film speed

[T_om]

Since getting Diafine developer with its (ease of use, longevity, and) increase in film speed, I'm going to try Agfa APX 100 rated at 200 for day to day film. For indoors and bar shots I'll use my regular HP5+, rated at 1000 or so.

You will like the HP5+ in Diafine, but I have found I need a bit more exposure. I rate it at 800. But shooting a few rolls to test what it does for *you* is the important thing.

Tom

 

[sf]

default film

default film

For years, I have used HP5 (plus) as my all-round, night or day, sunny or cloudy film when specific needs didn't require something else. I've used it in 35mm, medium format, and 4x5. All the black and white on my site is taken with hp5 except on which is fp4. Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. I've taken shots with HP5, went to print, and been surprised to find that it was not TMAX 100 or PANf or something.

HP5 has amazingly fine grain, deals with exposure mistakes well, and you can play with it all you want in development. It's very forgiving, fast, sharp, for what more can you ask?

If you are partial to Kodak, try Tri-x or TXP 320. Both are good, but both have higher graininess than the HP5.

that's my input

 

[James Burton]

I tried Roman's suggestion on Ilford HP5 (pulling film to 250), but noticed that highlights tended to get blown out when film was processed normal. I hate underprocessing film for "pulling", so I always process the film normal.

I use this all the time - get great results depending on where I point the camera 🙂. I'm not sure what you don't like about "pulling" the film, it isn't really pulling as far as I can make out anyway.

HP5+ @ 200iso, ID-11, 14mins @ 20degC 1+3

that gives me nice low contrast for scanning, or as others have noted XP2-super
is just as good (slightly different look though).

James

 

[ray_g]

Tom and Frank (when you've had the chance), I'd be interested in seeing some samples of HP5 in diafine...

 

[FrankS]

Ray, sure. I've got 6 rolls of APX 100 to work on exposing first. Having just gotten the Diafine, I don't have any film developed in it yet, but I definitely will post results when I have some. Tonight I just developed 3 rolls of HP5+ in D76. I'll have some good new shots to add to my gallery in a few days.

 

[T_om]

Tom and Frank (when you've had the chance), I'd be interested in seeing some samples of HP5 in diafine...

Be happy to.

However, I have been hesitant to start a gallery here because of all the software upheaval of late. People losing all their data, galleries disappearing, etc. I figured I would wait until things settled down a bit.

I emailed Jorge but got no response. I started a thread asking about stability of the new setup and Jorge responded in that thread to another (off topic) poster while ignoring the original question asked.

Go figure. 😕

Tom

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leica, mono: HP5 in DD-X, true ISO 500-650; I use the true ISO with a spot meter, but as I usually don't use a spot meter with a Leica, I set the meter to 400 or even 320 allowing more latitude for underexposure due to imperfect metering (the ONLY way to be sure of adequate shadow detail in ALL circumstances is to meter the shadows directly, and you can't do that with a through-lens meter). If I need more speed, Delta 3200 in DDX, pushed to 3200 (true ISO about 1250).

Leica, colour: Kodak EBX ISO 100, or for more speed, Fuji RSP rated at 2500 and pricessed as for 3200.

MF: HP5 as above, normally spot metered; Kodak E100VS. Rarely Delta 3200.

LF: FP4 and Ortho Plus.

There's quite a bit about true ISO speeds and EIs in a free module in the Photo School is www.rogerandfrances.com

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Doug]

T_om, a couple of nice shots with good tonality! I particularly admire that sweet shot of the young lady, though the gecko is cute too. 😀

 

[Roman]

If you are partial to Kodak, try Tri-x or TXP 320. Both are good, but both have higher graininess than the HP5.

Hmm, I guess you have not tried NEW TriX, then - it is WAY finer grained than HP5+, almost as good as Neopan. HP5+ is among the grainiest film in the 400 ASA league (only APX and Forte are still grainier).
HP5+ is a very nice film, though, very forgiving with regard to exposure and developing errors, and very pushable - but fine-grained is not a term that comes to my mind when thinking about it.

Roman

 

[peter_n]

I would agree with Roman. If you get your film developed (which I am doing at the moment) and then scan it, the difference between HP5+ and say Neopan 400 in a standard lab soup like XTOL is huge. That is actually what drove me to Neopan.

 

[titrisol]

100 - Agfa APX is my bread-and-butter film. Lately I've been using EFKE 100 (very good)
Have a roll or 2 of Neopan400 in the bag and the ocassional Delta3200

 

[ray_g]

thanks for the examples, Tom. The young lady's photo is very nice, indeed.

Frank, I will check your gallery for them, as well as for the APX 100 shots. Another film I am considering.

 

[titrisol]

I used Diafine for a while (it lasts a looong time) and found that APX100 (I tested as 200, 160, 100 or 80) didn;t look good in it.
Diafine worked great in HP5 (800), APX400 (200), Delta3200 (1600), TrriX (1000), etc.
But since I prefer the look of APX100 in Rodinal or D76, Diafine didn;t make it.
I'm willing to try DD76 or DD23 on APX100 next. But longevity of Rodinal is not an issue and the images look good to me (not just good enough 😉)

Since getting Diafine developer with its (ease of use, longevity, and) increase in film speed, I'm going to try Agfa APX 100 rated at 200 for day to day film. For indoors and bar shots I'll use my regular HP5+, rated at 1000 or so.

 

[T_om]

thanks for the examples, Tom. The young lady's photo is very nice, indeed.

Well, I just noticed the shots look like crap after I resized them down. I must have left 'resample' on. Dang. Also, they were 'as processed' for printing on Kodak Endura paper by my lab here in Jacksonville. Skin tones still held up well though. For best web appearance I should have adjusted the curve a bit to account for the tonal range of a monitor instead of paper. The bricks and lizard frame shows the accutance characteristics of HP5+ very well. That is one reason I like it so much.

By the way, the background in her photo looks like a screen because it IS a screen. She is standing on a screened in deck by a pool. Just did not want anyone to think they were looking at grain. 😉

Tom

 

[Jason_K]

Another vote for Neopan 400.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I use usually 400 ASA black and White, either Ilford Delta/HP5. Sometimes Agfa APX but since their ship has sunk, it looks like its just Ilford. If I do shoot clolour its Fuji all the way in the Superia 100/400/800 series. I just love how tight the grain is🙂

Bill

 

[wblanchard]

Roman, you are right of course, one must simply have at least 2 cameras with at all times.

😛 I just use my Hexar AF and switch out film. It's nice to take a couple shots with xp2, then decide to use some neopan, then go right back to the xp2.