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

[FotohuisR]

Shooting HP5+ in 35mm and HC-110 dilution B (1+31) or even 1+40 is not a combination for fine grain. 1+63 will be better but then you will need a larger drum.
Less grain with HP5+ will be in Perceptol but then you will loose a bit speed so you have to expose around iso 200. 1+1 is then a good starting point.
Alternative for finer grain is a larger format, which I am doing with e.g. Fomapan 400 and FomaOrtho 400 6x7cm roll film in the Voigtländer Bessa III 667 (Fuji GF670).

 

[p.giannakis]

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. View attachment 4871591

Ok, so you adjusted the dilution and the time. Agitated less and got better grain.
Now, if I use my dilution, it is 6ml in 294ml of water -> in 250ml of solution you need 5ml (240ml water and 5ml developer). But you can't do this because you need a minimum of 6ml.

So if I did maths well (and I am not very good with maths) you have 1ml dev more in there and you compensate by reducing the time by 1.5 min.

Hmmm... my next suggestion is to increase developing time by 10% ( 7mins 10sec) and keep 3 gentle inversions once a min and see if it makes it better or worse.

 

[mjb206]

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

I'm not remembering where I got the 5....Ilfords sheet states 4. For the last photo I backed it down to 2 - and very gently, I might add

 

[mjb206]

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.

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.

It's stored in a film loader in a bin under my desk, so no extreme warm temps.

As for the water temp, it's possible that it could have been about 1/2 degree higher, but I wasn't sure that was going to make a difference.

 

[mjb206]

Shooting HP5+ in 35mm and HC-110 dilution B (1+31) or even 1+40 is not a combination for fine grain. 1+63 will be better but then you will need a larger drum.
Less grain with HP5+ will be in Perceptol but then you will loose a bit speed so you have to expose around iso 200. 1+1 is then a good starting point.
Alternative for finer grain is a larger format, which I am doing with e.g. Fomapan 400 and FomaOrtho 400 6x7cm roll film in the Voigtländer Bessa III 667 (Fuji GF670).

Yes, I"m beginning to think I just need to pick up the two-reel drum so I can experiment with the larger volume. I hadn't considered that when I picked up the new little jobo. I may even have an older Patterson kicking around from years ago. I'll have to look.

 

[mjb206]

Ok, so you adjusted the dilution and the time. Agitated less and got better grain.
Now, if I use my dilution, it is 6ml in 294ml of water -> in 250ml of solution you need 5ml (240ml water and 5ml developer). But you can't do this because you need a minimum of 6ml.

So if I did maths well (and I am not very good with maths) you have 1ml dev more in there and you compensate by reducing the time by 1.5 min.

Hmmm... my next suggestion is to increase developing time by 10% ( 7mins 10sec) and keep 3 gentle inversions once a min and see if it makes it better or worse.

Yes, I was trying to estimate the time decrease based on splitting the difference between Dilution B and yours. I think the one question I'd have, though. I guess in my scenario it's difficult to say whether or not the film was under/over developed. Because I do have 1ml more developer by ratio than yours, am I in any danger of over developing the film with the extra 1.5 mins? I guess the proof will be in the pudding, but I was just curious as I'm not sure how much latitude there is.

 

[p.giannakis]

Yes, I was trying to estimate the time decrease based on splitting the difference between Dilution B and yours. I think the one question I'd have, though. I guess in my scenario it's difficult to say whether or not the film was under/over developed. Because I do have 1ml more developer by ratio than yours, am I in any danger of over developing the film with the extra 1.5 mins? I guess the proof will be in the pudding, but I was just curious as I'm not sure how much latitude there is.

Good question. I don't know is the answer, I was thinking in terms of trial and error. 10% increase will show some change (for better or worse) but won't ruin your negatives. If it is worse, then a 10% decrease might help.

If neither of these helps, I will suspect your stock of hp5. The only way to test this theory is to buy a fresh roll of 24 - hp5 and develop it at your most successful time/dilution and compare. I know it starts getting cost consuming but I suppose it is the only way to answer your question.

 

[mjb206]

Good question. I don't know is the answer, I was thinking in terms of trial and error. 10% increase will show some change (for better or worse) but won't ruin your negatives. If it is worse, then a 10% decrease might help.

If neither of these helps, I will suspect your stock of hp5. The only way to test this theory is to buy a fresh roll of 24 - hp5 and develop it at your most successful time/dilution and compare. I know it starts getting cost consuming but I suppose it is the only way to answer your question

I just checked the date on my bulk film roll, and it's 10/2028 - so quite a ways off from being expired, and it's not stored in a warm environment. I have a couple of rolls of HP5+ that are not from the bulk roll, so I can try those for comparison. I may also just need to accept that it's a bit more grain than I was expecting.

These two are from the same bulk roll, different session, dilution B. The background grain seems really nice to me. Her skin grain on the first one is particularly grainy. The second image is better. Both had decent histograms after scanning. Again, this was Dilution B.

 

[Godfrey]

Just waking up here ...
I never read the tech sheets; I just experiment. 😉

Old rule of thumb from my photo mentor when I was in high school (shortly before the last Ice Age ended...):
"Development builds density, Agitation builds grain."
So I go 10 minutes at 1:49, and agitate almost not at all (on a standard tank, 2 times per minute where each agitation is to tip the tank about 30 degrees, twice, over 5 seconds). Using the Rondix 35 doesn't give me that option, so I just turn the crank slowly.

Example:
Simple photo with Minox 35GT-E and HP5 exposed at ISO 320 and processed my usual way... This is the raw negative capture with a Leica M10 Monochrome using a Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 lens and copy stand:


A detail from that capture to show the grain structure:


Then I do the inversion and tonal adjustment ... screen capture to get in the tone curve:


And here's a detail from the inverted image to show the grain structure:


Don't know whether that helps, but it shows what I get with my processing and digitization capture for you. 🙂

G

 

[mjb206]

Just waking up here ...
I never read the tech sheets; I just experiment. 😉

Old rule of thumb from my photo mentor when I was in high school (shortly before the last Ice Age ended...):
"Development builds density, Agitation builds grain."
So I go 10 minutes at 1:49, and agitate almost not at all (on a standard tank, 2 times per minute where each agitation is to tip the tank about 30 degrees, twice, over 5 seconds). Using the Rondix 35 doesn't give me that option, so I just turn the crank slowly.

Example:
Simple photo with Minox 35GT-E and HP5 exposed at ISO 320 and processed my usual way... This is the raw negative capture with a Leica M10 Monochrome using a Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 lens and copy stand:
View attachment 4871621

A detail from that capture to show the grain structure:
View attachment 4871622

Then I do the inversion and tonal adjustment ... screen capture to get in the tone curve:
View attachment 4871623

And here's a detail from the inverted image to show the grain structure:
View attachment 4871624

Don't know whether that helps, but it shows what I get with my processing and digitization capture for you. 🙂

G

Thank you! Interesting on the agitation. I've actually been completely inverting mine

I think what's interesting about my shots, especially the last two I posted above - the grain is actually pretty nice, IMHO. But the areas that transition from midtowns to shadows, is where it seems exaggerated - in the first one, the right side of her face - that to me seems excessive compared to the rest of the photo.

 

[Godfrey]

I suspect that's as good as you're going to get with HP5 in 135 format ... a move to medium format maybe...? 😉
If you want less grain and more acutance, you'll need to drop down to an ISO 50-125 film for 135 format.

But there are always limits with film. Looking at film with the microscopic examination on-screen that we are accustomed to with digital capture always reveals defects and constraints. I've come to the realization in my own photography that I shoot film to enjoy my delightful old cameras and work the defects and constraints of the medium ...

And when I'm looking for best technical quality, I pull out the digital cameras. Lately, I have been on a jag of shooting exclusively with the 11 year old Leica X1 and X2 I picked up recently ... ancient little cameras with 12.2 and 16.1 Mpixel resolution. And the cleanliness, acutance, and malleability of even these 'old' camera's captures is just stunning, way beyond most work I could achieve with 35mm film ever gets to from a technical perspective.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."

 

[38Deardorff]

I suspect that's as good as you're going to get with HP5 in 135 format ... a move to medium format maybe...? 😉
If you want less grain and more acutance, you'll need to drop down to an ISO 50-125 film for 135 format.

But there are always limits with film. Looking at film with the microscopic examination on-screen that we are accustomed to with digital capture always reveals defects and constraints. I've come to the realization in my own photography that I shoot film to enjoy my delightful old cameras and work the defects and constraints of the medium ...

And when I'm looking for best technical quality, I pull out the digital cameras. Lately, I have been on a jag of shooting exclusively with the 11 year old Leica X1 and X2 I picked up recently ... ancient little cameras with 12.2 and 16.1 Mpixel resolution. And the cleanliness, acutance, and malleability of even these 'old' camera's captures is just stunning, way beyond most work I could achieve with 35mm film ever gets to from a technical perspective.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."

Good explanation G.
Grain....it's not a defect...it's a feature....
(but if one wants smoother in 400 iso in 35mm .....change the film (Delta 400/TMax400)....&/or the developer)

 

[mjb206]

I suspect that's as good as you're going to get with HP5 in 135 format ... a move to medium format maybe...? 😉
If you want less grain and more acutance, you'll need to drop down to an ISO 50-125 film for 135 format.

But there are always limits with film. Looking at film with the microscopic examination on-screen that we are accustomed to with digital capture always reveals defects and constraints. I've come to the realization in my own photography that I shoot film to enjoy my delightful old cameras and work the defects and constraints of the medium ...

And when I'm looking for best technical quality, I pull out the digital cameras. Lately, I have been on a jag of shooting exclusively with the 11 year old Leica X1 and X2 I picked up recently ... ancient little cameras with 12.2 and 16.1 Mpixel resolution. And the cleanliness, acutance, and malleability of even these 'old' camera's captures is just stunning, way beyond most work I could achieve with 35mm film ever gets to from a technical perspective.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."

All, true, I'm sure. I'm just comparing mine to a lot of other examples I've seen - and perhaps many of them are using noise reduction. I just think that these seem excessively grainy.

I also enjoy using the older gear - I picked up my M3 just for that. I've shoot the Leica digital CL since it was released, so I have a few M lenses. It produces beautiful images, but frankly I"m not a huge fan of the focus peaking. I wanted to see how good I could get with a range finder, and I also really enjoy the development process. I learned it way back in Jr High (Stone Age) and did it a little bit in my 20s, but all T-Max / Tri-X. I liked a lot of examples I saw with HP5+, which is why I went that route.

All experimentation, I suppose. Was just trying to get grain parity with other images I've seen. Or to at least sanity check my work. 🙂

 

[38Deardorff]

All, true, I'm sure. I'm just comparing mine to a lot of other examples I've seen - and perhaps many of them are using noise reduction. I just think that these seem excessively grainy.

I also enjoy using the older gear - I picked up my M3 just for that. I've shoot the Leica digital CL since it was released, so I have a few M lenses. It produces beautiful images, but frankly I"m not a huge fan of the focus peaking. I wanted to see how good I could get with a range finder, and I also really enjoy the development process. I learned it way back in Jr High (Stone Age) and did it a little bit in my 20s, but all T-Max / Tri-X. I liked a lot of examples I saw with HP5+, which is why I went that route.

All experimentation, I suppose. Was just trying to get grain parity with other images I've seen. Or to at least sanity check my work. 🙂

M.... i'd guess the rabbit hole is scanning. Make a print...look at it at viewing distance.....look at it close up.
Neither the scanner, a magnifying glass nor a computer screen are provide ideal viewing conditions.
I'm sure you'll get good results with HP5 as well....... i have, even though it's far from my favourite film.

 

[mjb206]

M.... i'd guess the rabbit hole is scanning. Make a print...look at it at viewing distance.....look at it close up.
Neither the scanner, a magnifying glass nor a computer screen are provide ideal viewing conditions.
I'm sure you'll get good results with HP5 as well....... i have, even though it's far from my favourite film.

That's probably my next step. Although I may be a little ways off from a home darkroom. My prints from the last 20 years have been through a pro digital lab. I'll need to explore labs.

I also think where I'm getting hung up is in larger spaces/objects, the grain looks great - but in smaller areas, it is more extreme transitioning from one thing to another if that makes sense.

 

[mjb206]

A little de noise just in Lightroom along with a bit more punch turns out a lot more to my liking

 

[38Deardorff]

35mm especially in enlargements & with 400 iso film looked at close up doesn't have as long a scale or a smooth transitions as large or medium format film especially true in harsh daylight. I can't help you with Lightroom, but i have 16x20" prints from 35mm ( because that's the camera i had with me)....that are more than acceptable in highlight areas like you're showing. In reality you're now looking at output.... scans or prints. There's no failure of the film...the question/problem is arriving at the kind of print with the characteristics you envision.

 

[mjb206]

35mm especially in enlargements & with 400 iso film looked at close up doesn't have as long a scale or a smooth transitions as large or medium format film especially true in harsh daylight. I can't help you with Lightroom, but i have 16x20" prints from 35mm ( because that's the camera i had with me)....that are more than acceptable in highlight areas like you're showing. In reality you're now looking at output.... scans or prints. There's no failure of the film...the question/problem is arriving at the kind of print with the characteristics you envision.

I guess that's what I really need to sanity check. I know how to expose properly. I know how to scan well enough, and I know what a good histogram looks like, and I've long had my digital workflow dialed in (I can't think of the last time I had to de noise something.) It's the development I was really questioning myself on. Frankly with a little more processing any and all of these are perfectly acceptable. But I'm still going to chase optimizing my development efforts as I think I can improve on that a bit more.

 

[38Deardorff]

35mm especially in enlargements & with 400 iso film looked at close up doesn't have as long a scale or a smooth transitions as large or medium format film especially true in harsh daylight. I can't help you with Lightroom, but i have 16x20" prints from 35mm ( because that's the camera i had with me)....that are more than acceptable in highlight areas like you're showing. In reality you're now looking at output.... scans or prints. There's no failure of the film...the question/problem is arriving at the kind of print with the characteristics you envision.

I guess that's what I really need to sanity check. I know how to expose properly. I know how to scan well enough, and I know what a good histogram looks like, and I've long had my digital workflow dialed in (I can't think of the last time I had to de noise something.) It's the development I was really questioning myself on. Frankly with a little more processing any and all of these are perfectly acceptable. But I'm still going to chase optimizing my development efforts as I think I can improve on that a bit more.

Honestly if i were in that situation...i'd change developers. 35mm is small format and you can definitely get results with less obvious grain.

 

[mjb206]

Honestly if i were in that situation...i'd change developers. 35mm is small format and you can definitely get results with less obvious grain.

Will probably do that as well. But as I said, I was comparing to others using HC-110 and trying to achieve as good of results. I guess the unknown is what else is being done in post