Ilford HP5 (and other 'conventional' B&W films) have had emulsion
improvements through the years. I don't know specifics though. I have
not found the HP5 to be to high in contrast in general. I suspect that
it might be relates to processing. HP5 has always had a reputation for
having the ability to change contrast by changes in development. It may
be that the paper's lab developed for higher contrast. As I recall Tri-X
was not as receptive to contrast changes via development.
Jim Couch
Tris Schuler wrote:
> I haven't touched it for years, but for awhile a daily I worked for
> in UP Michigan sent me preloads full of HP5 instead of Tri-X, which
> was what we (like everyone else) habitually shot for our halftones. My
> experience then (as memory serves) was that HP5 had a lot more
> contrast to it than did Tri-X, almost to the point where you might be
> tempted to say it was a "contrasty" film emulsion. Not bad film, mind
> you, and I think that its contrast, as it related to halftone process,
> was what one of the paper's editor's liked about it. The results did
> appear to be more "stunning" in their own fashion when published on
> newsprint.
>
> In any event, this film certainly had a different look to it than
> Tri-X, and it also didn't strike me at the time as being as tonally
> balanced as Tri-X. How forgiving it was in the darkroom I could not
> say, though I regularly sent canisters up with direction to push it a
> couple of stops, with no issues on that score. I never worked with it
> myself in the darkroom, though, just saw the results in my paper--and
> again, we're talking halftones here, not critical work.
>
> Does anyone know if Ilford has changed this emulsion over the years?
>
> Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|