Some B&W Photos with HP5 Film

[Gabriel M.A.]

i've never cared for t-max film or developers.

😀 -- I don't go near it even with a stick; unless it's 120 TMax developed in Diafine. Otherwise ::blech:: But it's like everything, some love broccoli, others hate it.

Raid: ouch ouch ouch. I think it's a bad combination of everything, including scanning; too much "ICE" or some other aggresive grain-reducing software application.

HP5+ is "delicate" (compared to Tri-X). I developed a few rolls in Edwal FG7, and the grain looked awful at close inspection too, but the sharpness was great (although this sample has a narrow DOF, shot @ f/1.4):

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=43​

 

[peterc]

I've actually heard that HP5 is _bad_ in Rodinal...

It can get VERY UGLY which is why I said it can be OK (once you nail a good light/time/agitation combination). If you're willing to take a big speed hit (down to 100 to 160 ISO) you can get good results with a 1+100 dilution ... there's also a contrast drop so this can be useful for taming harsh lighting. But there's really no point since you can get much better results at those speeds with any of the medium speed films.
As an experiment HP5+/Rodinal can be interesting, but they really were not made for eachother.

Peter

 

[Dracotype]

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=43[/center]

I would have to agree. HP5 just doesn't have the same character as Tri-X, not as smooth and creamy. I suppose it is just Tri-X's great forgiving nature coming through. The one on your blog though, has a rather nice soft, if slightly grainy character. I still have a half a bottle of FG7, so I might try some HP5. Thanks for the example.

Drew

 

[BJ Bignell]

i've never cared for t-max film or developers.

hp5 in ilfosol s or ddx is my preference.
joe

Is there anything DDX can't do? 😉

I always do my films in DDX, and have had quite good results even with extreme pushes. Caveat: I use HP5, PanF, and Delta 100 almost exclusively...

 

[raid]

I was referring to minimizing the digital processing being done by the machine itself. The Frontiers have many adjustable settings.

I need to check with the technicians there. Good point.

 

[raid]

I note that several people here suggest different types of developers for the same type of film, and nobody has suggested using TMAX. Is there a specific reason for this? I may have to make a case and convince the lab to change an ongoing practice.

 

[raid]

😀 -- I don't go near it even with a stick; unless it's 120 TMax developed in Diafine. Otherwise ::blech:: But it's like everything, some love broccoli, others hate it.

Raid: ouch ouch ouch. I think it's a bad combination of everything, including scanning; too much "ICE" or some other aggresive grain-reducing software application.

HP5+ is "delicate" (compared to Tri-X). I developed a few rolls in Edwal FG7, and the grain looked awful at close inspection too, but the sharpness was great (although this sample has a narrow DOF, shot @ f/1.4):

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=43​

I wish I could tell you what the Frontier scanning contributed here, or whether the fault lies with the developer. I used four types of B&W film, so I should have enough data to see what is actually "developing". I am learning every day ...

 

[raid]

I will re-do my digital adjustments to the scans. Maybe it is me.

 

[Fred]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong (or against the grain 🙂) , but I like TMAX dev.

IIRC most of my B&W shots in my gallery were using TMAX with either TMY400 or HP5+, (still waiting a delivery of TRI-X) and I can't complain. I've also used HP5 in Rodinal (RIP? in the UK anyway) and find more grain but with super sharpness.

I've not tried Diafine yet but intend to get some sent to the UK by Huron as I recall they do a decent package for a good price.

Forgot to state that I do my own dev and wet print.

 

[raid]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong (or against the grain 🙂) , but I like TMAX dev.

IIRC most of my B&W shots in my gallery were using TMAX with either TMY400 or HP5+, (still waiting a delivery of TRI-X) and I can't complain. I've also used HP5 in Rodinal (RIP? in the UK anyway) and find more grain but with super sharpness.

I've not tried Diafine yet but intend to get some sent to the UK by Huron as I recall they do a decent package for a good price.

Forgot to state that I do my own dev and wet print.

Fred,
It seems that each user of B&W seems to have their own preference of how the end result should look like. I am certainly learning a lot from the above responses. I called another custom lab in town, and the manager of the lab told me that TMAX works well with TMAX film but can really mess up other types of B&W film. He uses Ilford developer, that he said is very good "in general" for many types of B&W film. I will give his lab my business for the next batch of B&W film.

 

[FPjohn]

Rodinol

Rodinol

Hello

I've posted this image which will confirm, both pro or con, opinions of HP5+ in Rodinol. Rodinol 1/50, 12-14min, 20C, ISO 320.

yours
Frank

 

[titrisol]

It seems that each user of B&W seems to have their own preference of how the end result should look like.

Amen, that is why people like one film/developer etc and other don't

I am certainly learning a lot from the above responses. I called another custom lab in town, and the manager of the lab told me that TMAX works well with TMAX film but can really mess up other types of B&W film. He uses Ilford developer, that he said is very good "in general" for many types of B&W film. I will give his lab my business for the next batch of B&W film.

Sure, give that one a try and see if you like the results.

My 0.002 worth, when you send your first roll to them bracket heavily on a known subject. I.E. takes pictures of the outside of your house or something with even lighting and expose -2,-1.5,-1,-.5,N,+.5,+1,+1.5,+2 . Then check how the results come back and determine what your EI should be based on how the best exposure came out. Since you won;t have control of the time/temp combo and they'll have that standardized all you can do is adjust your exposure index to obtain good negatives/prints :bang: .

 

[raid]

"My 0.002 worth, when you send your first roll to them bracket heavily on a known subject. I.E. takes pictures of the outside of your house or something with even lighting and expose -2,-1.5,-1,-.5,N,+.5,+1,+1.5,+2 . Then check how the results come back and determine what your EI should be based on how the best exposure came out. Since you won;t have control of the time/temp combo and they'll have that standardized all you can do is adjust your exposure index to obtain good negatives/prints .
__________________
The more I have thought about it I find that camera should be treated as a pen, it is the photgraphers choice will he or she write poems, novels, make notes or just write things down with that pen. The pictures should be in the mind and camera should be simple enough that it will not disturb recording them. -- Märten Kross"

Martin: The lack of control on my side of how the end result will look like suggests that I may have to consider developing film myself, but I am trying to avoid doing this due to having young children in the house.

 

[peterc]

I've posted this image which will confirm, both pro or con, opinions of HP5+ in Rodinol.

Frank, I'd say that example is about as good as it gets when HP5+ and Rodinal are used together. Well done.
I'm a great fan of both HP5+ and Rodinal (I've got about 1.5 litres of the stuff sitting around) but there are many better film/developer combinations.

Peter

 

[titrisol]

"My 0.002 worth, when you send your first roll to them bracket heavily on a known subject. I.E. takes pictures of the outside of your house or something with even lighting and expose -2,-1.5,-1,-.5,N,+.5,+1,+1.5,+2 . Then check how the results come back and determine what your EI should be based on how the best exposure came out. Since you won;t have control of the time/temp combo and they'll have that standardized all you can do is adjust your exposure index to obtain good negatives/prints .

Martin: The lack of control on my side of how the end result will look like suggests that I may have to consider developing film myself, but I am trying to avoid doing this due to having young children in the house.

Xactly the opposite to my point!
Since they have the control over processing you need to adjust to whatever they do, thus adjusting your exposures to obtain the best out of your film.
There is the myth that X or Y film is "flat" or "contrasty" and that is due to the fact that labs have standardized cyles, say 4, 5, or 8 minutes that may or may not adjust to each film.
Therefore testing your film by bracketing the 1st roll will allow you to determine your "personal film speed". If you like the results at box speed (400) then fine, but of you notice that overexposing by 1/2 stop gives you finer tonality then the next roll set your camera meter to 320.

So you can shorten the proces IMHO by bracketing one roll and learning from it.

PS1: My name is Pablo

PS2: having little ones in the house shouldn't be a deterrent... unless you are sloppy or they are monsters
:angel:

 

[raid]

Xactly the opposite to my point!
Since they have the control over processing you need to adjust to whatever they do, thus adjusting your exposures to obtain the best out of your film.
There is the myth that X or Y film is "flat" or "contrasty" and that is due to the fact that labs have standardized cyles, say 4, 5, or 8 minutes that may or may not adjust to each film.
Therefore testing your film by bracketing the 1st roll will allow you to determine your "personal film speed". If you like the results at box speed (400) then fine, but of you notice that overexposing by 1/2 stop gives you finer tonality then the next roll set your camera meter to 320.

So you can shorten the proces IMHO by bracketing one roll and learning from it.

PS1: My name is Pablo

PS2: having little ones in the house shouldn't be a deterrent... unless you are sloppy or they are monsters
:angel:

Hello Pablo,
Your point is well taken. I will bracket one roll just to find out what works best, and will then apply any adjustment to future rolls of film. As for the "monsters", they are very young, and my wife does not like to bring chemicals into our home.

 

[titrisol]

LOL, I have 2 little ones as well, a 3yr old and a soon-to-be 1yr old.
They both know dad's rolling cabinet is out of bounds, and I keep it locked just in case.

Good luck with those labs!!!

 

[raid]

I tried to reduce the grainy look. Here is the new "look". is it different at all to your eyes?

 

[raid]

LOL, I have 2 little ones as well, a 3yr old and a soon-to-be 1yr old.
They both know dad's rolling cabinet is out of bounds, and I keep it locked just in case.

Good luck with those labs!!!

Marten,
I may need a rolling cabinet and a place to lock it up in, just like you do. If the Ilford developer with my adjusting speed film results in acceptable results, we'll see about it.

 

[plexi]

Tri-X and T-max gives wery smooth and nice grain, look at this image over at APUG : http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=12289 (If you are a member)
Almost grainless.

I dont`t have much experience with HP5+, but these scans looks bad, lots of digital noise and crap..

I`d say you should develop and scan yourself...