Following on from the previous post, this is a similar outcome, a sort of last of the film with some focussing.
Another HP5 +, developed in Rodinal and scanned. I managed to get 11 images out of a possible 12 – wind on problems. This film was easy to get onto the developing reel.
There were three shots of Tower Bridge at the start of this film – interesting they were all joined together with no inter-frame gap – then the gaps between frames gradually got larger.* The grain across the film is quite ……. atrocious.**
–
Tower Bridge
This the ‘best’ of three. I’ve given this frame a significant bump in contrast and a bit of sharpening. The reduced size here has done the picture a lot of favours.
–
Baldix Bales
Contrast and sharpening.
–
G. E. Hipperson
Another attempt at focussing using the distance marking on the lens. Probably the best, it has benefited from contrast and sharpening for presentation here.
This gentleman is probably the root cause of my interest in photography. If I want to know anything regarding film cameras equipment wise, he’s usually my second port of call – web first, then him to sort out the conflicting information I invariably find.
–
Graham
This one has been given more contrast and sharpening – comparison with the background shows the focus has been missed again.
–
Footnotes
* – I thought the problem with the wind-on on this film might have been a one-off occurrence, but the next film, to follow, shows a similar problem. I’m going to have to review the process of wind-on for this camera, which is a wind back, wind forward arrangement – experience has shown that these things are not so much faulty/wrong it’s more likely that I am not following the proper procedure.
** – I mentioned atrocious grain above. To give an idea of what these images look like in reality (full sized) I’ve reproduced a small section from the Tower Bridge above.
Cropped Tower Bridge
Why this is so I’m not altogether sure at the moment. It may be the combination of the Rodinal/HP5, it may be the scanning process – I scanned as a grayscale image and it might be better do go for RGB, it may be that scanning at the ppi that I am is the problem. Well, I’m now moving onto the ‘official’ test medium that I chose to start with – FP4. It will not take long to determine if my proposed Rodinal/FP4 combination is worth pursuing. I may also scan at a lower ppi.
——-Stephen———
Folding Up 
It looks like a bug puzzle but it looks like the pieces are slowly starting to fall in place. My own development days are long gone but a heavy grain is in my remembrance a developer issue. There must be people who can explain the outcome though I am sure.
Thanks Chris.
With the HP5/Rodinal combo – I won’t be pursuing it, it is what it is. But I hope to see a significant improvement in grain structure with the FP4/Rodinal.
There are a couple of really good forums on the web which cater specifically for film photography, I’ll give them a look if needed.
Cheers
The London Bridge shot looks like it could have been taken 100 years ago (which is great!). I’ve used HP5, FP4, Pan F and Tri -X recently (35mm) and am convinced that FP4 and Tri – X are almost identical in grain size and structure (at least, the way I develop and scan). HP5 has noticeably bigger grain but for smoothness/creaminess nothing beats Pan F even though I’ve found 100TMX sharper and finer grained. Sometimes there’s too much choice!!
Thanks!
It’s clear grain is very much at the mercy of the developer, in this case Rodinal. I’ve used HP5+ with Ilford developers which gives much finer grain than the hp5/rodinal combination.
FP4 and Pan F are my favourites (I have a MF Rollei SLR, which I normally use), usually with Ilford developers. I have used kodak film but for the moment Ilford film is cheaper and for me cost tends to out trump everything else (there are a couple of films with the Kentmere label which are quite cheap), but I thought I ought to have at least one known in the project, so chose the FP4 as the reference point.
I’m now transitioning from the ‘can I get them to work and how’ stage to the ‘proper photography’ stage – I’m a little more accustomed to using them.
Choice of subject is an interesting debate I will be having with myself……….
Well, good luck with the project and I look forward to seeing the results!
As much as I LOVE grain, that was just a bit too much! 😉
I returned to film about 1 1/2 years ago, and the learning curve is stiff, and still ongoing, and I also have difficulties with finding the “right” film/developer combo. Just getting to have the right feeling for Tri-x, but then the sad news from Kodak the other day….
So I think I’m going for Ilford instead, but I haven’t yet evaluated there films enough. Pan F is gorgeous, I have recently scanned a couple of rolls and I’m very satisfied with them. Not sure yet about the difference of HP5+ and Delta 400, do you have experience of them?
“back in the days” I used Ilford very much, and in my darkroom I used solely Ilford products, and was very satisfied with them. Now I’ kinda stuck with wanting to try everything….. Silly me….. 😉 but here in Sweden it is not easy to find variety of developers, and sadly Ilford chems is hard to find, so if you have some tips for me of a combo film/developer I would be very greatful. (Right now I love the combo Tmax 100/Tmax developer, think it gives me just beautiful contrast, beautiful grain and those wonderful rich blacks.)
Looking forward to follow your journey here!
Marie
Yes, it seems sad news about Kodak.
I love grain too, but within certain limits!
I don’t have enough experience to give you much in the way of guidance/thoughts to be honest. Any film work that I do tends to be sporadic , so I haven’t built up the wealth of experience I would like.
I don’t think I’ve ever used Delta 400, certainly not enough to judge how it differs to HP5 – though I have to say that I’m not confident that any differences I see between films is really down to the film or some mess-up I’ve made in processing!
If you’re into forums and haven’t heard of it before, can I recommend this one – http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/fadu_front_page.php.
I haven’t been there for some time but the wealth of expertise of the contributors is considerable, and the guy who runs it didn’t tolerate any digital except some contributions on scanning – though just around the process, not photoshop.
Thank you, I will check that up. Sounds a bit like APUG.
No, it is hard to tell about films, there is so many different factors involved, so I guess I just test them my way.
Thanks anyway!
Marie