HP5+....HC-110....grain

[mjb206]

Hello all
Long time digital shooter, just getting back into film. I've developed a few rolls of HP5+ in HC-110 using dilution B, single tank. I've had mixed success, and I think part of that is getting back into film as it's been over 20 years. I know HP5+ has a lot of grain, but compared to other images I've seen also developed in HC-110, this one (and the rest from the roll) seems excessive (especially in the shadows, see under her chin/neck for example. ) I've attached the histogram from the scan - zero processing or sharpening using VueScan - I feel like it's decently exposed. What am I missing? I know I can switch developers, but I know it can be better based on what I've seen in others. Or am I crazy and this looks perfectly normal? Should I be over exposing by a stop?

HP5+, 400, F8

 

[Godfrey]

It's a lovely photo ... a tad grainy but eh? You can do some smoothing in post after it's digitized.

HC-110 Dilution B ... I don't even remember what that is. I process HP5 in HC-110 diluted 1:49, exposed @ ISO 320, for 10 minutes @ 68°F. I use a daylight loading tank (Agfa Rondix 35) which requires continuous gentle agitation. Whether my HP5 processed this way is any lighter or heavier on grain, I would have to go look at an unprocessed scan...

How do you scan your work? That can add grain too...

Now, what I see in your rendering is gentle gradients and transitions everywhere. This is nominally perfect, but in general I tend to want a little more punchiness in my photos. So, if it were mine, I'd play with the Tone Curve to snap it up a little bit. That's me, and an aesthetic preference, so don't take it as a given or a criticism. 😉 But it does point out one thing: I don't find the grain particularly objectionable, and I like the photo.... Or two things ... 😉

G

 

[mjb206]

It's a lovely photo ... a tad grainy but eh? You can do some smoothing in post after it's digitized.

HC-110 Dilution B ... I don't even remember what that is. I process HP5 in HC-110 diluted 1:49, exposed @ ISO 320, for 10 minutes @ 68°F. I use a daylight loading tank (Agfa Rondix 35) which requires continuous gentle agitation. Whether my HP5 processed this way is any lighter or heavier on grain, I would have to go look at an unprocessed scan...

How do you scan your work? That can add grain too...

Now, what I see in your rendering is gentle gradients and transitions everywhere. This is nominally perfect, but in general I tend to want a little more punchiness in my photos. So, if it were mine, I'd play with the Tone Curve to snap it up a little bit. That's me, and an aesthetic preference, so don't take it as a given or a criticism. 😉 But it does point out one thing: I don't find the grain particularly objectionable, and I like the photo.... Or two things ... 😉

G

Thank you! Part of me wonders if I'm drilling in too far and pixel peeping as I'm used to that with digital. I normally also punch things up a bit, as you can see below. it just feel like some of those gradients and transitions have a little too much grain (at least in zooming in - again, looking at her neck for example.) I haven't used any kind of noise reduction in years, but maybe now that I'm back to scanning film, I need to look into that. I'm attaching another photo I shot for testing purposes - granted the critters have a lot more texture so perhaps the grain seems less, but isn't. But it seems smoother to me. Dilution B is 1:31, 5 mins, 68F. I tried using Dilution H, but with the smaller tank, I've been told there's actually not enough developer (6ml min needed of HC-110, evidently.)

I can scan with either my Leica CL on a stand, or with my old Minolta ScanDual III - this one was using the film scanner with all settings flattened out - no sharpening or other adjustments. Makes me wonder how it would print. Maybe I need to send it off to my old printer to actually see it. I also know that on my larger monitor, which is older, the grain is more pronounced than on my Macbook, iPad, etc

I'm just trying to sanity check my exposure and developing. Again, maybe going back to film is an adjustment I'll need to make in this dept. I do like grain. Just want to make sure I'm not doing something wrong to increase it....

 

[38Deardorff]

Hello all
Long time digital shooter, just getting back into film. I've developed a few rolls of HP5+ in HC-110 using dilution B, single tank. I've had mixed success, and I think part of that is getting back into film as it's been over 20 years. I know HP5+ has a lot of grain, but compared to other images I've seen also developed in HC-110, this one (and the rest from the roll) seems excessive (especially in the shadows, see under her chin/neck for example. ) I've attached the histogram from the scan - zero processing or sharpening using VueScan - I feel like it's decently exposed. What am I missing? I know I can switch developers, but I know it can be better based on what I've seen in others. Or am I crazy and this looks perfectly normal? Should I be over exposing by a stop?

HP5+, 400, F8

View attachment 4871544View attachment 4871545

Welcome back to film. Rodinal is not really considered a fine grain developer. If grain with 400 iso film is a concern, either using smoother T-grain films like Delta 400 or Tmax 400 or using a different developer.... might give you the results you're looking for.... Xtol /Perceptol/Pyrocat HD.....

 

[mjb206]

Welcome back to film. Rodinal is not really considered a fine grain developer. If grain with 400 iso film is a concern, either using smoother T-grain films like Delta 400 or Tmax 400 or using a different developer.... might give you the results you're looking for.... Xtol /Perceptol/Pyrocat HD.....

Thanks! I'm actually using Kodak HC-110, not Rodinal. Mostly because I wasn't sure how much I'd use and it has a long shelf life. I was thinking of trying DD-X as an alternative.

 

[38Deardorff]

Thanks! I'm actually using Kodak HC-110, not Rodinal. Mostly because I wasn't sure how much I'd use and it has a long shelf life. I was thinking of trying DD-X as an alternative.

My mistake.... oops. One other thought is that the grain size could be a product of the scanning process....a darkroom print might show something different. One more thing i noticed on my screen is that the flags to the right and the flag immediately behind seem sharper than the girl's face.....

 

[oldwino]

Be aware that the scanner can accentuate the grain in some instances. Just part of the "analog to digital" transition. It's not perfect, nor will the result look the same as a darkroom print.
Having said that, I find HP5 better shot at 200, and I got nice contrast by extending the development as if I were pushing to 800. Otherwise, I find HP5 too flat for my tastes (and I am not a high contrast freak!). I also used Xtol, which can help smooth the grain.

And one more thing - be very gentle with your agitations!

 

[mjb206]

My mistake.... oops. One other thought is that the grain size could be a product of the scanning process....a darkroom print might show something different. One more thing i noticed on my screen is that the flags to the right and the flag immediately behind seem sharper than the girl's face.....

I noticed that as well, although there is good detail in her bangs. It's a fairly new to me almost mint M3 - I have no idea if the rangefinder is spot on. I'll need to do some testing (but I'm guessing it was the guy behind the camera on this one)

 

[mjb206]

Be aware that the scanner can accentuate the grain in some instances. Just part of the "analog to digital" transition. It's not perfect, nor will the result look the same as a darkroom print.
Having said that, I find HP5 better shot at 200, and I got nice contrast by extending the development as if I were pushing to 800. Otherwise, I find HP5 too flat for my tastes (and I am not a high contrast freak!). I also used Xtol, which can help smooth the grain.

And one more thing - be very gentle with your agitations!

I"ll have to play with different speeds....but your comment about agitations is interesting. I don't feel like I've been overly aggressive, but I'm wondering if perhaps once every min as opposed to 5x per min might be something to try.

 

[38Deardorff]

I noticed that as well, although there is good detail in her bangs. It's a fairly new to me almost mint M3 - I have no idea if the rangefinder is spot on. I'll need to do some testing (but I'm guessing it was the guy behind the camera on this one)

Could it be film flatness on the scanner?? (not being a scanning guy, i'm just throwing that idea out there)

 

[mjb206]

Could it be film flatness on the scanner?? (not being a scanning guy, i'm just throwing that idea out there)

Great thought - I guess that's possible - the carriage keeps it pretty flat, but it's certainly something to look at (I use the same carriage when I scan with my camera as well, so would likely see the same result. ) Outside of perhaps curling the film the opposite way a tad, I'm not sure I can improve on it.

I will say that the grain was a little less pronounced with the scanner as opposed to the camera, but I suspect that a difference in resolutions.

 

[p.giannakis]

Hmm... I use this combination a lot and I get very good results.

One thing that comes to mind is how the film was stored. Expired or poorly stored film can appear like this.

The other thing I wonder about is how stable is your chemicals' temperature during developing. Is your thermometer accurate? Of course there are other factors such as the quality of water but it shouldn't make too much of a difference.

This is how I develop hp5 in HC110. I rate it as 400 asa.

-----------------------------------
HP5+ in HC-110
Dilution 1:50. (6ml developer in 294ml of water)
Overall time: 8mins 00 sec,
Chemicals temperature: 20oc
30sec continuous initial agitation.
3 invertions every minute
-----------------

I am very happy with the results.

 

[38Deardorff]

Very nice results as usual Pan. I particularly admire that 2nd photo ♥️

 

[mjb206]

Hmm... I use this combination a lot and I get very good results.

One thing that comes to mind is how the film was stored. Expired or poorly stored film can appear like this.

The other thing I wonder about is how stable is your chemicals' temperature during developing. Is your thermometer accurate? Of course there are other factors such as the quality of water but it shouldn't make too much of a difference.

This is how I develop hp5 in HC110. I rate it as 400 asa.

-----------------------------------
HP5+ in HC-110
Dilution 1:50. (6ml developer in 294ml of water)
Overall time: 8mins 00 sec,
Chemicals temperature: 20oc
30sec continuous initial agitation.
3 invertions every minute
-----------------

I am very happy with the results.

View attachment 4871565

View attachment 4871566

View attachment 4871567

View attachment 4871568

Very nice. My film is bulk HP5+ that I purchased about two months ago. It's a ways off from expiration. I keep it in the loader in my office.

Thermometer is new, digital. I haven't tested it against another one yet. My water was maybe 68.4 as opposed to 68 per the thermometer.

I can try diluting a little more, but I may need a bigger tank. My single tank is 250ml - and I want to make sure my ratio keeps at least 6ml of HC-110.

I may try to agitate less - perhaps 1-3 times as opposed to 5 every min.

 

[p.giannakis]

Very nice results as usual Pan. I particularly admire that 2nd photo ♥️

OM4 with the zuiko 34f/2 wide open.

Edit: actually pic #2 and #3 are from the same roll.

 

[p.giannakis]

Very nice. My film is bulk HP5+ that I purchased about two months ago. It's a ways off from expiration. I keep it in the loader in my office.

Thermometer is new, digital. I haven't tested it against another one yet. My water was maybe 68.4 as opposed to 68 per the thermometer.

I can try diluting a little more, but I may need a bigger tank. My single tank is 250ml - and I want to make sure my ratio keeps at least 6ml of HC-110.

I may try to agitate less - perhaps 1-3 times as opposed to 5 every min.

Hmm.. not sure what to suggest. Try less agitation and see. In my experience, any deviation by less than 10% in terms of dilution, times or temperature has negligible effect.

 

[mjb206]

Hmm.. not sure what to suggest. Try less agitation and see. In my experience, any deviation by less than 10% in terms of dilution, times or temperature has negligible effect.

My thought at this point is perhaps a 40:1 ratio as that's the largest my tank can accommodate with the 6ml minimum - 6:30 at 68F - 30 seconds initial agitation and 2x every min. May try that this afternoon.

 

[mjb206]

Hmm.. not sure what to suggest. Try less agitation and see. In my experience, any deviation by less than 10% in terms of dilution, times or temperature has negligible effect.

Okay - so I tried the 40:1....just a hair over 68F...6:30 - very gentle agitations. This is a result. Looks pretty good at this size, although you can see the grain in the street sign. I didn't do anything to the image except punch it up a tad. It was exposed as the incident meter read. The full zie image is much grainier, especially zoomed in. But when I compare to the samples you posted, I don't think mine is overly grainy - but I am seeing more grain than yours.

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm ... Day went with no time to reply. I'll have to read through more carefully tomorrow...

On thing on agitation. 5 times per minute? That's a bit much, I think. On "still" tanks, I do 2 gentle agitations per minute, 5 seconds each. With my Rondix and Rondinax tanks, I crank the film at about one rotation per second.

I'll look in again tomorrow. Brain is tired... 😉

G

 

[Prest_400]

I am mostly a medium format shooter and it has been Ages since I have done this combination in 35mm. However, have used Kentmere which might be a tad grainier and then HP5 medium format I develop in HC110 B or E.
Sometimes that 35mm is grainy is a bit of a format shock for me.

One thing that comes to mind is how the film was stored. Expired or poorly stored film can appear like this.

I share that suspicion, and might point to the specific graininess in the shadows. Particularly coarse on the sunglasses and the shadowed are a below the legs.
Look a bit like samples of films that were CT scanned in airport security, which just fogs the film.
Could it be that water was warmer than usual? However, if there were reticulation you should be able to see it.

Then of course, grain aliasing with scanning. Of course, an ultimate way to evaluate would be with a darkroom print.