dskphotography
Member
ok so heres the thought i just got my new bessa r3a from stephen gandy bought a 40 nokton form a guy on here
and shot some hp5 in hollywood i took it home processed it normally ddx 1-4 68 degrees 5 seconds agitation every minute for 6 minutes (5.5) in reality and then scanned in my usual manner and it looked worse than anything i have ever seen ****ty tonality and horrendous grain i do the same combo with neopan 1600 and it looks much much better fuji 1600 in ddx seems less grainy than 400 speed hp5? too wierd anyway im going shootine tommorow i have a ton of hp5 but im now afraid of its tmax 3200 looking grani how do i fix this problem where did i go wrong?
and shot some hp5 in hollywood i took it home processed it normally ddx 1-4 68 degrees 5 seconds agitation every minute for 6 minutes (5.5) in reality and then scanned in my usual manner and it looked worse than anything i have ever seen ****ty tonality and horrendous grain i do the same combo with neopan 1600 and it looks much much better fuji 1600 in ddx seems less grainy than 400 speed hp5? too wierd anyway im going shootine tommorow i have a ton of hp5 but im now afraid of its tmax 3200 looking grani how do i fix this problem where did i go wrong?
dskphotography
Member
hah i got censored
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
Is it possible for you to post a sample from this? HP5 is grainy, but it shouldn't look bad, I shoot at iso 800 and get great results. Post some pics and maybe I can help.
kully
Happy Snapper
How are you checking for grain? Enlarging? Scanning?
Do the negs look good or thin?
I use Neopan 1600 (@1600) in DDX and HP5+ @ 400 in D76 and @ 1600 in DDX. HP5 @ 400 in D76 has less grain and more detail than neopan 1600 in DDX. HP5 @ 1600 in DDX has less contrast than Neopan 1600 @ 1600 in DDX.
In any case, I've never had HP5+ grain/tones look bad unless I mucked up on exposure or developing.
Do the negs look good or thin?
I use Neopan 1600 (@1600) in DDX and HP5+ @ 400 in D76 and @ 1600 in DDX. HP5 @ 400 in D76 has less grain and more detail than neopan 1600 in DDX. HP5 @ 1600 in DDX has less contrast than Neopan 1600 @ 1600 in DDX.
In any case, I've never had HP5+ grain/tones look bad unless I mucked up on exposure or developing.
dskphotography
Member
dskphotography
Member
a little thinner than id expect i just figured under develop these the way i under develop the neopan 1600
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
nico (an RFF member) uses HP5 and Voigtlander, I think he self develops, talk to him.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
I used to find the same problem with HP5 in D-76. I switched to T-Max dev and played with the time (+5% or so) and get much better results. These days I stay away from HP5 and use APX400 instead.
angeloks
Well-known
I just shot some HP5 at 1600 and had no problem with the grain at all. I actually love the results! It's better than Ilford 3200 taken at 1600 IMHO...
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
I thinki is a problem with scanning more than with the film
HP5 is not ultra fined grained, maybe a bit on the coarse side, but usable and with character
HP5 is not ultra fined grained, maybe a bit on the coarse side, but usable and with character
ChrisN
Striving
dskphotography said:
The standard developing time for HP5+ in DD-X should be 9 minutes, according to Ilford.
Didier
"Deed"
The grain effect depends on film emulsion, processing and scanning. You can significantly blow up or minimize the grain effect in the wet and the dry darkroom. In my experience HP5 has significantly less grain when souped with Ilford chemicals, like LC29. But when I read your post I get the feeling your tongue is rougher than your prints...
quizzard87
Established
the picture you posted looks a bit too contrasty for me...you should try less agitations.
i develop hp5+ in xtol 1+1 for 12min at 68° with 5 initial agitations and then 3-4 every 30s.
i develop hp5+ in xtol 1+1 for 12min at 68° with 5 initial agitations and then 3-4 every 30s.
dskphotography
Member
was after post processing plus from what i remember you usually post really soft images? (on DA) atleast it always looks good though the more i look at them the better they look its just this scanner im reading about the best film processing for scanning im going to try tmax i have a ton of tmax 400 and im reading furthenr into it i used to shoot alot of tmx with mydium format maybe it will work out hah quizzard didnt know you were on rff
kully
Happy Snapper
That's one incomprensible sentence there mate.
I just had a thought, I had a theory over the winter that my negs were getting more grainy because I was washing them in very cold water in the garden.
Could cold water be a cause?
I just had a thought, I had a theory over the winter that my negs were getting more grainy because I was washing them in very cold water in the garden.
Could cold water be a cause?
iml
Well-known
Here's some punctuation, feel free to copy and paste as required 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;...................
Ian
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;...................
Ian
markinlondon
Elmar user
kully said:
Inconsistent temperatures could cause reticulation although I've never seen it. If anything the times stated suggest a little underdevelopment. Excessive agitation wil push up the grain too. Here's some HP5 @ 400 in DD-X. There's grain but no more than I'd expect from a 400 film. HP5 has quite a different grain pattern to Tri-x, I've heard it described as more "paisley" as opposed to Tri-x's "pebbles"
Attachments
dskphotography
Member
markinlondon said:
that looks really good maybe im just over darkening they dont look too grainy until i start to screw with them
dskphotography
Member
iml said:Here's some punctuation, feel free to copy and paste as required
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;...................
Ian
who would have thought an english teacher thanks for the help proper language usage isnt my thing i dropped out of school young so i didnt have to deal with that sort of thing want to critique my photography or help me out with my problem go for it this is a photography forum? not an english lesson ,,,....,,,...,.,!!::"":"??? fill em in yourself lol
350D_user
B+W film devotee
Someone want to run that single sentence past us one more time? I did manage to extract something saying "critique my photography or help me out with my problem go for it this is", but then... ugh.dskphotography said:
The supplied photo shows no real signs of bad grain. Contrast, yes. Bad grain, nope. You want noticeable (possibly known to you as "bad" or "worst ever") grain? Stick a roll of Delta 3200 in your camera.
However, the 'sentence' supplied with the photo also hints at the photo being not the worst of the bunch. Until that's shown, I doubt there's little help we can offer.
... other than supplying punctuation marks.
It's a good job really, I suppose.dskphotography said: