Ilford HP5 in Rodinal 1+50

[JPSuisse]

I don't live in Monaco, and I happen to particularly like the first photo.

Nonetheless, I see the point of Mfogiel's comments. It's what I kind of what I see as well.

Although, I am not quite so negative about the digital black and white look as Mfogiel "might be."

John

 

[benlees]

HP5 and Rodinal is about as "undigital" as you can get, to my eye. The branches in Chris's shots appear clear and distinct to me- something easily blown out in digital. Lots of texture in the snowy roof as well?

 

[knorbek]

I agree with mfogiel, this is my feeling too.

 

[MISH]

I like all the examples here and have done a lot of HP-5 in 35mm (grain from Rodinal was never too much for my taste) and this thread reminds me I should be trying it in 120 also
(BTW... I always assume that pictures on my screen can not be judged for things such as tone, contrast, highlight detail etc ...etc. I need to see a print)

 

[oftheherd]

In my other thread about HP5 developed in PMK, mfogiel made the complaint that a landscape photo shot in the rain on a very foggy day had...get this...a white sky. Having liked most of my life in a place where rainy, foggy, overcast days are commonplace, I thought that's what the sky looks like on such days. I guess I must be blind.

We often used to get sky like that back in Missouri when I was young. I see them often here in northern Virginia as well. I think the photos look great. I wasn't able to get any developing done today, but I have some 9x12 ASA (Oops, I mean ISO) 25 film to develop, and I want to try it in Rodinal if not PMK. I thought I had heard it all, but sky in well exposed and developed film looking digital is a new one. But to each his own.

But "pop" with a meal? My goodness, I haven't heard that used probably since I was a kid. Seems everybody uses the word soda now. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

 

[Keith]

I find HP5+ 120 particularly nice in Rodinal.

 

[redisburning]

I like the combo in 4x5 an awful lot myself.

 

[mfogiel]

I think Chris, that you are a bit too nervous.
First, I said "on my computer screen". If indeed, you see some detail in the highlights on yours, then I apologize for a conclusion based on an incorrect impression.
I have no "axes to grind", although I have personal preferences for how I like my photos to look. You have presented this film/developer combination stating, you liked it, and in my eyes instead, something was lacking in the highlights, similarly to what I see on digital photographs. Given, that you often stress, you are cost sensitive, I thought this process was redundant against just shooting digital, and saving yourself the hassle and cost of film.
I would say the same thing relative to this image:
http://www.ralphgibson.com/
even if Gibson is one of my favourite photographers. I saw once an exhibition of his original prints, and he uses pure "blown" white quite often.
Lastly, I do not think that the tonal range of images has to be different in Monaco and in Indiana, or wherever else - it is more a function of how one wants to present them. The sarcastic use of term "man from Monaco" from some RFF users made me understand, that stereotypes are hard to die. Helmut Newton has lived here a good part of his life, but he also spent four months a year in Los Angeles, so were his images any worse, when he wasn't shooting on American soil?

 

[teddy]

I think mfogiel is a film "purist" perhaps? I prefer to deter from the blow highlights of digital, and try to have detail in the brightest daylight of Australia. That is why I tend to use an orange filter because the sky tends to be "too white", which I don't like very much. I do like high contrast in some situations. Chris shots with with HP5 and Rodinal are interesting, amazing clarity with a punch of grittiness. I'm still to get Tri-X and D76 souped. I enjoy both mfogiels and Chris's images - different styles!

 

[teddy]

I think Chris, that you are a bit too nervous.
First, I said "on my computer screen". If indeed, you see some detail in the highlights on yours, then I apologize for a conclusion based on an incorrect impression.
I have no "axes to grind", although I have personal preferences for how I like my photos to look. You have presented this film/developer combination stating, you liked it, and in my eyes instead, something was lacking in the highlights, similarly to what I see on digital photographs. Given, that you often stress, you are cost sensitive, I thought this process was redundant against just shooting digital, and saving yourself the hassle and cost of film.
I would say the same thing relative to this image:
http://www.ralphgibson.com/
even if Gibson is one of my favourite photographers. I saw once an exhibition of his original prints, and he uses pure "blown" white quite often.
Lastly, I do not think that the tonal range of images has to be different in Monaco and in Indiana, or wherever else - it is more a function of how one wants to present them. The sarcastic use of term "man from Monaco" from some RFF users made me understand, that stereotypes are hard to die. Helmut Newton has lived here a good part of his life, but he also spent four months a year in Los Angeles, so were his images any worse, when he wasn't shooting on American soil?

I wish I was in Monaco and shooting the European sky! I called you a "film purist" as a compliment. I'm amused whether you agree? 😉

 

[Photo_Smith]

I think this is a debate that is 'post digital' it seems that some people (not you Marek) fear paper white and confuse that with 'blown' highlights and associate that with being a digital 'fault'
Nothing could be further from the truth, as photographers we need to place tones on the paper in order to represent a feeling of the original scene. In Chris' shot there is detail in the highlights/sky (which measures 233 on my colourimeter) but there doesn't have to be!
The sky is often white and can be represented by paper white rather than light grey.
The same can also be said of specular highlights (reflections on water) which in order to be realistic can be placed on paper white.

I think in these days of digital we have a fear of making images with paper white in them, some will confuse this with a 'digital blown look' but the way film renders the transition from diffuse white (like in the examples here) to specular is very gradual and this is especially true of HP5 and dilute soft working developers.

Embrace paper white, and the slow transition to that state afforded us by film!

 

[Ansel]

I think a lot of images look digital when viewed on a computer screen... You need to asses a final print to properly evaluate.

 

[Michael Markey]

I think this is a debate that is 'post digital' it seems that some people (not you Marek) fear paper white and confuse that with 'blown' highlights and associate that with being a digital 'fault'
Nothing could be further from the truth, as photographers we need to place tones on the paper in order to represent a feeling of the original scene. In Chris' shot there is detail in the highlights/sky (which measures 233 on my colourimeter) but there doesn't have to be!
The sky is often white and can be represented by paper white rather than light grey.
The same can also be said of specular highlights (reflections on water) which in order to be realistic can be placed on paper white.

I think in these days of digital we have a fear of making images with paper white in them, some will confuse this with a 'digital blown look' but the way film renders the transition from diffuse white (like in the examples here) to specular is very gradual and this is especially true of HP5 and dilute soft working developers.

Embrace paper white, and the slow transition to that state afforded us by film!

Useful contribution ...thank you. As I stated we often get skies like that up here in the north west but with all this digital emphasis on blown highlights it does make you wonder if you`ve got it right sometimes.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think Chris, that you are a bit too nervous.
First, I said "on my computer screen". If indeed, you see some detail in the highlights on yours, then I apologize for a conclusion based on an incorrect impression.
I have no "axes to grind", although I have personal preferences for how I like my photos to look. You have presented this film/developer combination stating, you liked it, and in my eyes instead, something was lacking in the highlights, similarly to what I see on digital photographs. Given, that you often stress, you are cost sensitive, I thought this process was redundant against just shooting digital, and saving yourself the hassle and cost of film.
I would say the same thing relative to this image:
http://www.ralphgibson.com/
even if Gibson is one of my favourite photographers. I saw once an exhibition of his original prints, and he uses pure "blown" white quite often.
Lastly, I do not think that the tonal range of images has to be different in Monaco and in Indiana, or wherever else - it is more a function of how one wants to present them. The sarcastic use of term "man from Monaco" from some RFF users made me understand, that stereotypes are hard to die. Helmut Newton has lived here a good part of his life, but he also spent four months a year in Los Angeles, so were his images any worse, when he wasn't shooting on American soil?

If you don't think that the tonal range of images should be different in places with different climates, then you have much to learn. The United States is a continental-sized country whose climate varies GREATLY from one place to another. It is a lot different than Europe. Fort Wayne is on about the same latitude as Rome, yet the climate here is much harsher than it is in Rome. Our winters are a lot colder, our summers hotter, and it rains more and snows more. This is because I'm 1000 miles from the sea.

Light and its qualities vary greatly even in the USA. The scene below was made in the high-altitude desert of northwestern New Mexico:

This kind of light, these clouds, this blue sky...are all very common in New Mexico. Fog and white overcast skies are rare there. The complete opposite of Indiana.

 

[sebastel]

yawn at the 'digital sky' discussion.
excited with the pictures shown.

ever since i use rodinal, i like its results, with APX100, with ilford pan400, and even with delta 3200. and that is in 135, until now.

thanks for showing, and reminding me of this lovely combo.

cheers,
sebastian
(listening to billie holiday's 'solitude' just now)

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I think a lot of images look digital when viewed on a computer screen... You need to asses a final print to properly evaluate.

I think we can agree that ALL images ARE digital when viewed on a computer screen..😉

 

[mfogiel]

I am glad to receive comments and critique from fellow photographers. In general, I have learned two important things: one learns faster, when being criticized, and the more varied the critique, the more likely it is to be effective. This has been confirmed in the scientific models analyzing paths towards optimal solutions.
Certainly, what keeps me with B&W film, is its capacity to let you play with the tonal palette in a less restricted way than digital - then, I also like some other aspects, like lack of immediacy, archival qualities, etc, but this is not the topic of this thread.

"Embrace paper white, and the slow transition to that state afforded us by film!"

Mark is right - this is what we CAN do with film. When I think about a master of snow scenes, I can't help visualizing some of Michael Kenna's images from the Hokkaido series:
http://www.westongallery.com/kenna_pages/kenna_michael_1.htm

And to be frank, on my monitor, some of these look overblown too... Perhaps, I should buy a better laptop.

 

[Ansel]

I think we can agree that ALL images ARE digital when viewed on a computer screen..😉

Indeed but not all images LOOK digital on a computer screen... which was my point. Flat, contrasty and too perfect are things that usually scream digital to me.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Ansel, Flat and contrasty are two opposites I'm not sure what 'too perfect' means with respect to film based capture.
I shoot a fair amount of large format, which when printed on a cold light enlarger is smooth sharp and 'almost perfect'.

This has been the way since before digital was a twinkle in Kodak's eye, I can think of several workers who had images that some would find 'digital' and most of those shot film in the early 20th Century.

I think we have to be careful as film users not to paint ourselves in the metaphorical 'analogue aesthetic' corner; or at least the modern perception of what that encompasses (Hello LOMO and 'Lomography')

Either that or we all produce grainy, hard highlight reduced images that are more defined by their need to be different from digital than showing the vast range of what the medium is capable of.

 

[Ansel]

Flat as in no depth. Contrasty as in no middle tones. Too perfect as in digital! LOL. Seriously its pretty easy to identify. Analogue and digital have their own very different aesthetic. Just as 135 and LF do. There is a reason why folks spend $$$ on older leica lenses, even though newer versions are cheaper and "better: - its because they want to get that "imperfect" film look from their digicams....

IMO scanned negs CAN BE more digital than analogue (depends on scanner and operator) in their appearance, regardless of the camera used.