Ilford HP5 | Film Exposure Limit Test

[@messsucher]

Overexposing 7 stops on this film is just insane to think about, especially with that descent result! HP5 is always known to give great results when pushing the film, so a lot of people who loves grains in their photos would shoot this film at ISO1600, then pushed in post, and it should still hold good details in the dark. So even if you don't have a lot of light, pushing the film should extend some limits, if you are ok with grains tho, lol.

[@scottparis6355]

Well OK, except notice that even at one stop under, his shadows are noticeably worse. Pushing is fine when you're forced to do it by darkness, but it never results in good tones.

[@messsucher]

@@scottparis6355 Well yeah, it will happen to all films because its not the designed box speed. but there are just people who like it that way, its a preference thing, not good or bad tho. From a perfection stand point, it might not be ideal, but artistically it should offer good results

[@lensman5762]

Your explanation was useful for those who have not shot film before so well done. If I may make a couple of points here for information. Any film Developer combination has a unique Log D-max curve hence an exposure index, this curve simply indicates how density builds with exposure, this is almost always an S shape. It starts with a ' Toe, muddy shadows without real detail ', leads to a' straight line, good exposure values ' and ends with a ' Shoulder, blocked highlights '. All three sections are of interest to a BW photographer. HP5+ in combination with a highly diluted HC110 or ID11 ( D76 ) at stock or 1+1 has a short Toe and a very long Straight section before eventually ending with the Shoulder. What this means is that subject to a scene's luminance range ( inaccurately known as Dynamic Range ), the film can be exposed at the averaged of high and low luminance values and, more often than not the results are usable. The problem starts when the luminance range of the scene is vast, as in a sunlit scene or a scene with objects of very high or low reflectivity. In such cases without the use of a spot meter and knowing the exact exposure required to obtain shadows and highlights with detail the negs can be wrongly exposed and important delicate values lost. In your presentation , judging by the shadows, the sky seems to be overcast and the luminance values of the scene within 4 or 5 stops. Under these conditions provided that the exposure is not placed in the ' Toe ' section ( severe underexposure ) the film can be exposed at a range of exposures within the ' Straight Line ' of the curve and values retained to a great degree as demonstrated.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the explanation.

[@PhilTaylorPhotog]

Hi lensman, some time since you wrote this, but I'd like to ask why you mention the term dynamic range is incorrect? Is it purely because dynamic range is measured in Db and therefore is only a digital measure? If so,I completely agree, and would say film has "latitude" , digital has "dynamic range" and a scene has "luminance range". Just wondered if you had another reason?

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

@@PhilTaylorPhotog Because dynamic range does not apply to film only to digital.

[@kiodo99]

This is actually really useful for times that you want to use an older camera that doesn't have a very fast maximum shutter speed (e.g. 1/400 or 1/250). This sets my mind at ease that I could use those cameras without worry, and could even open the aperture a bit if I wanted. Thanks for the great content, as usual!

[@KyleMcDougall]

No problem. Glad you found it helpful!

[@dovydasgrigas441]

my exa 1b goes up to a whopping 1/175 so these videos are a godsend

[@kurtozan251]

Waiting on my scans but I just shot this exact stock with an old wideluxe and had to overexpose a lot. I'm sure the scans will look good.

[@yeanisch]

Exactly this. I've got a zenit E with a broken lightmeter and a helios with a stuck aperture (F2), so this is very good information to have. Now I can look at my canon, and if it's lightmeter gives me a good exposure at 2000 shutter, I know I'm safe with 500 on my zenit.

[@uladzislaushulha1994]

In the past month I ran literal search term "kyle mcdougall ilford" 3 times. Thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

😁

[@graydeotto2820]

Im shocked that I actually prefer 2-3 stops over. I've always shot my hp5 at box speed and now I'm not sure if I should be

[@SugaHoneyIceTea36]

From what I’ve seen measured at 800 and pushed 1 stop is nicest but agree overexposing and developing at box speed is nice. I even prefer -1 over box 😅

[@jenohogan9254]

At 10 stops, it looks like an old late 1800s image with that faded flat look. :-D

[@KyleMcDougall]

Agreed!

[@MarkHickford]

Agreed, Jen. Bit like a tintype/wetplate collodian.

[@jenohogan9254]

@@MarkHickford exactly!!

[@filmbyhari]

Haha was gonna say the same!

[@jasonblake5576]

Me too!!

[@uglybassist]

HP5 has been my general purpose black and white film for about 2 and a half years now. I push it to 1600 which gives me a look similar to Tri-X at box speed. This gives me a pretty huge range of camera settings in anything from bright sun to artificial light indoors with my FM2.

[@captasin7991]

Should try Tri-X also for B&W comparison

[@KyleMcDougall]

On the list!

[@timma_thy]

This video makes me want to shoot some self portraits on tri x.

[@ebouwman034]

I feel like you HAVE to compare tri-x when doing hp5.

[@Apprendre-Photo]

I'd also be curious if HP5 pushed has the same latitude ? Because if it does, then you could basically rate it at 1600 and consider your film to be on "auto ISO" all the time :P

[@mattdavis9986]

Hp5 is great! I shoot anywhere from 100asa to 800asa on the same roll, devolop for 400 and all the negatives are spot on. So versatile

[@royaltykidstv]

So you use your ISO based on the lighting you get during the day, and then just develop at 400?

[@mattdavis9986]

@@royaltykidstv yeah, it’s a bright day I’ll set the iso to 100. If it’s a dull day next time I pick the camera up with the same roll inside, I’ll set at 800 or anywhere in between and develop at 400.

[@royaltykidstv]

@@mattdavis9986 Wow that’s crazy. Everyone who I have asked about film are super strict about sticking to one ISO throughout the film. And they have told me to choose wisely. I guess your method should work better. It’s like you cracked the code. Thank you.

[@royaltykidstv]

@CGXL dope, I still haven’t purchased film

[@thatcookjay]

If you are new to film, stick to box iso until you learn proper exposure. Once you have a few rolls under your belt go balls to the wall and throw the rules in the trash.

[@paulschumacker9901]

A really informative video! Who would have guessed that you could shoot 4 stops overexposure and still get great images. In fact, I like 2-3 stops better than 0 stops!

[@MrCodyswanson]

HP5 has been my favourite B&W stock for 10+ years, it’s super versatile especially when you start experimenting with development.

[@SebastienDegardin]

Welcome to the UK. Happy to show you some cool places of our small country... I'm based in London but driving around in a camper on regular basis.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Sebastien! Excited to explore this place.

[@SinaFarhat]

Impressive results! A friend of mine shot a roll of 120 hp5+ at 6400, I developed the roll where I spent 30 minutes agitatating and the results was excellent, the scans showed a impressive amount of details especially in the shadows! Keep up the good work!

[@mpk33]

HP5+ is my GOAT b&w film. While Tri-X is nice, I like detail in the mids. Thanks for adding to this affirmation Kyle.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers.

[@vikmanphotography7984]

The few times my clients pay my to shoot film, I shoot Fuji-400H at ISO 50, after seeing your videos

[@mrca2004]

Just for jollies, I took a shot on my digital camera overexposed 5 stops. Got a white screen. Heck, in studio I get a pure white background way below that. Another great video Kyle. Great content and great sound, so many youtubers sound like they are in a tunnel and are unwatchable. I use HP5 for street, expose for shadows and never miss an exposure. With zone focusing, it turns my slr into the speed of a point and shoot. I also like the amount of grain and the low contrast that is easily tweaked in post either way. Thanks for a great video and I don't think anyone else has done this and this is for people who actually shoot, not just test patterns and shoot in realville.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Bob. Thanks for the comment. Glad you enjoyed this one!

[@VintageTechFan]

Now underexpose 5 stops (use RAW though) and be amazed what you can recover from it. It should be really close to cranking up the ISO setting 5 stops at the same time/aperture.

[@BryanBirks]

Just please do a video on every film imaginable. I shot HP5 pulled to 100 because of risk of overexposure. Nice to know I have that extra cushion if I don't want to pull in processing. Crazy to think the image at 5 over looks roughly the same if you added in some contrast to it to match the regular exposure.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’m feeling now like it’s one of my missions, haha!

[@luca_hc_gruber]

It would be really nice to see the negatives once they get back to you. I wsnt to see just how dense the overexposed frames look and what the scanner could recover from them.

[@RickScheibner]

Same, and I was getting ready to post that suggestion.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Will do in an upcoming video.

[@TheDiablo225]

Just loaded HP5 to 1930s Voigtlander Bessa Folder, great to see that this Ilford can forgive me messing exposure so much! Thanks for informative video!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers!

[@avinashpothu2481]

In Kyle we trust. I learned so much from this guy. Hope he releases a book sometime soon.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. Book coming soon.

[@JamieMPhoto]

I expected it to hold up pretty well, but that's still super impressive. I bet this helps with street/documentary because you can err for overexposure and you can risk missing exposure to capture a moment.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. Was really impressed with the results!

[@joeyballi]

Best thing to wake up to in the morning is one of your videos!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Joey!

[@cameronwheatley7065]

Fascinating test! I think it's always important to stress that 'overexposure' is a relative term though - in this case 'overexposure' is defined by your skin reading. I prefer the '+1' shot because your dark shirt has a lot more detail in it, whereas it seems a bit dark in the 'normal' exposure where your skin = middle grey. I guess it's a great example of why understanding the zone system is important as you'd usually place caucasian skin in zone 6 (i.e. the +1 exposure in this test).

[@scottparis6355]

Exactly. White skin isn't 18% gray.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Cameron, I should have been more clear explaining how I metered. It sounds like I spot metered my skin, which would place it at middle grey. But I actually used an incident meter right in front of my face, which would place skin in the proper zone. Should have worded that differently.

[@cameronwheatley7065]

@@KyleMcDougall ah right good to know. I'm still yet to fully understand the theory behind incident metering.

[@-dubu]

I've shot hp5 at 12800 many times and had completely usable results, they look more like your 1600 shots. The way you prepare and develop your film makes a huge difference.

[@Biosynchro]

That is a very good point indeed. Different developers with different techniques make a big, big difference.

[@tiansili]

Which developer? Temp or time push?

[@EdmundKBoateng]

Never would I think hp5 could hold over and under exposing to this extent! Thanks for sharing

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching.

[@SivertAlmvik]

Back in the day, when I shot film daily, I always shot with one stop overexposure. Every type of film stock. I felt it was safer and it always gave me better latitude when I printed or scanned digitally. But 7 stops! Holy shit, HP5 is a beast!

[@jebinge9775]

Some anecdotal (and subjective) data, but I've been shooting a lot of HP5 that expired in 1990 at ISO 80 and the stuff is still killing it.

[@RickScheibner]

Thanks Kyle. It's amazing what a scanner can bring out of a negative.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Indeed!

[@filmbyhari]

It's good to know that if I'm shooting HP5 in the sun, I don't have to worry about my Mamiya's shutter maxing out at 1/500. Those overexposed images looked great!!

[@MrNev27]

This gives you a useful guide as to the dynamic range of the film, at that development, which appears to be about 10 stops. Pushing or pulling the ISO with altering the development time will increase or decrease the dynamic range, which is the principal behind the zone system developed by Ansel Adams.

[@theblackandwhitefilmproject]

Hp5 is my go to film. Great to see the latitude with this film. Keep safe.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Bernard. I can see why so many people like this film.

[@andymcdonaldbnwphotos]

Excellent video, very useful. I have just started back into black and white film and knowing how HP5 reacts over and under is going to really help me

[@bthemedia]

Nice to see, but please consider adding the stops / EV compensation values on the screen too 👍

[@dougelick8397]

This is an excellent overview. If you ever have the time, I'd love to see a repeat under a much wider range such as full sun with shadows as well as the histogram for each image. Such a test would give a better indication of how the film blocks up under varying conditions. This same test with Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 would be invaluable. None of the Foma films seem to live up to box speed, but are decent and cheap. I've heard multiple people say Fomapan 200 shot a stop over is great.

[@alexandermatragos]

Thats so impressive. I've never shot hp5, but have a roll that I'm planing to use soon. It's really impressive though that you can overexpose it as much as you want with negligible difference!! its almost unbelievable!!

[@rmrfboy]

7 stops and still looks crazy good! it would have been nice if you zoom in to see what the grain is like on rating the ISO to 50 or 25. my take on hp5: its freaking versatile, i should say!

[@tazchars8857]

tbh i found an old minolta automatic camera in my dads basement...its from the 80s and tried an ilford film actually i was pleasantly surprised by the results..enjoy ur stay in the uk..awesome video and work.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@edshotsdotcodotuk]

Highly rate HP5 as a film. Forgiving and looks great out of the box. IMHO it's the best high speed b&w film when shot at 1600 ISO. Way more detailed than the Delta 3200 with it's larger grain. The warmth you saw could be due to the lab more than likely using a Fuji SP3000 scanner and from what I've seen at the lab where I work it has a magenta tinge when scanning b&w. We also have an Agfa DLab than doesn't have any cast to it (I personally prefer than machine but it sadly can't do higher than 3000x2000 at 400dpi).

[@BenRipleyPhoto]

Excellent video thanks so much Kyle. And wow - 7 stops over and a great looking image! Hope you’re free again soon!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Ben.

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Wow! I've been using HP5 for years, and I had no idea the highlights would hold up that well! The 10 stops over one looks like some 100 year old glass negative from the wild west or something, haha :-)

[@aperturecollect]

Thanks for doing this. A friend gave me a roll of HP5 to shoot and I just loaded it today for the first time. I was curious.

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're welcome. Cheers.

[@PhilKnall]

Totally expected the overexposed latitude, actually expected a little better with the under. Agree with others that +1/+2 looked really pleasing!

[@LarryManiccia]

Great video Kyle! Thanks for doing these types of tests they are super helpful especially for beginning film shooters like myself.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Happy to help!

[@708photog]

It's great seeing these types of tests and results with color neg (and positive) film. But when underexposing B&W film you should push (extend) the development time. When overexposing B&W film you should pull (shorten) the development time. I realize that the roll was lab-developed (I assume the lab used the "normal"/published development time), but seems like this note is at least worth a mention.

[@jonathanmerritt6195]

This is true, but it’s more important for seeing proper results with underexposure. The old mantra of “expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights” is a great technique, as evidenced by how well the overexposure tests look in the video

[@Tom-Humble]

*Goes and buys some HP5* Great video man. Crazy to see the latitude of HP5!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Tom. I was definitely impressed!

[@MichaelDFarrellJr]

What are you using to develop? The type of chemistry, its dilution, and how much it has been used can really impact your results. If outsourced developing there can be a lot of variables preventing consistency. If developing in house, you may want to take a densitometer to some frames of 18% grey, black, white, or otherwise, cards at various exposures using the developers you want to use with the film. Nailing down all the variables can be hard, especially with a hybrid process where each step has the potential to cary your results.

[@AndrewLowphoto]

Hp5 never disappoints but it's amazing to see the comparison! Great video 😁!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Andrew.

[@philhindmoor7569]

Thanks for sharing, I think where the light allows I will probably try rating the film at 200, as I look the +1 picture.

[@KyleMcDougall]

That’s what I would do.

[@markivkovic7235]

Howdy, Long time watcher first time commenter . . . . . I obviously missed a beat and now you’re in the UK. Welcome! Looking at the weather forcast you’ll be out of quarantine just in time for bucket of rain & rubbish light (although the late afternoon / early morning post rain shower light can be fun). I have a good few rolls of 120 going spare now I sold my Hasselblad, yours if you want them 5x portra 160 (expires this month) & 2 x ilford PanF

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Mark, thanks for the comment and the offer. Shoot me an email at [e-mail]

[@AlexLuyckxPhoto]

Love HP5+, I find that the sweet spot for the film is between 200 and 800. My personal favourite is HP5+ at 200 and developed in Pyrocat-HD, amazing tone, contrast, and sharpness.

[@Larpy1933]

Alex: Oh Canada!

[@TheGameCalledReality]

if you ever get deeper into b&w, you could consider doing a pushed b&w film test/comparison! great video as always Kyle

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's the plan. Thanks, Jay!

[@FreeManFreeThought]

I've got my Mom's dad's parents old Brownie. Definitly need to get some 120 and give it a try. On another note: just develop B&W at home :) it's fun, and quick too. 20 minutes to develop (or less) plus about 40 to dry. The chemistry is only about $30 to start, and will last you a while.

[@andyvan5692]

a tip, if you want to use Zone 5 (18% Grey) meter the grass, from what people say this is the neutral tone, if you haven't got grey buildings around, which, then you would use instead; as I do, as I shoot Architecture mostly, with some plants, etc. at my local gardens, one other tip, I have just started mf shooting (4 rolls), and have found MF especially susceptible to flare and glare, so if in doubt, check with a mirrorless camera, the histogram box is the key, if the ] box has any lines on it, the highlight is too hot, so shade the lens, and shoot at EV 17 ie F8-f11 and 1/250th sec. to 1/500th shutter speed, this gives safety, you don't wash out the image, also, to prevent motion blur, don't hand hold it below 1/125th but as the Ilford HP5+ is a 400 speed be wary of this, and don't shoot it in too much light, film needs light yes, but if you have a EV 14-17 day, thats way too sensitive, you just end up washing out the roll.

[@AdamAllen]

I always tell myself I'm not going to be shocked at these tests, only to find myself completely shocked at these tests.

[@ijoefoto]

Wow! Your results are crazy! Really excited to play around more with HP5 myself and maybe do some comparison to Tri-X. Thanks.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Joe. Probably will do a comparison video with Tri-X shortly.

[@Twisted_Sound]

I think HP5 is the most versatile B&W film out there!

[@brianorakpohit]

Interesting. Depends on the subject though. I shoot HP5 120 a fair bit and if I was shooting a landscape of some kind, let's say sky, boat, beach, I would not want to go half as overexposed as you did here for the self portrait. Film portraiture, as you know, loves overexposure, but it depends on the scene. A blown out sky very rarely adds something.

[@gountberlin1669]

great test! not only informative but fun aswell.. thx a bunch mate.. much love

[@hippster256]

Absolutely love these videos! Would be interested to see the actual negatives also just to see how thin or dense they look!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely plan on featuring them in a future vid.

[@neppybynature]

I see a Kyle video, I watch the Kyle video

[@daveed4475]

Thanks for doing this. I’m going to order some HP5, and this will save me some experimentation

[@andyvan5692]

Thanks kyle a great show of how beginners can use it safely without worrying about over exposing, especially. If you use the 4x5 sheet stock of this emulsion. 😊

[@westonsmith4572]

Big thank-you. Excellent work. Cheers from Canada.

[@dunerino892]

when it comes to b&w film the developer makes quite a difference for the negatives in terms of grain, sharpness, contrast, shadow details... since there are sooo many out there and for color negative there's just c41...

[@KapitonVachnadze]

It's quite a good video. It's a very valuable test. Thank you very much!

[@UglyCameras]

On the overexposed shots, do you notice an increase in graininess and a decrease in sharpness? That’s usually what happens on negs.

[@steven1000000000]

I'd also be curious to hear what the effect on grain would be. Shoting mostly 35mm, grain has more of an impact than on 120.

[@Raevenswood]

I like shooting HP5+ at 200 ISO and then pulling 1 stop in development. It also shoots well up to 1600 ISO with push development. You can definitely just shoot it overexposed without pulling like you can with color neg but it really gives good highlight detail while also giving lots of shadow detail if you pull in development. With Black and White there is so much flexibility in development because the development process is not standardized like C41 so you can get all kinds of different looks from using different developers, dilutions, and times. FYI I recommend you try Ilford Delta 100 and 400 next (if you haven't already by now)

[@bangsmash]

HP5 is very flexible. Rather than rate it at 200 and develop the standard way, shooting at 800 and adjust development times produces nice results. Benefit of B&W is that you can really play around with development.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. That's what I'm learning. I'm used to working only with color neg.

[@VariTimo]

Please do the CineStill 800T test with and without an 85 filter in daylight. Ideally you’d also make another row of test in a tungsten light night scene but daylight with and without the filter will give most people a very good picture of the film. I’ve been shooting it for over two years now (with an 85 filter in daylight, as you’re supposed to) and am absolutely loving the colors and contrast. The grain is a bit much on 35mm but I’m not blowing them up a lot, so it’s fine. Btw exposing it at Kodak’s original 500 ASA will give you the best results (that is 320 with an 85 filter in daylight on a non a TTL meter). Also I looove that you’re in the images know. I’ve always missed skin tones in these tests.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. More tests to come. And I will be doing 800T.

[@DartzIRL]

Once inadvertantly knocked my spotmatic from 1/1000 to Bulb. With Fuji superia 1600.; It must've been near 10 stops over exposed. The film came out near solid and non-transparent. But an image was still gotten from it.

[@sbutler66]

Welcome to the UK!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Stephen.

[@BarcelonJ]

This is the video we need! Thank you kind sir.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers.

[@tysaylorphoto]

I always over expose by 1-stop on HP5. Maintains contrast while extracting detail in the shadows.

[@warwickwallace2699]

You are our sacrificial lamb so to speak haha. You do these so we dont have to and for that i thank you endlessly

[@JRichardctr]

As always, great video content. Everyone loves seeing these comparisons posted. Does your camera not have enough shutter speeds for this test? A consistent aperture seems like it would really affect the overall look of the image and should change as little as possible for this kind of test.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, it does. Thats what I’ve used in the past. But with the 16 exposures, it was a balance between the two to avoid shooting with too slow of a shutter speed.

[@AlisterMalcolm]

Welcome to the UK! Only downside of photography here is the grey skies and bloody rain lmao

[@carltanner9065]

Try telling that to some guys. They're all over the cloudy skies, etc, and hate the sunshine :D :P

[@AlisterMalcolm]

@@carltanner9065 haha! acts as a massive softbox I guess 😂

[@azzalos]

Wow! Thanks so much for doing this! This is really helpful! I wish you would do more experiments with HP5+ since it's such a popular and widely used film. For example exploring results with different developers (Ilford ones) or pushing it.

[@azzalos]

Thanks Kyle! Fantastically useful! 🙏🏻

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers!

[@amosk24]

There's a blogger who wrote an article that says the zone system is dead because just erring on the side of overexposure is going to give you good results with good negative films. I scan my own film, so I won't be going +6 though 😁

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

The zone exposure was never ment for the digital process, the zone system is still king in an all analog workflow.

[@andyvan5692]

wow, great tips and video, GREAT beginner film, esp. for 4x5" sheet, if this responds simmilarly, but great to hear how it works, BEST over exposed, NOT under, so a good safe film to start on, just err on the OVER side, little lost in quality, but not much.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely a great choice to start out on!

[@andyvan5692]

@@KyleMcDougall I am now looking to go down this route, have used Kodak Gold 200 in my sinar F2 (6x12 120 roll film), and have researched it a bit, esp. the data sheets, for over, Ilford recommends not to 'breech' 200 asa, esp. with Ilfosol 3; using Perceptol as an 'EMERGENCY' developer to get something, not at full sharpness; what is recommended though is to take it from asa 400 up to 3200, it can do this safely, no determent to contrast etc.

[@AeromaticXD]

Wow, what a versatile film stock

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, very surprising!

[@staceyswitzer2100]

So, you placed you camera iso at box speed and you conrolled your stops (under/over) with f-stops and shutter speed and developed for box speed? What was your normal f-stop and shutter speed and what was it for 1 stop over and the one for 1 stop under. I am trying get my barrings because I really love the look of the photos (handsome) and the simplicity of this method.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Exactly. Meter (or cameras meter) to box speed, and then adjust shutter speed one stop either way.

[@diwi7659]

very interesting, thanks for the test!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers.

[@georgemitchell9244]

From a old school Darkroom guy HP5 was always my go to

[@MarkHickford]

Who does your scans, Kyle? Great exposure test video as ever. Glad to see you get on to testing out HP5. Have you shared it with Michelle (runs the social media accounts) at Ilford? I'm sure they'll love to see it and post it out on their socials.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Jimmy. I usually scan my own work, but use the lab for these tests. These were done at AG here in the UK. And thanks, I’ll reach out to Ilford most likely.

[@MarkHickford]

Good to know. I've heard lots of good things about AG. I may have shared it on Twitter earlier and mentioned Ilford in the tweet 🙈

[@rodrigo_david]

Hi Kyle! Thanks a lot for the exposure tests! Do you mind sharing more info about the film development? Did you develop it @ 400? How did you compensate the exposure for the +7? Did you use the EV dial or a combination of other settings? Thanks again. 😉✨ Cheers from Brazil!

[@KyleMcDougall]

This was developed by a lab as 400 ISO. As for the exposure, this was a combination of aperture and then shutter speed.

[@rodrigo_david]

@@KyleMcDougall thanks! 🙌

[@RichardStroffolino]

So cool to see, thank you for doing this with black and white. HP5 is really the duct tape of black and white. Out of curiosity, do you know what your lab developed in (I'd assume XTOL but you never know)? I'm metering all my HP5 at ISO 3 from now on!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you enjoyed. Unfortunately I’m not sure what they developed with. And ISO 3... 😁

[@alessiorosa92]

Hi Kyle, after watching this video I decided to try this roll for the first time. I took my dad's old nikon fe2 with a 50mm 1.8 and got it fixed, after which I armed myself with a light meter app and tried to do some tests similar to the ones you did. I'll say up front that I'm an amateur and digital photographer, so I'm not an expert at all, and the things I noticed were 1. In all the photos the sky came out completely white, 2. Every time I shot trees and leaves they came out very sharp, almost with a digital look. I think it is me messing up the exposure but I would like to know if there are any precautions to be taken when shooting the sky with this film. Also, I was wondering if this very sharp digital look is dependent on the film, the lens or something else. Thank you very much.

[@KyleMcDougall]

How was the film scanned? By yourself or at a lab?

[@alessiorosa92]

@@KyleMcDougall Developed and Scanned by the Lab.

[@EzeRazor]

does any 35mm film have the same/similar flexibility? really interesting video

[@marcespert1753]

Fomapan reviews please 😊🙏

[@MeumGaudiumRivegauche]

I wonder if the results would be about the same with HP5 PLUS 135.

[@michaelgroenewald1114]

Very valuable, thank you . Did you develop the film at different stops differently?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Was all just developed normal. All the images were on the same roll.

[@samhodgesco]

I'm curious, would the lab have tried to compensate for the over / under exposures with any post-processing before sending the scans? Great video Kyle thanks.

[@graydeotto2820]

Afaik Kyle scans his own film

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Sam. They’ll always try to get the best balanced or or ‘normal’ looking scan from an image.

[@Liamb.ra_y]

Hey Kyle, good to see you're here in the UK, which lab do you use for scanning?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. Do most of my scanning myself, but this was from AG.

[@nateeames6826]

This is a really great series! I’d love to see you test some slide film. Maybe Provia 100 would be a good place to start since I’ve heard it has the best latitude of any slide film. Might be better going by half stops though since there’s no way it’ll be getting to something like -10 (let alone +10).

[@KyleMcDougall]

Provia is on the list!

[@robyoung125]

Can you explain why a flatbed scanner at home couldn't deal with heavily overexposed negatives vs a lab scan? Is it because the consumer flatbed wouldn't be able to adjust it's lamp brightness enough to get a good scan?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ve found that using a flatbed to scan dense negatives usually results in colour noise in the highlights.

[@robyoung125]

@@KyleMcDougall very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to reply. This isn’t something I’ve known about but I’ll try to avoid heavily overexposed shots from now on as I scan all my own negatives

[@richardg6109]

Interesting, to say the least. HP5+ is a great film stock, I use XTOL 1:1. Seems like a lot of people get stuck on TRIX because of its historical significance. I would prefer to buy a Kodak product, but HP5+ is just superior, IMO. Thanks.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Richard.

[@tjbwhitehea1]

Would be super helpful to have one of these for HP5 and/or Tri-X pushed to 1600, where i think most people shoot it anyway

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely plan. to do that in the near future.

[@johntheexplainer]

Only one question - it’s hard to see on the YT video, but did you have anything in the scene with detail brighter than your skin tone? I found it hard to evaluate when highlights started to break down on the overexposure tests. Otherwise, a useful test.

[@KyleMcDougall]

The sky was quite bright. Definitely brighter than my skin.

[@antonhofmann1796]

I love this film because i can run it on my mamiya 645 80mm at 1.9f wide open at max 1/500 without filter (have the older one, not a 1000s)