Ilford HP5+: round 2, pushed to 1600.

*CSoars* · 02-22-2009, 11:08 PM

Another one of my 'film result' threads.

Rated @ ISO 1600, 13 minutes in DD-X 1:4 at 20 degrees C.

Careful development, and a new scan/pp flow makes the grain size very nice for the speed. I'm really quite impressed with resolution and tonality, especially in the 2nd shot (dingy back room). Trusty SMC M 50mm 1.7, Asahi Pentax MX.

Probably as grainy as some earlier attempts shooting at ISO 400.

dantekgeek · 02-22-2009, 11:24 PM

Simply *gorgeous* grain! Gives the shot texture, but keeps the detail!

ryan s · 02-22-2009, 11:51 PM

Not bad...not bad at all. Gotta love the little check boxes on the canister for 400, 800, or 1600...Ilford was really thinking ahead

Also a fine choice for developer...DD-X is meant for this type of thing

artobest · 02-23-2009, 04:25 AM

Beautiful tone, especially on that metal pump doohickey in the second shot. I love the way metallic objects look in black and white. I do wonder though whether both scans, but especially the first, are slightly high-key - there looks to be some clipping there. Hard to tell with the web compression, mind.

Lowell Goudge · 02-23-2009, 07:32 AM

You can go further, based upon what I see here.

Next step, 3200 ISO.

Both of these were shot with Tri-X and developed with D76 (about 20 years ago)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/a...ain-grain2.jpg

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/a...rain-grain.jpg

*k100d* · 02-23-2009, 07:41 AM

nice nice ... very nice

Jimfear · 02-23-2009, 07:41 AM

Really beautiful grain! And the shocking thing is that there's less grain in these shots than in my attempt at developing HP5+ @ ISO 400...

Btw, can anyone give me a quick answer to if Rodinal is any good for pushing film?

*CSoars* · 02-23-2009, 09:22 AM

Thanks everyone for the comments, I'm still a little surprised at the results, but in a good way. I have some other shots with more DOF, taken in indirect sunlight; they look as grainy as most of the popular tri-x 'street photos' (authentic or photoshop texture) that you can find on the web.

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

You can go further, based upon what I see here.

Next step, 3200 ISO.

Both of these were shot with Tri-X and developed with D76 (about 20 years ago)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/a...ain-grain2.jpg

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/a...rain-grain.jpg

It's a shame my MX's meter doesn't go past 1600, though I know it's not a hardship to extrapolate. But my LX goes higher.... hrm. Might need to bring along an ND filter though.

Originally Posted by Jimfear

Really beautiful grain! And the shocking thing is that there's less grain in these shots than in my attempt at developing HP5+ @ ISO 400...

Btw, can anyone give me a quick answer to if Rodinal is any good for pushing film?

Likewise, though turning off 'unsharp mask: medium' in scanning helped. The people on the photo.net forums don't seem to keen on rodinal to push film. Apparently it ramps up the contrast too much, but I've never used it, so...

*Ratmagiclady* · 02-23-2009, 10:13 AM

Hey, I'm kind of liking that.

If I can get some qualities like I see out of DD-X, particularly with that pushing, I could just go back to HP5, after all. (I've been shopping around for a new 'look' the past couple of years, and would really like to simplify film and developer stocks, compared to what I've come up with so far.

)

Gooshin · 02-23-2009, 10:16 AM

i'm observing that when pushing, you lose alot of highlights

with the bike-chain picture, while the sharpness and grey-area grain is perfect, there is a lot of white, with rather harsh transitions.

*CSoars* · 02-23-2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

i'm observing that when pushing, you lose alot of highlights

with the bike-chain picture, while the sharpness and grey-area grain is perfect, there is a lot of white, with rather harsh transitions.

Pushing definitely compresses the dynamic range, and that first picture was backlit by a window, so I opened up (perhaps a bit too much) to expose the chainring. The white bits are likely sunlight shining off polished metal, which even slow color film (see my 160C thread) or digital would have difficulty rendering.

What I find interesting about grain is how it's rendered in focused areas v.s. out of focus; the chain disappears into an almost graphic stippling effect, while the teeth look quite sharp and well formed.

artobest · 02-23-2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by CSoars

Pushing definitely compresses the dynamic range, and that first picture was backlit by a window, so I opened up (perhaps a bit too much) to expose the chainring. The white bits are likely sunlight shining off polished metal, which even slow color film (see my 160C thread) or digital would have difficulty rendering.

Have you checked your levels on that scan? Or alternatively tried rescanning? It does look clipped to my eyes.

*k100d* · 02-23-2009, 11:16 AM

pushing increases contrast, which reduces dynamic range

lithos · 02-23-2009, 09:08 PM

I try to like this film. I really try. But I can't, especially at 1600 - deities know what the 3200 roll I've got is gonna turn out like.

Ilford's tones always seem to remind of old...well, England. And dark, rotting wood. Something just don't gel with me, on most of their films.

*CSoars* · 02-23-2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by lithos

I try to like this film. I really try. But I can't, especially at 1600 - deities know what the 3200 roll I've got is gonna turn out like.

Ilford's tones always seem to remind of old...well, England. And dark, rotting wood. Something just don't gel with me, on most of their films.

Maybe, I remember early Delta 400 I developed seemed muddy and dank and.... Nothing like the 'lightness' of Tri-X 400.

Still trying to decide, I'm liking HP5+ more and more. Is this dark and rotting?