leicapixie
Well-known
I sing out loud when I see how flat it dries compared to Kodak Tri-X.
In fact the inferior but loved Kentmere 400 dries flatter.
Very important for my scanner.Canonscan.
Truth tell i see almost no difference between HP-5 and Tri-X.
My change from Rodinal after 40 years, to HC-110, a revelation.
In fact the inferior but loved Kentmere 400 dries flatter.
Very important for my scanner.Canonscan.
Truth tell i see almost no difference between HP-5 and Tri-X.
My change from Rodinal after 40 years, to HC-110, a revelation.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
indeed, Kentmere 400 dries flat when Tri-X doesn't. It seems less sensitive to humidity. For Tri-X to dry flat I have to fill the bathroom with steam, with HP and especially Kentmere I can skip that.
jeztastic
Newbie
Very interesting thread. I am bulk loading HP5 at the moment and experimenting with developers. A little put off by the grain myself, I prefer it with Perceptol at 250 ISO. I like the drama at 1600 with Microphen, but not the grain. Thinking of trying Ilford Delta 400 next, but keeping HP5 around if I need to push.
250 ISO + Perceptol
boat by Jeztastic, on Flickr
800 ISO + Microphen
under the bridge by Jeztastic, on Flickr
1600 ISO + Microphen
Charon by Jeztastic, on Flickr
250 ISO + Perceptol
boat by Jeztastic, on Flickr800 ISO + Microphen
under the bridge by Jeztastic, on Flickr1600 ISO + Microphen
Charon by Jeztastic, on FlickrTrooper
Well-known
I was experimenting with a new lens on my technical camera. I don't know if if it "sings", but:
I did the above a couple of years ago in front of a 14-foot window and a lot of snow outside. I exposed it at 400, and developed in Microphen. I then scanned on a printer/scanner that was free with a computer. I don't know how to scan. I'm sure if I rescanned on my V500, with proper technique, the results would be far better.
Yet, I'm still pleased with the result, parallax error and all.
I did the above a couple of years ago in front of a 14-foot window and a lot of snow outside. I exposed it at 400, and developed in Microphen. I then scanned on a printer/scanner that was free with a computer. I don't know how to scan. I'm sure if I rescanned on my V500, with proper technique, the results would be far better.
Yet, I'm still pleased with the result, parallax error and all.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I've been bulk loading my first 100ft of it. I'm happier shooting it at 200 than 400, at least developing it in Caffenol-C-H (RS). The results of that that combination are quite pleasant, I find:
I also pushed a couple rolls to 1600 in Caffenol-C-L (semi-stand). The grain definitely becomes more prominent, but otherwise it wasn't bad at all:
Overall it does seem a little less punchy than Tri-X, but generally it's quite similar in appearance.
I also pushed a couple rolls to 1600 in Caffenol-C-L (semi-stand). The grain definitely becomes more prominent, but otherwise it wasn't bad at all:
Overall it does seem a little less punchy than Tri-X, but generally it's quite similar in appearance.
Vics
Veteran
It sings. Good one!I was experimenting with a new lens on my technical camera. I don't know if if it "sings", but:
I did the above a couple of years ago in front of a 14-foot window and a lot of snow outside. I exposed it at 400, and developed in Microphen. I then scanned on a printer/scanner that was free with a computer. I don't know how to scan. I'm sure if I rescanned on my V500, with proper technique, the results would be far better.
Yet, I'm still pleased with the result, parallax error and all.
icebear
Veteran
A generous helping of light to start off with is always good to make it sing.
Much more important than development variations.
Much more important than development variations.
Tijmendal
Young photog
Very interesting thread. I am bulk loading HP5 at the moment and experimenting with developers. A little put off by the grain myself, I prefer it with Perceptol at 250 ISO. I like the drama at 1600 with Microphen, but not the grain. Thinking of trying Ilford Delta 400 next, but keeping HP5 around if I need to push.
250 ISO + Perceptol
800 ISO + Microphen
1600 ISO + Microphen
I really like these! Too bad the resolution isn't quite high enough to see the grain properly. Could you maybe upload some 100% crops?
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I've always done HP5 @800 and a few times @1600, it comes out very nicely. I've done it with Rodinal a few times, lately I'm only doing Xtol for pushing
mike rosenlof
Insufficient information
I'm really not sure all this talk about developer choices and techniques is really the answer. Good light and good composition are much more important, so is good printing (or scanning/post).
With that disclaimer, for what it's worth, HC-110 (clone, not kodak) 1:50 10 minutes at 20 degrees, a couple of inversions every 30 seconds.
But don't worry about the developer too much.
With that disclaimer, for what it's worth, HC-110 (clone, not kodak) 1:50 10 minutes at 20 degrees, a couple of inversions every 30 seconds.
But don't worry about the developer too much.
jeztastic
Newbie
Thanks!
If you download the original file from flickr you can zoom in - I don't have anything much higher resolution than that I'm afraid.
I second that. I find HP5 shot at midday in strong light quite unpleasant.
Ljós
Well-known
Just a few days ago I developed a roll of TX400 and HP5 in the same tank, hung them to dry at the same time, so conditions were absolutely comparable. And yes, the difference in how flat (HP5) or not (TX400) they dry is remarkable.
I am skipping Tri-x, it is either HP5 for me from now on or TMY2.
Greetings, Ljós
I am skipping Tri-x, it is either HP5 for me from now on or TMY2.
Greetings, Ljós
John Bragg
Well-known
https://m.flickr.com/photos/25714267@N06/14970240682/
Apologies for just posting the link, but I cant get the image to post from my phone. HP5+ @Ei200 in HC-110H. 12 mins at 20c, semi stand.
Apologies for just posting the link, but I cant get the image to post from my phone. HP5+ @Ei200 in HC-110H. 12 mins at 20c, semi stand.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Develop it in PMK:
gsgary
Well-known
HP5 in DDX, Rollei 35B
Ronald M
Veteran
My friend in a neighboring Chicago suburb developed TMax400 with D76 1:1. Fantastic results every time. Then he tried distilled water and got hugh grain.
Never made that mistake again.
I repeated his error and got the same awful results. Never tried it again.
There can be a mismatch from film to paper curves. Use Ilford paper at least until you have something to compare.
Condenser and diffusion enlargers are a bit different. C has more contrast in the shadows, d has better highlight detail. That is with negs developed properly to print to match #2 on both enlargers, ie longer for d, around 10%.
Grain is directly related to time in developer. Expose at 200 and cut development 20%. Beautiful shadows, detail in highlights, and much smaller grain.
I NEVER use stop for film or even water. Develop, fix, wash, photo flow. Use up the film fix on test prints or toss it.
High energy developers promote grain. Rodinal was developed for slow sheet film in 1930. Unless you like it, use for slow 35 mm film only. Yes there will be high midtone contrast. The higher the speed, the flatter the film, old emulsions mostly.
Never made that mistake again.
I repeated his error and got the same awful results. Never tried it again.
There can be a mismatch from film to paper curves. Use Ilford paper at least until you have something to compare.
Condenser and diffusion enlargers are a bit different. C has more contrast in the shadows, d has better highlight detail. That is with negs developed properly to print to match #2 on both enlargers, ie longer for d, around 10%.
Grain is directly related to time in developer. Expose at 200 and cut development 20%. Beautiful shadows, detail in highlights, and much smaller grain.
I NEVER use stop for film or even water. Develop, fix, wash, photo flow. Use up the film fix on test prints or toss it.
High energy developers promote grain. Rodinal was developed for slow sheet film in 1930. Unless you like it, use for slow 35 mm film only. Yes there will be high midtone contrast. The higher the speed, the flatter the film, old emulsions mostly.