Hp5 in Rodinal

[Fraser]

Shot some expired HP5+ in Rodinal and I know its not the ideal dev for HP5+ but its what I've got and its what I like for everything else, but seems really grainy negs look a bit thin too.
Rodinal 1+50 12mins shot @320iso.
what you think anyone got any examples of what I should be getting ?

 

[leicapixie]

I think even for "fresh" HP5 + time is short. In note from Rodinal and Ilford Not recommended.. Older film tends to need longer exposure and more development but fog may occur..
Let's hear from others using Rodinal, Blazinol etc. and OD (DOA) film.

 

[Horatio]

I processed two rolls of HP5 (shot at box speed) last year in Rodinal: one at 1:50 and (accidentally) one at 1:70 dilutions. Same time and temp for each: 11 minutes @ 20C. The 1:50 roll yielded acceptable grain, the other turned out thin and very grainy. I did not realize my mixing error until I had processed the second roll. Agitation was constant for the first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds every minute thereafter, and stand for the last four minutes, based on recommendations I found in a blog.

Here's one from the better roll:
4A15C1BB-2326-4C7A-9605-4187FADA9017 by Horatio, on Flickr

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

These were done on HP5 developed in Rodinal 1+50. I exposed them at EI-320 and developed for 11 minutes at 68 degrees (20C).

They were done on 120 size film so 35mm will look grainier, but it isn't a bad combo even in 35mm.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I never learned this darkroom lingvo.
My well expired hp5 comes dark from Rodinal. I could barely see where to cut.
Those negs comes very grainy, if scanned.

 

[Fraser]

cheers for the replies heres an example-
https://500px.com/photo/1036419024/21fbpicM4HP528August20210281-by-Fraser-Bremner

 

[p.giannakis]

I abandoned quickly this combination. Two films developed on 1:25 and 1:50 were nowhere near as good as in HC110 (which also lasts forever). I love the look and feel of HP5 in HC110 - 6ml in 294ml for 8mins.

 

[karlin]

Interesting. I dont find this combination problematic at all!

there are many examples in my flicker steam.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/134086857@N02/

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

cheers for the replies heres an example-
https://500px.com/photo/1036419024/21fbpicM4HP528August20210281-by-Fraser-Bremner

Yeah that looks bad, it should have better shadow detail and much finer grain. Stop using expired film, old film loses speed. I bet all the bright light from the window fooled your meter into underexposing, too.

 

[Fraser]

Yeah that looks bad, it should have better shadow detail and much finer grain. Stop using expired film, old film loses speed. I bet all the bright light from the window fooled your meter into underexposing, too.

Yes it would be nice to not use expired film but I have loads of it!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes it would be nice to not use expired film but I have loads of it!

So what. Get rid of it. Is it worth ruining your photographs to save a few bucks instead of buying new film?

 

[Fraser]

So what. Get rid of it. Is it worth ruining your photographs to save a few bucks instead of buying new film?

I'm not using it for anything important or that if I miss I would be heart broken.

 

[Fraser]

And I do also buy fresh film now and again.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm not using it for anything important or that if I miss I would be heart broken.

Yet, you're on here asking us why the photos you took look bad.

 

[Fraser]

Yet, you're on here asking us why the photos you took look bad.

yes......................

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

yes......................

So they must have been important. You've got your answer; its up to you now.

 

[dourbalistar]

I think what Chris is trying to say is the grainy results you got might be because of the vagaries of expired film (storage conditions, how long past expiry, etc). If you try again with fresh film, you might get more satisfactory results, or at least have eliminated one variable.

In any case, I used HP5+ with Compard R09 several years ago, which I believe is a Rodinal clone. Like you, it's what I had so I used it. I didn't love the results, but I didn't hate it either. I used 1+50 for 11 minutes, metering for the shadows using the M5's semi-spot meter. Ignore the slight distortion at the edges of the frame, I was also using the Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM as my digitizing lens at the time.

Leica M5, Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM, Ilford HP5+, developed in Compard R09 at 1+50 for 11 minutes.


2016.03.12 Roll #069-09260-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr



2016.03.19 Roll #071-03-35.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr



2016.04.09 Roll #073-09326-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr


Here's one that came out quite grainy with blocked up shadows, but I used a M39 pinhole body cap on a Cosina 107-SW (aka Voigtlander Bessa L) 😀

Cosina 107-SW, M39 pinhole body cap, Ilford HP5+, developed in Compard R09 at 1+50 for 11 minutes.


2016.04.24 Roll #075-09286-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[bluesun267]

I find HP5 in Rodinal 1:50 to be a good combination. I routinely give it 13-14 mins but my agitation is more like 15 secs every 2-3 minutes. HP5, along with Tri-X really have an effective life of less than 3 years past the date on the box, even if refrigerated. HP5 and Tri-X not only get foggy and grainy, but it seems they become boring as well. More than contrast is lost. I think this is probably the case for most 400 speed films

 

[clcolucci58]

cheers for the replies heres an example-
https://500px.com/photo/1036419024/21fbpicM4HP528August20210281-by-Fraser-Bremner

What a beautiful photograph

 

[clcolucci58]

Yeah that looks bad, it should have better shadow detail and much finer grain. Stop using expired film, old film loses speed. I bet all the bright light from the window fooled your meter into underexposing, too.

I’m sure you are correct Chris as you are more knowledgeable then I but I just love the photo