve usually looks like and think it’s because the film was designed with more traditional developers in mind. DD-X is a modern super fine grain, compensating developer that’s supposed to retain the most information in the negative. Especially for pushing Delta 3200. So you’ll get a much flatter contrast curve than you’d get with other developers. That doesn’t mean you’re not supposed to use it with HP5+. I’m just saying that it’ll look more like what we’re used to it looking like when developed in HC or ID-11.
When you push film a "stop", you are halving the exposure, you are pushing those deep shadow details off the low end of the film's ability to register them at all. Gone and lost for ever. At the same time, you are moving details which should have been near white (clouds?) down into the light greys. To compensate, you then increase development of that exposure, which if done correctly moves those highlights back where they belong on the tonal scale of the film. So what is accomplished? You reduce your dynamic range, the range of subject tones your film can capture, by one stop. You loose shadow detail you cannot recover. You increase grain and loose sharpness. All of that may be appropriate for some subjects with a short range of tones, which look better are the where range from light to dark is expanded (not so dull looking), and have no shadow detail to preserve. For general usage on a subject with a full range of tones? Ridiculous.
Kyle,
I’m grateful for your experimentation and clear presentation of your results. My negatives go into the darkroom. HP5+ at EI 200 (I’m using Pyrocat HD, per Steve Sherman’s technique.) serves me well. I don’t want to give up detail in the shadow zones.
Yes, HP5+ negatives look flat. That kind of negative is easier to print than a contrasty one. Using split-grade printing, I can add lots of contrast if I wish. Once I’ve established an almost-dark-enough print with a multi-contrast #2 filter, I add contrast to the darker regions by exposing (and dodging & burning) with a #5 filter.
That said, I’ve begun experimenting with metering HP5+ at 800 & 1600 (with DD-X) for the option of hand-held shooting in the fall, winter & spring here (Victoria, BC). I’m using TLRs and usually work between f/5.6 - f/11.
Thanks again! I appreciate your work. So many films, so many developers! We’re tremendously lucky.
Immediately clicked
In my experience, HP5 in DD-X with Ilford’s recommended times is really more like 500 and a G-bar of 0.50, so exposing it at 800 and push processing for 800 is actually processing it closer to a ISO standard contrast (which is 0.615), and only under exposing it by 2/3 stop, which is almost no difference, as you’ve seen. If you really want to dial it in, a small investment in a densitometer and working out a development time for a G-bar of 0.62 will let you shoot it at 500 with a healthy amount of contrast while still maintaining good shadows, and then a one stop push would be 1000 (with even more contrast), and a two stop push would be 2000. You’d have to work out those times for the new one and two stop pushes as you’d be outside of Ilford’s recommendations, but your new baseline at 500 and close to ISO contrast would be a pretty healthy negative and wouldn’t look so flat.
Wtf
Thanks for the efforts! Just wanted to suggest you take a look at HP5 exposed at @200asa developed in neat Perceptol. Has to be neat as even at 1:1 the magic is reduced, and what you get is remarkable tones and much reduced grain. Even with 35mm you can enlarge and enlarge and love it.
I've developed HP5 a lot as ISO 1600 back in the day, and even as ISO 6400 here and there. But I've never did it using a large format camera. So I'm amazed how this images are still looking nice and highly detailed despite that process...
Thank you Kyle. Great exercise pushing HP5 for us to see. Surprising how subtle the variation from 400 to 1600 but the added contrast does show up. Lots of latitude for that film stock. Hope you and family are doing well in your new location. Until next time, all the best from Nova Scotia.
Thanks, Wayne. I appreciate that! And yes, definitely interesting results doing this with 4x5!
The way you make everything so didactic is amazing, well done boss 👑
Thank you for detailed comparison. From my perspective as long as negative (especially hp5) gets decent light conditions there is no worries to under-expose it even 3 stops. The problem for me is starting when I tried to push it in night / dusk condition.
I almost always push my black and white some amount having shot hp5 at 6400 and the results come out amazing with loads of contrast and just enough detail in the shadows for my needs.
Agree with the flexibility of HP5, I've often pushed it 2 stops as I like a bit more contrast and I really like the graininess. The increased grain shows much more on 35mm., so HP5 @ ISO 1600 on 35mm is my go to for B&W.
Cheers, John. And yes, the results would definitely be a little more noticeable as the format size get's smaller. I've noticed that even my 6x7 seems a bit grainer.
Awesome comparison. And a very cool surprise to hear you include intro music from my pal Sun Rain 🙌
Thanks, Cam!
I’d be interested to see this with Tri-X for sure. Maybe even compared to HP5 shot for shot.
I moved away from Tri-X because I felt like it was contrasty enough at 400 and was wary of pushing it and losing too much detail.
Hey Joseph, I’ll keep that in kind for the next video. I’d be curious to see the results as well.
This is awesome! I’ve loved shooting HP5 at box speed and just started my first test roll of it @800. Your content is always so helpful! thanks for producing shut great videos :)
Cheers, CJ!
Definitely feel like HP5 is at its best for printing at 400 as you can always add contrast with contrast filters in the print, but you can't add shadow detail if it isn't there. However, because most of what I do is using DSLR scanned negatives I love how it looks pushed two stops, and I love the flexibility when shooting it in 35mm as a single 36-shot roll could easily need to be used in a wide range of lighting conditions. It's also just a great look, so much so that I even have my default B&W settings and film simulation on my Fujifilm XT-20 set up to replicate it when shooting digitally.
I cant wait for your CINESTILL 800T push pull video :D
Really nice seeing the comparison on 4x5! Choosing to push (or pull) also depends on the lighting conditions and inherent dynamic range of the scene. I for one am just a boring boxspeed guy 😅
Cheers, Corey. And yes, absolutely, there are a bunch of factors to take into account. Nothing wrong with box speed!
0:07 savage edit
Kyle, excellent video. Randall and Gianni are on the right track here. You can not push a film. This is a common misnomer. You can develop longer to move the zone V-X tones further up the scale, ie. make the middle grays and highlights have more density on the negative (brighter). The lower values, those less than zone III, do not increase in density much with additional development, especially zone I tones. They remain very thin on the negative never building density. Shadows should be up off the toe for best performance with HP5. If you are scanning, one way to think about it is you want as much information on your negative as possible, so you always want to place your darkest shadows, metered with a 2 degree spot on zone III. Your 400ISO negative looks close to this but hard to tell neg density in a video.
That said there are some developers that will give you some added speed (raise the ISO of your film) a bit, like Xtol. I shoot HP5 at ISO200 dev in xtol 1:1. Low shadows placed on zone 2/3. HP5 can take some high contrast scenes well.
dang these are so gorgeous, love seeing the comparison
Thank you, Wesley. 🙏
Very interesting. I scan with Epsom V800 and Silverfast which gives the option of adjusting the contrast at the scanning stage. Because 35mm has 36 different exposures each requiring different lighting considerations I have found using box speed for HP5 my best option. Cheers and regards.
Cheers, Bernard. Thanks for watching.
Great work I would like to see this done with delta 100 and 400, I was put off by HP5's flat look so I've always used 100 and 400 Delta.
Haven't shot much Delta. Only one roll before. But maybe I'll test it out in the future!
Oh man pushing the film made it look so good. But, I agree with not baking in your settings and having the flexibility with shooting at box speed and standard development
For sure, Devin. I'd prefer to define most of the look in post. Cool to see though that this doesn't get too harsh as you push it.
I’m glad to see you taking these comparison videos to push tests. Thanks, Kyle. I always appreciate these videos.
Do you think the comparison transfers equally to 35 mm and 120?
Hi John, from my experience, the comparison gives the same results but even more obvious the smaller the format.
Cheers, John. And yes, as mentioned below, I'd imagine you can expect the results to increase a bit as you drop down to a smaller format. I've pushed HP5 to 800 using 6x7, and there's slightly more grain.
Film sensitivity si referred ti the toe of the curve, this means that you have to expose for the shadows. Moreover exposing for the middle gray and then overdevelop means that the density you will have for these tones will be higher because middle gray is very sensitive to development.
Developing times,especially for large format, has to be calibrated according to the scene not to the rate of your meter. You could have an high contrast scene (night scenes) where pushing film can be a big problem.
HP5 @3200 is my favourite on medium format. Grain is still not an issue and I like the higher contrast look. 3200 is fantastic because I highly dislike tripods :D
On 135 it might be a bit too much, but 800 and 1600 is still very usable. Even 3200 is usable in a pinch.
HP5 is my go to b&w film stock because of how highly flexible it is. I also love how it looks pushed with little post processing.
Haven't tried pushing to 3200, but that's something I may do in the future with 120 or 35 just for fun, and to see how it looks.
Agree that HP5 at 3200 is completely usable, even on 135. During the first and longest covid lock down I did my own informal test shooting life around the house on Delta 3200, TMAX 3200 and HP5 shot at 3200. I found that the HP5 kept up with the Delta no problem at all, maybe shadows blocked a bit more and a slight bit more contrast but it told me that for my occasional indoor/evening use there's no point in keeping the Delta around. TMAX held it's own though, finer grain and sharper details, I just hate the way it handles highlights.
1600 animates the tree. Love it.
Please do kodak ultramax! I know its safe to over expose 1 stop or 2 but i wanna see what it looks like. Thank you!
Your 4x5 camera is beautiful!
I really like the look I get shooting 35mm HP5 at 1600 and stand developing with HC-110. Actually, with stand development I’ve gotten decent results metering at 400, 800, & 1600 on the same roll.
Haven't yet tried stand developing. Maybe something I'll test out in the future.
Hey man! Amazing video.
I’m quite new to medium format film photography, I got my very first medium format film camera just few days ago (Mamiya M645 Super)
I’m interested in pushing this B&W film stock too, in order to achieve more contrast.
In my case I’ll just bring the film to the lab for the develop and scan.
Let’s say I shot the HP5 400 at 800 ISO, underexposing the film one stop; what should I say to the lab when I’m going there to hand over my roll of 120?
Thanks in advance for the time you’re spending reading this and replying
Have a nice weekend from Berlin 📷
This was a very interesting and very useful exercise. The video was very clear. Just one question: for me (straight D-76 and darkroom wet printing,) I use +15% time for +1 stop. Can you say what you use for DDX? The dork in me would find that interesting. 😉 Thank you!
Cheers, Michael! I'm assuming you're talking about extra time for development? For this test, I stuck to Ilford's numbers for DD-X. 400 was 9 mins, 800 was 10 mins, and 1600 was 13 mins.
Thank you so much! You are awesome!
Thanks for this super helpful video, Kyle!
I'm curious; If you have a digital post workflow, is there an advantage to pushing it rather than just shooting at box and crushing the shadows a bit in Lightroom? This is assuming, of course, that you're pushing for creative purposes and not due to low light. I haven't been able to find a clear answer on this.
I think this will be different for everyone. For me personally, choosing to push will likely always be a practical reason. That being said, the 120 version I've been shooting of HP5 does have a little bit more noticeable grain when it comes to pushing it, even one stop. So I may keep doing that. But when it comes to contrast, I find that regardless of what film stock I'm shooting, I'm tweaking the contrast and look afterwards in post.
@@KyleMcDougall ah, I hadn't thought about the change in grain as well. That's definitely something to consider. I don't find HP5 quite punchy enough at box either. Thanks for the response!
Hi, just wondering if you've ever thought about doing a video on how to make audio sound natural. Your voice always seems. so clear and natural sounding and mine always seems like I'm speaking inside a box. Just thought you might like to share you setting or workflow on how you go about adjusting it. I've tried following other tutorials but they always seem to use third party plugins which cost loads of money and I'm just trying to use the default stuff in Adobe Premiere.
Hey Nick, not sure I'd make a video like that for the channel any time soon. But shoot me a PM on IG. Happy to answer any questions.
ive often wondered whether you can just get a similar level of contrast in post (ie either in the scan or in lightroom or something). also i expect the effect is more pronounced with smaller formats due to more grain.
have you ever used coloured filters?that’s an effect you can’t reproduce in post really, at least with b&w film scans. you can with digital/colour obviously)
Yeah, that's the thing when it comes to scanning. For me, I'd rather have the most room to work with afterwords in post, so 400 or 800, in this scenario. As for 1600, I liked the fact that even though there was more of a look, there was still flexibility and nothing was baked in too strong. So for me, it's more of a practical reason to push, rather than creative. As for colour filters, not yet, but I do have some here to shoot with. Hopefully soon.
I tend to use HP5 in larger lighting ranges, and delta in lower lighting ranges. I would like to see you try some PanF+.
I have one roll here that I've been meaning to shoot!
@@KyleMcDougall So I should look forward to a video on it then?. It is very high contrast and the latent image tends to fade, if you leave it in the camera for a while, but in the right lighting conditions you can get more shades of grey that you can shake a stick at.
Possible video on it in the future!
Have you ever tried Diafine? It's interesting because they recommend shooting HP5 at 800 ISO for roll film and 640 for sheet film. Their recommendations for Tri-X I think is 1250. I've read that it is so flexible that you can shoot images on a roll of medium format at different ISOs (say between 400 & 1600) and the developer will compensate appropriately.
That’s one I’ve never tried, but I’ve heard good things. Maybe one day I’ll give it a shot!
Kyle, this first comparison at 7:41 prooves how 'safe' this film is, you lose a fraction of data, BUT the image IS SAFE, not a white/ black sheet of paper!!, so has given me the confidence to get this film, as if I go two stops by accident while learning how to meter, MY investment in the sheet ($2-$4/sheet) is safe, barring any mistakes of shutter/darkslide, in the "dance" as Mat Marrash calls it. ONE other pointer, this means as the light goes down, you DON'T have to change emulssions!!, as this film can still take the reduced light, no problems!!, so for reduced light, or the chance of it, you have 3 films in one, a 400/800/1600 all in the one holder!!
Hey Andy, yep, that's how I look at it. Very flexible if you're shooting sheet film. It basically gives you the option of deciding what you want to rate it at right before you make your image. And then you can adjust when you go to develop.
I think it's very important to note how much different the grain of pushed B&W will appear, depending on 35mm vs 120 vs Large Format. Also the developer you use, how the film is agitated, and whether you stand develop. You really need to present those caveats. I would have liked to see this comparison done with different developers, not just DDX. Perhaps DDX vs. Rodinal or D76 or HC-110 @ 400 vs 1600 ISO.
Just do it!
Of course, when approaching anything that revolves around B&W developing, there's a lot of different ways of approaching things. To make a video that try's too cover them all for one film stock would be big challenge. At the moment, I'm just sharing my process, which is DD-X with a pretty simple developing process. As for smaller formats, indeed, it's a good point that I should have mentioned.
To my eyes the differences were immediately clear even via RUclips . There’s not one I would prefer the box speed at - reminds me of how boring HP is unless manipulated / toned in printing.
The 1600 versions looked a bit like running a Highpass filter in Photoshop?
HP4 and HP5 have been my go to film for almost 50 years. Great tonal range and nice grain when developed well. Try HP5 in XTOL +3.
which would be the film for having the more contrasty look out of the box?
You could try Kodak TMAX 400 or Ilford Delta. Lot's of other options as well depending on how much of a look you want. Both of those are great films though. I'm a big fan of TMAX.
What I don't understand is, why go trough all this trouble and then digitise the film to produce a print, instead of using and develop photo paper for the print.
Where did you obtain the develop times, massive dev chart?
Massive Dev Chart, but also cross checked with Ilford's data sheet for DDX.
Nice Video. Very good!
Please. Do the same with Kentmere 400
Do you think hp5 should be better to pushed 1600 than box speed?thank you!
Your results show about the same as mine in HC110... HP5 is a weird film to me. At 400, I find it far too flat. The mid tones are mush to my taste. I shoot it exclusively from EI 800-3200. At 3200 it gives a bit of crunch and grit that can work well in some scenes. But I also shoot it exclusively in medium format. In 35mm, the grain is too much pushed and contrast is too flat not pushed. In 4x5, I prefer Rollei IR 400 for the flexibility to shoot infrared or normal black and white. That film also pushes pretty well.... Of course these are just my opinions. I just prefer the separated mid tones. The minor loss in the shadows isn't important to me.
Cheers, Bryce. Yeah, it seems like HP5 is a film that everyone has different feelings about, and approaches differently when it comes to exposing, push/pull, etc. I haven't yet tried pushing to 3200, but may in the future just out of curiosity. The only issue for me, is that being mostly a landscape shooter, working with a ISO 3200 film is definitely not ideal.
@@KyleMcDougall Thank for the reply. I definitely understand. I use HP5 more as a walk around medium format film, preferring slower films and 4x5 for landscapes... Like you said, everyone has their own approach to how it fits their vision and use case.
My question is: if you're under/overexposing and then pushing/pulling, don't these just cancel each other out?
Hey Rachel, they don't as they're really two different things. For example, if you're underexposing, you're recording less information, and then trying to compensate for it by over developing. But of course, you can only pull detail that already exists. Over developing will also change the look of the film, as seen in this video.
👍
Funny, Analog Resurgence just did the same thing!
I know I'm missing something but could you explain why it's still necessary to push it one stop in development? I thought the whole point of exposing +1 stop at ISO800 is to then have it developed normally at box speed for the desired undexposed/higher contrast effect. What would happen if you just rate it at ISO800 and have it developed box speed?
When you expose it at 800, you're underexposing by one stop. If you just develop it normally, without compensation, then you'd be lacking density in the shadows on the negative, and they would be muddy when scanned. When you push the film in development, you're trying to compensate for the underexposure, by developing for longer, and therefore trying to squeeze more out of the underexposed areas.
@@KyleMcDougall Right, thanks for the explanation, it just sounded a bit like they would cancel each other out. So you'd shoot it as an 800 and then develop it as an 800 as well?
how are you able to pull out so much detail from the epson 4990. its so old and slow.
What shutter release cable do you use ? I have a ten quid one from amazon and its awful when it comes to being stuck when depressed , thanks :)
This is by a company called Gepe.
@@KyleMcDougall thanks mate :)
thank you for this, also just put the scanner in amazon cart. i avoid ebay the best i can
Cheers, Bill. You grab a 4990?
@@KyleMcDougall yes, they offered a 5000 upgrade, no 4x5 holder ???, gonna start with 1 stop over on the hp5 when i buy it. so thankful for Ilford
@@KyleMcDougall well shit just realized amazon messaged me the 4990 is no longer available
I recently pushed a roll of 35mm Ilford HP5 and noticed a lot of grain... what causes a lot of grain when shooting with this film? Is it the 35mm format? Or the fact I overexposed it to 800 and developed at 800? Or my exposure etc? Curious to know for the next rolls
800 is underexposing, not overexposing
🖤🖤🖤
I shoot HP5+ exclusively at 1600, mostly because at box speed is too flat and I cannot get the look I like. Maybe video on how you process your BW scans including how to apply proper contrast? Pretty please 🥺
Try delta 100 and 400
@@justyjust I've tried all of them :) In this category TRIX does it for me, but I'd like to get decent picture from HP5+
Something I could do in the future for sure. My process is pretty straightforward. I get a lot of the look from conversion with NLP, just adjusting my exposure. And then sometimes add a bit of contrast using a curve in LR.
Why not shoot medium format, which most viewers shoot, but change the back? You'll probably notice far less grain on large format, unless I'm mistaken?
I didn’t have a medium format camera with interchangeable backs.
@@KyleMcDougall Makes sense...What happened to the mamamia 67?
I honestly only like HP5 pushed to 1600 or more
kyle, if you are wanting more or less contrast, why not just add an Ilford Multi-grade filter on the enlarger later on?, as there is something to be said for the manufacturers' own testing regeme and the numbers they come up with; so if you change the 'box' speed, doesn't this invalidate all the times, etc. on the Ilford data sheets too??, as you ARE departing from instructions!
Because Kyle isn't darkroom printing his large format film, he's scanning it. There's no enlarger involved. He can add contrast in Lightroom.
Hey Andy, as mentioned below, I'm not printing in a darkroom, only scanning for the computer. As for the manufacturers instructions, they actually list times for pushing and pulling on their data sheets for different films.
Those changes would seem more pronounced on 35mm film.
Indeed.
Had no idea you could scan 4x5 on a budget flatbed. I can't on my v500. Does the 4990 even *have* a film holder?
The 4990 does have a holder for 2 sheets of 4x5.
Great another comparison video. As if youtube inst flooded with them already.
Cool.
so you shoot iso 400 film at 1600 and then push it bij 2 stops in developing?
Yep. Underexpose by 2 stops, then overdevelop by 2 stops to compensate. Pushing only can add more to information that is already there, so it has the effect of increasing contrast.
Yep, basically this. As mentioned in the video, you still need to make sure that you have information in the important parts of the area, as pushing won't bring something back that doesn't exist.
I've come to the conclusion that adding grain in post just doesn't work. Digital grain doesn't look the same, it looks like noise rather than grain. If you want grainy shots, I'd bake them into the negatives instead of relying on Lightroom to do it.
I don’t think DD-X does HP5+ much justice. This is not what the contrast curve usually looks like and think it’s because the film was designed with more traditional developers in mind. DD-X is a modern super fine grain, compensating developer that’s supposed to retain the most information in the negative. Especially for pushing Delta 3200. So you’ll get a much flatter contrast curve than you’d get with other developers. That doesn’t mean you’re not supposed to use it with HP5+. I’m just saying that it’ll look more like what we’re used to it looking like when developed in HC or ID-11.
When you push film a "stop", you are halving the exposure, you are pushing those deep shadow details off the low end of the film's ability to register them at all. Gone and lost for ever. At the same time, you are moving details which should have been near white (clouds?) down into the light greys. To compensate, you then increase development of that exposure, which if done correctly moves those highlights back where they belong on the tonal scale of the film. So what is accomplished? You reduce your dynamic range, the range of subject tones your film can capture, by one stop. You loose shadow detail you cannot recover. You increase grain and loose sharpness. All of that may be appropriate for some subjects with a short range of tones, which look better are the where range from light to dark is expanded (not so dull looking), and have no shadow detail to preserve. For general usage on a subject with a full range of tones? Ridiculous.