[tuco]

So I got the negatives back. I took a picture of the portrait's negative against a bright light.

Please correct me, but based on your guidance:
1. The film imprint is very clear, so this rules out underdevelopment.
2. There is plenty of detail in both the shadows and the highlights, so this rules out an exposure error.

I can therefore conclude that the flatness of the image I posted in my original post comes from the scanning (?).

The scan's are flat that's for sure. Not enough contrast.

When I see a "positive" in my negative, it's an indication of a little under exposed/developed side side of things too. Looking at the negative on a light box with a loupe is a good start. In terms of density, blacks go no deeper than the film's base density. So how much of your negative has areas that are at or near the film's base density is something to look for ( eg the guys hair back of face). That would be an indication of exposure. If, say, you wanted more detail in those areas, you could conclude not enough exposure (shadows were placed too low) assuming the development time is good. And next look at the highlights. Can you see detail in that area. A good development time will place your highlights in recordable range assuming good exposure.

[TwoUptons]

The negative looks a little thin to me, too, but that doesn’t mean the scan isn’t also less than awesome...

I suspect issues with the thin neg were compounded with an imperfect scan...

-Eric

[yucafrita]

A small aside: Isn't it interesting that the negative image appears as positive when viewed against a dark background?

This was never suggested to me and I stumbled on it quite by accident.
I was amazed when I first discovered this effect. I almost fell over!

Chris

This is what is done with collodion photographs in the past and still done today (put the glass or plexi plate against a dark background).

[Derek]

Your midtones are great, but between the white collar and the shadowed hair that's quite a large dynamic range to fit on a negative.
A one to two stop "pull" might have helped but that could be difficult if you aren't doing the processing. A reflector to the left would help
for next time.
Nice bracken shot!

[Ediz7531]

Thanks all for your input. This thread has been very informative!

[tuco]

Your midtones are great, but between the white collar and the shadowed hair that's quite a large dynamic range to fit on a negative.

I dunno about that. It doesn't look like high DR to me but I can't say. And that looks like diffused window light. A normal development time should capture that. I would even consider doing a N+1 development ( expand the highlights) after seeing the negative. I don't think that it's at a high enough contrast that I would want to compress the highlights.

Here is HP5+ looking into the Sun with normal development ( no highlight compression) in a high dynamic range scene. So it capture this much DR. The TV dishes were placed at Zone 1 and highlights were 10+ stops from that.




Conditions were bright here too. HP5 did okay.

[Ediz7531]

I dunno about that. It doesn't look like high DR to me but I can't say. And that looks like diffused window light. A normal development time should capture that. I would even consider doing a N+1 development ( expand the highlights) after seeing the negative. I don't think that's it's at a high enough contrast that I would want to compress the highlights.

Here is HP5+ looking into the Sun with normal development ( no highlight compression) in a high dynamic range scene. So it capture this much DR. The TV dishes were placed at Zone 1 and highlights were 10+ stops from that.




Conditions were bright here too. HP5 did okay.

Sadly I don't remember exactly the dynamic range of the scene, but to the best of my recollection, there were around 3-4 stops difference between the subject's left part of his face (the highlight) and his right ear. The shirt's whites were actually not pure whites; more like pastel iirc.

And yes, there was only late afternoon natural light, with the window facing north-ish.

[tuco]

... but to the best of my recollection, there were around 3-4 stops difference between the subject's left part of his face (the highlight) and his right ear....

Okay. That's kind of a deep contrast ratio across the face at 4-stops but fine for men and mood I think. Some thinking out loud. If the ear was placed say 2 stops below the middle gray exposure (zone 3), with 3-stops difference that would place the bright part of the face one stop above the middle gray at zone 6 which is not too bright for his face.

[ChrisPlatt]

The scan's are flat that's for sure. Not enough contrast.

My HP5+ negatives were always disappointingly flat, muddy even, compared to my those from my old HP5.

Chris

[tuco]

I haven't been shooting HP5 long enough to know much of it's generational history, Chris. But for me if feels like a good general purpose film. It's not a long-toe film like Rollei Retro or RPX 25 kind of a films. So I wouldn't compare it to one of those kinds of film.

Some more HP5 from my pano camera.

[gofour3]

Some more HP5 from my pano camera.

Nice, is the last shot the "Great Northern Hotel" from the Twin Peaks TV show? (AKA Salish Lodge)

Phil.

[tuco]

Nice, is the last shot the "Great Northern Hotel" from the Twin Peaks TV show? (AKA Salish Lodge)

Phil.

Thanks. Yeah that's it and the Snoqualmie Falls.

[ChrisPlatt]

I haven't been shooting HP5 long enough to know much of it's generational history, Chris.

HP5 became "improved" HP5+ in 1989. Not that long ago for most of us here.

No doubt good results may be obtained using the current film.
I gave it up because other films give me results I prefer without jumping through hoops.

Chris

[Wheatfield]

So I got the negatives back. I took a picture of the portrait's negative against a bright light.

Please correct me, but based on your guidance:
1. The film imprint is very clear, so this rules out underdevelopment.
2. There is plenty of detail in both the shadows and the highlights, so this rules out an exposure error.

I can therefore conclude that the flatness of the image I posted in my original post comes from the scanning (?).

Your negs look pretty good. I wouldn’t want any less exposure though. Another third stop would be fine. When I was scanning negs I preferred a fairly flat contrast scan. I figured I could adjust it more easily in Photoshop that way.

---------- Post added 02-14-19 at 06:29 PM ----------

HP5 became "improved" HP5+ in 1989. Not that long ago for most of us here.

No doubt good results may be obtained using the current film.
I gave it up because other films give me results I prefer without jumping through hoops.

Chris

I stayed with Ilford when they switched to new and improved. I figured I was learning a new film either way. I was shooting 4x5 black and white at the time, and IIRC, I rated HP5+ at ISO 80 - 160 depending on my development plan. It was a good film. It was easier to use than T-Max and I thought it had nicer grain than TriX.