BobYIL
Well-known
..... it gave me super contrasty results and I switched to triX as you can't go wrong with that
Mean "too contrasty"? Reduce development time.. Don't be scared with less development in Diafine.. it's a hyperactive developer. Also when you see contrast higher than what you aimed for, then reduce development time 10-15%.. Still high, then another 10%.. Today majority of the scanners can not duplicate the DR of silver-rich films like HP5 or Tri-X (relatively less gradation from white to black) so play with your development time..
However if you wet-print then it's a totally different story.
MIkhail
-
I try to wet-print when I can but sometimes it's not practical and I scan the negatives.
Diafine seems to does not have the set time. Actually, it's 3 minutes OR MORE one solution and 3 minutes OR MORE with another. i normally keep it just a few seconds longer in case. Agitation- not too much, they recommend 5 times every minute or so.
Always try to use yellow filter on lens too, which may contribute to some contrast..
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I find HP5 excellent in Rodinal, marginally more grain and less speed than Microphen or DDX which probably get the best out of those two characteristics for this film.
Rodinal gives nice tones and in MF not much more grain I like a hint of grain:
HP5 in Rodinal 1:100 Pre war folding camera.
I have tested HP5 in Rodinal against ID11 and looked at the grain under a microscope, and can say there is not a real difference–you'll have to make a fair few 16x20 for it to make a difference.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Those were taken a long time ago and I've since used some Neopan under the same conditions and liked the results a lot better. Though I can't remember what developer I used ... I really should keep records! I'd also just started out doing my own developing with the Ilford so really can't judge the result as the highlight problem and lack of shadow detail is probably more to do with me.
I've actually got a diafine pack that I've had for some time but I've never bothered to use it.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
HP5+ is very flexible. Contrast is easily controlled by altering development times.
Brad Buszard
Established
I've had a very different experience with my process. I ran a film speed test in Xtol 1:1 and was very surprised to get an ISO 160 result, which I confirmed with a second test. For that reason, I've avoided it in large format, when I always have a tripod anyway. I still find it a great film for hand-held medium format, where the slight speed edge over FP4+ can give me a better chance at a sharp picture.
Jaans
Well-known
I find HP5 excellent in Rodinal, marginally more grain and less speed than Microphen or DDX which probably get the best out of those two characteristics for this film.
Rodinal gives nice tones and in MF not much more grain I like a hint of grain:
HP5 in Rodinal 1:100 Pre war folding camera.
I have tested HP5 in Rodinal against ID11 and looked at the grain under a microscope, and can say there is not a real difference–you'll have to make a fair few 16x20 for it to make a difference.
That's a good point- it all depends how much you want to enlarge your negative. I used Rodinal 1:50 and the grain was noticeable when enlarged to 8x10, but not in a bad way. It was almost impossible to tell the difference between the TRI-X and HP5Plus shot at the same scene.
Perhaps we could put the negative vibes on the internet about Rodinal and HP5Plus to internet chatter.
Also, I develop at 18C or 19C which I found helps keep the grain smaller and smoother. When it gets over 20C it can become like oatmeal grain.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Jaans
I think what I'll do in the future is a blog post about Rodinal and grain complete with microphotographs.
I work with it at 20°C but with low agitation and high dilution. I've not seen oatmeal grain with Rodinal from any film (possibly Kodak Recording Film) and by perception only when the emulsion is reticulated.
I must say I don't use much miniature format, 120 is the format most commonly used sometimes 4x5 so that could be why.
This thread isn't really about Rodinal though so we should leave it to chatter...
Jaans
Well-known
Jaans
I think what I'll do in the future is a blog post about Rodinal and grain complete with microphotographs.
I work with it at 20°C but with low agitation and high dilution. I've not seen oatmeal grain with Rodinal from any film (possibly Kodak Recording Film) and by perception only when the emulsion is reticulated.
I must say I don't use much miniature format, 120 is the format most commonly used sometimes 4x5 so that could be why.
This thread isn't really about Rodinal though so we should leave it to chatter...
Actually, I've got oatmeal grain from more frequent agitation- while maintaining a constant temperature. Larger grain with Rodinal isn't only caused by reticulation.
I guess it takes two to tango, so it is almost impossible to discuss a certain film without talking about its potential matching developer. You can talk about a films handling abilities, but you cannot examine a films visual characteristics with only a latent image.
Also, I look forward to your microphotographs!^ It will be interesting to see how scientific your results are, especially controlling certain variables.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Keep agitation to a minimum.
Anthony Harvey
Well-known
I couldn't agree more, Trius. For the last few years I've been following Don Cardwell's advice on the apug forum, of five-minute agitation intervals with Tri-X, and it works perfectly for me. Even the agitation every five minutes is minimal - just two very gentle and slow inversions.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Minimising grain with Rodinal makes agitation the key factor, some say it is lower temperature, which may help–but if it does I've found it unnoticeable.
Agitation on the other hand is crucial.
If you agitate normally and by that I'm talking about actual inversions for say ten seconds per min you get gritty grain, I've never seen 'oatmeal' I'd have to defer to Jaan's definition one mans oat may be another's gritty.
I have settled on a single gentle swoosh (kind of an elliptical rotation) at every min for 1:50 or every two mins for higher dilution's when pushing faster films.
I find I get minimal grain even with very fast film or pushing with this method.
This is Ilford Delta 3200 pushed to EI 6400
I think most people would be happy with the grain/tones from such a combination.
Agitation on the other hand is crucial.
If you agitate normally and by that I'm talking about actual inversions for say ten seconds per min you get gritty grain, I've never seen 'oatmeal' I'd have to defer to Jaan's definition one mans oat may be another's gritty.
I have settled on a single gentle swoosh (kind of an elliptical rotation) at every min for 1:50 or every two mins for higher dilution's when pushing faster films.
I find I get minimal grain even with very fast film or pushing with this method.
This is Ilford Delta 3200 pushed to EI 6400
I think most people would be happy with the grain/tones from such a combination.
Jaans
Well-known
Yes sir, me likes it a lot! I think that is a marvelous example of a fast film pushed while preserving the highlights. Also, lovely tonality.
My only problem with Delta 3200 and T-Max equivalent is that the cost is becoming quite prohibitive (when I say this, I mean for me - my financial situation).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I agree that agitaion is everything when using Rodinal. I start off with gentle inversions for the first 30 seconds then one very, very gentle inversion each minute for the remaining time. I always use it at 50:1
That Delta at 6400 is very nice.
That Delta at 6400 is very nice.
denizg7
Well-known
this was actually extremly under exposed. my 1000th of a second is 2000th of a second and the aperture opening was i think f8 to f16 cant remember
