Some B&W Photos with HP5 Film

[titrisol]

Frank, look in the unlinkingeye article about Appreciating Rodinal
I've tried the 1+50 + VitaminC and it is really good with EFKE100.
Will try it on FP4 soon.

From the article
A lot of photographers add sulfite to Rodinal to reduce the grain--a practice I always thought defeated the purpose of using Rodinal to begin with. Patrick Gainer writes: “It turns out that 4 g/l sodium ascorbate does a lot of good added to 1:50 Rodinal. A lot better than 100 g/l of sulfite.” Those who are searching for a fine-grain version of Rodinal should give this a try. (Please note: you should add sodium ascorbate, not ascorbic acid, because ascorbic acid will radically reduce the alkalinity of the Rodinal solution. Ascorbic acid is easily converted to sodium ascorbate by the addition of baking soda (in the ratio of the molecular weight of the acid over the bicarbinate, which is 176/84--approximately 2 parts acid to 1 part bicarbonate) or sodium hydroxide (in the ratio of the molecular weight of the acid to the hydroxide, which is 176/40, or 4 parts acid to 1.1 parts sodium hydroxide) . If you use the baking soda, add it to the ascorbic acid in a little water and let the fizzing subside before adding it to the working solution.)

Hello:

I was never able to achieve pleasing results with Rodinol at 1:25 with HP5, Plus x or FP4. At 1:50 dilution, grain is always present with these films but unobtrusive, at least to me, while HP5+ becomes very accepting of exposure variation with a slight loss of deep shadow detail.
yours
Frank

 

[raid]

Here are some results of using TMAX with ORWOPAN125 film (it is like Ilford). Now I have shown results for the same developer by three types of film, with ASA 25 - ASA 400.

Do you conclude that I better change the lab?

 

[raid]

The grain looks smaller than with EFKE25, using TMAX as a developer. Maybe this film gives good results with this developer.

 

[kaiyen]

orwopan 125 _is_ fp4. Just clarifying.

allan

 

[raid]

Allan: Yes, you are right about this fact. Orwopan125 is Ilford FP4 packaged by Orwo.

 

[raid]

Here are five photos from a second roll of FP5 developed in TMAX. I notice much better grain. The photos are not great, and just posted them to compare results with the developer. How can two rolls of the same type, developed the same way (I assume), give such different results? Could it be that the lens used also plays a role, or is this out of the question? I also noted that the files are much smaller here. It somehow happend. I guess, this is another factor to consider.

 

[raid]

Here are five photos taken with another roll of EFKE25 and developed in the same TMAX developer (all rolls done on same day in lab). Again, I see improvements over the previously posted photos taken with same type of film. Is there inconsistency by the developing process .... or?

 

[raid]

Here are five photos taken with a third roll of Ilford HP5 and developed in TMAX. I find this roll also looking better than the first one. What exactly is going on here?
I have no more photos to show from my test with TMAX developer and six rolls of B&W film. Now I can rest!

 

[raid]

Here is a link for some of the photos before I slightly adjusted them.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=568404

 

[allthumbs]

Raid, in most if not all of your scans that I looked at, digital artifacting seems to be more of an issue than film grain. I can deduce little about the film grain from these scans because the digital noise and/or digital processing is obscuring or masking it.

No matter what they use, if the lab is going to give you inconsistent results, that is reason enough to look for a new one, or to revisit the idea of doing it yourself. Perhaps there is some way for you to set yourself up outside of your house, perhaps in a friend's basement, or garage? You do not need a darkroom for film processing--just a changing bag to load film in the tank. Everything else can be done with lights on.

By the way, the boardwalk shots are fun; FP4 should have much finer grain than HP5; I don't know if you can blame the lens, but IMO exposure can affect grain, all other things being equal, but that's just my opinion.

 

[raid]

Raid, in most if not all of your scans that I looked at, digital artifacting seems to be more of an issue than film grain. I can deduce little about the film grain from these scans because the digital noise and/or digital processing is obscuring or masking it.

No matter what they use, if the lab is going to give you inconsistent results, that is reason enough to look for a new one, or to revisit the idea of doing it yourself. Perhaps there is some way for you to set yourself up outside of your house, perhaps in a friend's basement, or garage? You do not need a darkroom for film processing--just a changing bag to load film in the tank. Everything else can be done with lights on.

By the way, the boardwalk shots are fun; FP4 should have much finer grain than HP5; I don't know if you can blame the lens, but IMO exposure can affect grain, all other things being equal, but that's just my opinion.

I wonder how I can reduce the digital artifacting you pinpoint above as the major source of noise in the scanned images. Could it be that the scanning itself is the reason then and not the developing process? I need to see if they let me use the darkroom at my university. I may have to take a photography course to get access to the darkroom.

 

[allthumbs]

Could it be that the scanning itself is the reason then and not the developing process?

That's what I was trying to say upthread. It looks to me like aggressive noise-reduction is being applied. If you're not doing it, then it is happening during scanning. If you are not controlling the scanning, there is little you can do about it.

I need to see if they let me use the darkroom at my university. I may have to take a photography course to get access to the darkroom.

That is a terrific way to go. That way you can learn printmaking as well.

 

[James Burton]

Basically, I want to see whether I better relearn B&W developing and buy the needed equipment or whether I can live with commercial (local) B&W developing or not.

I can't say I was that impressed. All of my B&W shots are HP5+, ID-11, 1+3 which should have bad grain but lots of sharpness. (except I use Microphen for 800ASA).
Check out the galleries in my sig. I can post some 100% @ 2000dpi crops if you like.

It's too easy to do it by hand to accept commercial processing.

OK, 1st attachment is a 100% crop, 2nd is the whole picture.

Thanks,
James

 

[raid]

I can't say I was that impressed. All of my B&W shots are HP5+, ID-11, 1+3 which should have bad grain but lots of sharpness. (except I use Microphen for 800ASA).
Check out the galleries in my sig. I can post some 100% @ 2000dpi crops if you like.

It's too easy to do it by hand to accept commercial processing.

OK, 1st attachment is a 100% crop, 2nd is the whole picture.

Thanks,
James

So you agree that the scanned images don't look good. I am aware of this fact, and I am trying to figure out the reasons.

 

[James Burton]

So you agree that the scanned images don't look good. I am aware of this fact, and I am trying to figure out the reasons.

Yeah sorry, my post is a ramble. I looked a the last of yours (I'm on dialup so I chose the smallest) and there doesn't look like much detail, it has all been obscured by grain. Obviously why depends on a million things. I thought an example might give you some place to start.

I use HP5+ in ID-11 diluted 1+3 for 14mins @ 20degC
I shoot it at ISO200
scanned on Canon FS-4000-US @ 2000dpi (giving ~2000x3000 pixels)
The file has had 'levels' done to it in photoshop, no sharpening
the 1st attachment is a 100% crop
the 2nd has been shrunk by a shell script that I use (1/4 the size of the large file)

I'll have a look for some with better detail than that.

Thanks,
James

 

[raid]

Yeah sorry, my post is a ramble. I looked a the last of yours (I'm on dialup so I chose the smallest) and there doesn't look like much detail, it has all been obscured by grain. Obviously why depends on a million things. I thought an example might give you some place to start.

I use HP5+ in ID-11 diluted 1+3 for 14mins @ 20degC
I shoot it at ISO200
scanned on Canon FS-4000-US @ 2000dpi (giving ~2000x3000 pixels)
The file has had 'levels' done to it in photoshop, no sharpening
the 1st attachment is a 100% crop
the 2nd has been shrunk by a shell script that I use (1/4 the size of the large file)

I'll have a look for some with better detail than that.

Thanks,
James

Hello James,
Thanks for the detailed description of how you do your B&W work. Obviously, in my case there are many lose ends and it is unclear which factor cuased what to happen or not to happen. I now know that unlike with color film, there is much more needed with B&W film to commercially get good resulots. It may require an excellent lab first, and then also some work with them to better match on my side choice of film and ASA setting.

 

[T_om]

I wonder how I can reduce the digital artifacting you pinpoint above as the major source of noise in the scanned images. Could it be that the scanning itself is the reason then and not the developing process? I need to see if they let me use the darkroom at my university. I may have to take a photography course to get access to the darkroom.

I paid my way through college running the lab at the Auburn University Student Union in the mid 60's. That, and some architectural photography with a Burke & James 5x7 from hell. Don't get me started on that Piece Of Crap camera.

But I digress.

Local colleges and universities are a great place to look for a wet lab.

However, after reading all this.

You REALLY need to start doing this yourself and scanning the negatives yourself. I really don't think you are going to be pleased with the result you get commercially nowadays. There used to be scores of labs that turned out great B&W work, but now they are pitifully few. Oh, there are some top flight labs still around that can turn out competition-grade work. But they do it at a price that will make your eyes fall out of your head when you get the bill.

Anyway, that is my advice and I'm stickin' to it. 😉

Tom

 

[raid]

I paid my way through college running the lab at the Auburn University Student Union in the mid 60's. That, and some architectural photography with a Burke & James 5x7 from hell. Don't get me started on that Piece Of Crap camera.

But I digress.

Local colleges and universities are a great place to look for a wet lab.

However, after reading all this.

You REALLY need to start doing this yourself and scanning the negatives yourself. I really don't think you are going to be pleased with the result you get commercially nowadays. There used to be scores of labs that turned out great B&W work, but now they are pitifully few. Oh, there are some top flight labs still around that can turn out competition-grade work. But they do it at a price that will make your eyes fall out of your head when you get the bill.

Anyway, that is my advice and I'm stickin' to it. 😉

Tom

Tom,
Your advice is well-taken. I will try to get access to the darkroom at the university I work at. Worst case, I take a photography class (no tuition fees) and have then access to the darkroom. Thanks.

 

[Nick R.]

Raid,
If you're not going to develop your own I suggest using Ilford XP2. It's a C-41 process B&W film with great tonality.
I also suggest that you buy a scanner and rescan those negatives yourself. I bet you'll see a big difference because those scans are terrible.
FWIW, I develop HP5+ in XTOL 1:1. I think it has great tones. On the left is XP2 and on the right is HP5+

 

[raid]

Raid,
If you're not going to develop your own I suggest using Ilford XP2. It's a C-41 process B&W film with great tonality.
I also suggest that you buy a scanner and rescan those negatives yourself. I bet you'll see a big difference because those scans are terrible.
FWIW, I develop HP5+ in XTOL 1:1. I think it has great tones. On the left is XP2 and on the right is HP5+

Nick,
I have a Nikon scanner but did not use it to do the scanning of the posted images. I often use XP2 and get excellent results, by the way, but I want to try out silver based B&W film too. Can you tell whether the negatives are bad or the scans are bad?