Ilford HP5+ Development:Re-evaluation

I am re-evaluating my development of Ilford HP5+. I use HC-110 as my standard developer and have a good routine for measurement and development with it. Recently I was not happy with a 4x5 negative that seemed a bit contrasty and either underexposed or under developed. I used Kodak’s recommended 5 minutes in HC-110 dilution B at 20C. I am also trying to avoid full calibration of film and developer. 

Beech Grove
(HP5+ developed HC-110 dilution B 5 minutes 20C.)

I have also been re-reading some David Kachel articles. David is very opinionated, a bit of a contrarian but I believe knowledgeable. He also has this ability to make you think you will never measure up :). In his article Are You Using the Wrong Film Speed? he points out that contrary to many practitioners of the zone system determining you film speed is actually not that important. This chimes with my own thoughts and in a footnote he answers the question by saying that in the end most people who determine their film speed inevitably shoot the film at half the box speed and develop at about 70% less development time compare to published datasheets. (80% if T-grain film) I have often wondered why it is not the case that someone does not just publish their measured film speed, developer, and developing regime. That would likely get most people pretty close. This guidance from David will have to do.  

So I took David's 'rule of thumb' as a starting point. Unfortunately 70% of 5 minutes is not a lot of time. I thought why not dilute dilution B to dilution  H by doubling the water? This will double the development time to 10 minutes which means I can develop at 7 minutes at 20C. 

I took one HP5+ image today in Holme Fen, however it may not be the best example. (I only had one sheet with me...) It has between 2 and 3 stop of dynamic range.  The light was very flat this morning.

I developed the sheet according to the above compensating for water being 18.5C Which got me to 8:36 today. I used my modified Cibachrome drum developing solution. It does nearly continuous automatic agitation. This might eventually be a problem in terms of contrast. 

This first print came out OK but is probably not the best example. It does have a smoother range of tones so it looks like a promising direction. 

Unadjusted raw scan (inverted only) 

The histogram shows a good even distribution of tone with no blown highlights. The deepest shadows were crushed but I could not meter them and I aimed to make the clump of dead fern below the tree trunk zone V. I don't know where the deeper shadows were. I will have to keep an eye on them in the future and adjust my development accordingly. 

A little increase in contrast brings this result. I would be interested to see how it prints as well. 

Adjusted Scan