[ChrisPlatt]

I like Tri-X much more than HP5+ because the latter has such low contrast...

Same here. That's why I still choose Tri-X despite the curly pink/purple tinged negatives.

My old HP5 negatives had much better contrast than HP5+.
I even tried Ilford Pan 400 in hopes of recapturing that look...

Chris

[Jonathan Mac]

Do you think HP5 would have more contrast if you added 15-20% more development time?

I haven't looked into it in depth as my development equipment is not currently available to me, but I had imagined that an increase in development, either through time or agitation, would bring about the change I'm looking for. Would you suggest 15-20% as a starting point?

[pres589]

Pushing HP5 one stop should bring up the contrast a bit without much grain increase. Using a well documented developer that has a large user base should turn up various ways to push one stop. I would rather see reviews and methods with results shared online for a one stop push vs. a blanket "at 15% to your dev time" estimate unless you're okay with shooting some rolls to try and find what works well. And that's not a bad way to do it either and is effectively what I've done in my Clayton F76 thread (which I'm sure is annoying to other folks that are more educated and nuanced in their methods).

[tuco]

... Would you suggest 15-20% as a starting point?

It's a good new test time to see if it makes a favorable change or not. If it doesn't, at least you tried. But that's if you still want to work with the film and assuming your current development process isn't already producing a really dense negative.

The target contrast index difference between a diffusion and condenser enlarger development time is typically 15-20% difference (developer dependent). And a scanner can typically can handle either contrast index just fine to give you an idea of how much of change that is.

[ChrisPlatt]

Pushing HP5 one stop should bring up the contrast a bit without much grain increase.

Yes, but IMO EI 800 is simply too fast for general photography.

Chris

[pres589]

Yes, but IMO EI 800 is simply too fast for general photography.

Lens quality and ability to hold it together at f16 is probably going to be a big factor there; f16 & ISO 800 should work out alright per the Sunny 16 rule. I verified with Exposure Calculator

To the OP, there's probably a developer that would render more contrasty images without pushing HP5+, like Rodinal perhaps?

[tuco]

Put a yellow filter on and you are back to EI 400.

[Alex645]

Put a yellow filter on and you are back to EI 400.

Brilliant. Yes, I'd say the contrast difference between Tri-X and HP5+ is shooting HP5+ with a yellow filter.

For years, I've used yellow filters as a default because of the more accurate tonal response, especially in the cool hues.

The other tweak would be switching away from Ilfosol 3 which was designed for lower contrast and lower ISO films.
There are many ways to change contrast through chemistry, push processing, etc, but there is usually a tradeoff when doing so.

Don't want a pickle? Then ride your motorcycle.

[disconnekt]

If your on a tight budget, check out Ultrafine Xtreme. I use the Xtreme 100 with Legacypro L-110 (hc-110 knockoff) & the images look great to me.

[tuco]

..
There are many ways to change contrast through chemistry ...

Yeah. I use D-23 for softer moods, expansion developiing and to help tame exposures of films that inherently have a short-toe shadow response. I use PMK Pyro typically for compression developing in higher contrast situations and Rodinal for a more punchy negative among other reasons. I don't have a lot of experience with HP5+ but I find it has good latitude and a forgiving film. I think it handles white-on-white type pictures nicely too.

HP5+

[johnha]

This thread is an interesting read, I'm planning on re-starting home development (I don't want to risk delay and loss of film by sending it away at the moment). HP5+ is my preferred 400 film and I've always used Ilfosol S (mostly for ease of use - not having to mix it and only having to dilute the amount I need). It has always worked for FP4+ & HP5+ but this conversation suggests I should be thinking of something else for HP5+?

Any suggestions for a developer that's as easy to use as Ilfosol 3 - yet might be more appropriate for HP5+. I'm not geared up for printing and struggle to identify an averagely developed neg from a good one.

[Alex645]

Any suggestions for a developer that's as easy to use as Ilfosol 3 - yet might be more appropriate for HP5+.

If initial cost is not a barrier: Ilford Ilfotec HC. Very similar in results to Kodak HC-110.

Easy to use? Yes. More 'appropriate' and superior for HP5+? Yes. More economical? Yes.
It comes in a 1 liter bottle twice the size of the Ilfosol 3 and is highly concentrated (will make more working solution).
Cons? The cost to get a bottle (in the US) is about 5x (ouch) what you pay for Ilfosol 3. So it's only worth it if you have lots of film to develop for the next 18 months.

Ilford DD-X is about double the price of Ilfosol 3, but it's really optimized for Delta films.

If money matters, I would go with Ilford Perceptol for Pan F, FP4+, or HP5+. If you frequently push the HP5+, then I'd go with Ilford Microphen.
Both of those are powder, but is mixing really all that hard?

[pres589]

Any suggestions for a developer that's as easy to use as Ilfosol 3 - yet might be more appropriate for HP5+. I'm not geared up for printing and struggle to identify an averagely developed neg from a good one.

Clayton F76! Or HC-110 which I think would work even better than F76 for pushing but I have zero experience with that myself so big grain of salt.

[Denver]

I have used Diafine for years and been very satisfied no matter the film. It is very easy to use and very consistent. Two baths, 5 min in each, temp is not critical, can mix and match films in the same development tank. I like to keep things simple and excellent.

[ChrisPlatt]

Brilliant. Yes, I'd say the contrast difference between Tri-X and HP5+ is shooting HP5+ with a yellow filter.

For years, I've used yellow filters as a default because of the more accurate tonal response, especially in the cool hues.

I prefer a yellow green filter (X0 or 060) as a general purpose filter for BW, but I only use one on my non-SLR cameras.
In addition to the benefits of the yellow filter (sky and clouds mostly) it also improves foliage and skintones as well.

But who wants to view, focus and compose looking through a colored filter?
In my SLRs I prefer Tri-X; no colored filter required...

Chris