Steveh
Well-known
Hi all - thought I'd share my first experiences with this much maligned film, which have really surprised me (in a good way 
).
I really got into photography in 2004 or so, so most of my experience is "post digital", but I've been getting more and more into film and rangefinders over the last year or so, and took the plunge with doing my own processing a few months back. Since then I've been wrestling with HP5 and Tri-X in ID-11 and Tmax developer, trying to get decent scans (Coolscan V) and not really succeeding.
So yesterday I thought I'd give some Tmax 400 a spin in a couple of hours I had spare after a meeting - it was a proper sunny day, unusually for this summer, so I rated the film at 200 and processed it for 5 minutes in Tmax developer. All shots were taken on a Contax G1 on fully auto, no exposure compensation and no exposure lock - just point and shoot.
Well - the results were something of a revelation to me - no muddy tones, no blown highlights (if you ignore the bottom right cornder of shot 2, which doesn't count because the soldier was in deep shade!), just tight grained, beautifully scannable negatives, and a full tonal range. Some samples, quick scans with a small S curve and some edge burning in Photoshop:
Marble Arch:
The man who guards Prince Charles' back door:
Lost coat:
The Canadian War Memorial in Green Park
I have to say I think I might be on to something here - these negs are so much easier to work with in a digital workflow than anything else I've produced to date, and the tonality to me looks great. And if I want bigger grain and higher contrast I can add it in Photoshop - don't write this film off completely folks!
Next roll I'm going to push it to 800 and see what happens then
Cheers, S
). I really got into photography in 2004 or so, so most of my experience is "post digital", but I've been getting more and more into film and rangefinders over the last year or so, and took the plunge with doing my own processing a few months back. Since then I've been wrestling with HP5 and Tri-X in ID-11 and Tmax developer, trying to get decent scans (Coolscan V) and not really succeeding.
So yesterday I thought I'd give some Tmax 400 a spin in a couple of hours I had spare after a meeting - it was a proper sunny day, unusually for this summer, so I rated the film at 200 and processed it for 5 minutes in Tmax developer. All shots were taken on a Contax G1 on fully auto, no exposure compensation and no exposure lock - just point and shoot.
Well - the results were something of a revelation to me - no muddy tones, no blown highlights (if you ignore the bottom right cornder of shot 2, which doesn't count because the soldier was in deep shade!), just tight grained, beautifully scannable negatives, and a full tonal range. Some samples, quick scans with a small S curve and some edge burning in Photoshop:
Marble Arch:
The man who guards Prince Charles' back door:
Lost coat:
The Canadian War Memorial in Green Park
I have to say I think I might be on to something here - these negs are so much easier to work with in a digital workflow than anything else I've produced to date, and the tonality to me looks great. And if I want bigger grain and higher contrast I can add it in Photoshop - don't write this film off completely folks!
Next roll I'm going to push it to 800 and see what happens then
Cheers, S
Last edited:
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
The Nikon Coolscan has trouble with HP5. Too thick it seems.
These have scanned very nicely. Is there any detail in the area of dark foliage in the last shot (top left)?
These have scanned very nicely. Is there any detail in the area of dark foliage in the last shot (top left)?
ChrisN
Striving
I don't have any difficulty with HP5 with my Coolscan V, unless I've failed to fix the negs properly. With the standard Nikon software I find I do often have to reduce the scanner gain (-0.3) to ensure I'm not blowing the highlights, but if I take care I can get very good scans. Here's one of the better recent scans of HP5:
The larger size version looks even nicer.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2755795835_665fde6c57_o.jpg
The larger size version looks even nicer.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2755795835_665fde6c57_o.jpg
Steveh
Well-known
It certainly didn't seem to work too well for me! Yes, there is plenty of detail in the original scan of the last shot - that's just me being a bit overzealous with the S-curve and the edge burning in. It was the tonal range that surprised me - I was able to get very nice scans with a "correct" histogram and no clipping at either end, which surprised me in light of some the things I've read about this film!
venchka
Veteran
John Sexton and Sandy King really like the new improved Tmax 400 in D-76 diluted 1:1.
From memory, I think Sexton's formula is EI 250 and 7:30 at 68° F. Sandy King found that EI 400 and 10:30 minutes at 68° F worked best for him. A friend and fellow RFF member likes Tmax in Diafine and using Part B at 1:1.
As soon as I exhaust my stock of 4x5 HP5+, I'll get a box of the new Tmax 400. I have D-76, Xtol, Microdol-X, Rodinal and Diafine on hand. This will be fun!
From memory, I think Sexton's formula is EI 250 and 7:30 at 68° F. Sandy King found that EI 400 and 10:30 minutes at 68° F worked best for him. A friend and fellow RFF member likes Tmax in Diafine and using Part B at 1:1.
As soon as I exhaust my stock of 4x5 HP5+, I'll get a box of the new Tmax 400. I have D-76, Xtol, Microdol-X, Rodinal and Diafine on hand. This will be fun!
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
I've not had problems with tonal range. My HP5 scans tend to be very noisy. I attribute it (intuitively, I admit) to the thickness of the film. I understand TMax and other T grain films (TMax is T grain, right?) are thinner and scan more easily. I haven't experimented yet.