HP5+ Rodinal and grain.

Roger Hicks said:
No dispute. What surprises me is that some people appear to be proud of pictures I'd keep quiet about.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

That would be down to personal choice, if the pictures turned out as their pre visualisation intended then they have every right to be proud.
Conversely if someone can't get good shadow detail (and intended) from a developer and film combo (especially HP5 and Rodinal), they should find a different hobby!
 
Photo_Smith said:
That would be down to personal choice, if the pictures turned out as their pre visualisation intended then they have every right to be proud.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'm just surprised at the way some people visualize things.Or, alternatively, at what they are prepared to pretend matched their visualization.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Indeed. I'm just surprised at the way some people visualize things.Or, alternatively, at what they are prepared to pretend matched their visualization.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Come on Roger, you're accusing people here. Unless you know their artistic intent how can you tell? Is there one of my photographs here you'd say I'm pretending to match? If so I'm prepared to explain.
Who here is pretending? and what insight do you have to their artistic vision?
 
I started this thread so I suppose I should throw an image into it.

HP5+ and rodinal ... I kind of like it but feel that it looks a little harsh.


U5265I1378445522.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Photo_Smith said:
Come on Roger, you're accusing people here. Unless you know their artistic intent how can you tell? Is there one of my photographs here you'd say I'm pretending to match? If so I'm prepared to explain.
Who here is pretending? and what insight do you have to their artistic vision?
Click to expand...
If I name any one person, I'll get even worse grief. I can't quite see why you and others are so upset. It surely cannot be news to anyone that some pictures are better than others, and that some people are proud of pictures that others would regard as failures. This doesn't apply only to Rodinal shots in this thread. For this uncontroversial observation I am attacked and called "a self propelled egomaniac", whatever that may mean.

For what it's worth, your pictures were the ones that made me think that Rodinal can be used well. I have no intention of reassuring anyone else, though, for fear of others lining up to ask if I meant them.

To everyone who has posted pictures on this thread: if you're happy with your pictures, great. It's just that some of them are so far from anything I would want that they'd put me off Rodinal. Again, this is hardly a controversial observation. I like some pictures (and technical effects, and tonality) and I don't like others. Exactly the same is true in my own photography: I never get the superb tonality in my 35mm FP4 shots that one of my friends (Ed Buziak) always did -- so I don't use FP4 in 35mm.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If I name any one person, I'll get even worse grief. I can't quite see why you and others are so upset. It surely cannot be news to anyone that some pictures are better than others, and that some people are proud of pictures that others would regard as failures. This doesn't apply only to Rodinal shots in this thread. For this uncontroversial observation I am attacked and called "a self propelled egomaniac", whatever that may mean.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

egomaniac 'ouch' I never suggested you have an overblown ego, nor am I 'upset'
What I'm referring to is the insinuation that people were presenting poor quality images and then saying they 'achieved' a look and that the failure of shadow detail wasn't intended but presented as so.

that is a hard one to prove.
 
Photo_Smith said:
egomaniac 'ouch' I never suggested you have an overblown ego, nor am I 'upset'
What I'm referring to is the insinuation that people were presenting poor quality images and then saying they 'achieved' a look and that the failure of shadow detail wasn't intended but presented as so.

that is a hard one to prove.
Click to expand...
First sentence: No, sorry, that was referring to George Bonnano's comment: I thought you'd have seen what he wrote and realized I wasn't referring to you.

Yes, it's impossible to prove that people are fooling themselves, especially if they've been successful and have fooled themselves. But as I said, I would be surprised if in some cases they are doing otherwise. That's not the same as saying it's impossible. Just that I'd be surprised. That's not an insinuation. It's a flat statement of my surprise.

Cheers,

R.
 
You guys just continue on .......................

..................for a few more posts, then I'll ask a mod to close the thread because it's becoming more about hammering a point of view home than it is about actual information that may help anyone.
hahanot.gif
 
Keith said:
I started this thread so I suppose I should throw an image into it.

HP5+ and rodinal ... I kind of like it but feel that it looks a little harsh.


U5265I1378445522.SEQ.0.jpg
Click to expand...

When you say harsh do you mean in contrast or graininess? I think it looks fine tonally on my monitor, a little too much grain for HP5 in Rodinal even 35mm the mid tones will show it most, and you do have a fair bit of mid tone in the wall.

What is your agitation, dilution and rated speed?
 
Photo_Smith said:
When you say harsh do you mean in contrast or graininess? I think it looks fine tonally on my monitor, a little too much grain for HP5 in Rodinal even 35mm the mid tones will show it most, and you do have a fair bit of mid tone in the wall.

What is your agitation, dilution and rated speed?
Click to expand...



It was 50+1, thirteen minutes at 20 degress C, agitaion was thirty seconds constant initial agitation then a couple of very gentle inversions on the minute every minute after that.

I think I may have over exposed slightly and because the whole roll was shot in a few minutes at the same settings in unchanging light there's no other comparisons. Rated speed was 400.

I've used HP5+ previously with Rodinal but never seen such harsh grain ... I actually toned it down a little with some noise reduction in post.

Thanks for getting back on track! 😀
 
To minimise grain with what you have told me, slightly lower temp will help I use 18°C.
Over exposure, is no bad thing normally and if you did then 13 mins is too long 11 might have been better, but without seeing the negative and gauging the range of tones and density its hard to say.

You seem to have good shadow detail which would be expected, plenty of detail in the black shirt so slightly less dev time.
One thing I do when working with fast film is minimal agitation say one inversion every other min.

I'll bet the more defined grain is partly to do with exposure though, it is harsh even for Rodinal and 400 speed film–I quite like it though 🙂
 
I love Rodinal and HP5. What you are seeing Keith is the metallic silver left behind during development. Rodinal does not remove the silver from the film during development. Rodinal is a high acutance developer that increases edge sharpness, but has no agent or solvent to soften the granularity of the silver. You can add some sodium sulfite to soften or minimize the granularity.

Here is a development chart I found for HP5 and Rodinal -
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C
 
Keith said:
I actually toned it down a little with some noise reduction in post.
Click to expand...

Sorry Keith my post is not about you but your post is too a great an example to resist.

First the pic is not bad some grain as it should be.

Second my critic. You and others want to show the results you can get with Rodinal + Hp5 but instead of showing a virginal unmanipulated file you show an example that was manipulated in post by reducing the grain. Digital grain reduction changes the look of the combo it has effect on the sharpness etc... so in fact it gives a very different look than the original.

Third: Digital seems to enhance grain, what wouldn't be all that grainy in a print straight from the neg suddenly get's grainy because of the scan that's one of the reason I am not the biggest fan of digital proofs because they show a different result than an optical print unless of course the wanted end product is a digital print or file.

Again: My post was not meant as a critique of the photo but as a critique of the fact that people use manipulated images to show a dev film combo qualities or lack thereoff.
 
I'm not an expert in HP5+ & Rodinal combo but for example in comparison with Tri-X in Rodinal it seems to me that HP5+ is one stop faster, maybe even a bit more. You can easily get true EI 400 with HP5+ in Rodinal when Tri-X can barely make it up to EI 200 (same dilution and temperature).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
HP5+....HC-110....grain
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
FotohuisR
FotohuisR
MNS
Developing black and white film without using stop bath?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bolo Kukus
B
F
Hp5 in Rodinal
2
Replies
23
Views
5K
Fraser
F
S
X-Tol (EcoPro) & HP5+
Replies
8
Views
985
relistan
R
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #4 Prototype photo test and development update
Replies
1
Views
281
lxforrest
lxforrest
Back
Top Bottom