HP5+ Processing and EI

[McAir]

Okay, I am returning to 4x5 after quite a few years. I have a trip planned next week and will be shooting Illford HP5+. I shoot landscapes only. I want to make sure I have good detail in the shadows without blocking up the highlights. My thought was this: Either rate the film at 320 and develop normal; or shoot at 250 and reduce development time (not sure how much). Anyway, I hope to get some advice. Any thoughts appreciated.

[Kiwi7475]

Okay, I am returning to 4x5 after quite a few years. I have a trip planned next week and will be shooting Illford HP5+. I shoot landscapes only. I want to make sure I have good detail in the shadows without blocking up the highlights. My thought was this: Either rate the film at 320 and develop normal; or shoot at 250 and reduce development time (not sure how much). Anyway, I hope to get some advice. Any thoughts appreciated.

That’s not what I would do… your equivalent exposure index is, well, yours. You can do controlled tests such as those described in the book “Beyond the zone system” or others, to extract it based on how you meter and develop, or just shoot at box speed, but shooting at arbitrary lower ratings will not necessarily help to get better negatives…. and definitely doesn’t help in optimizing your results….

[BrianShaw]

Why not try exposing with box rating and develop in accordance with Ilford recommendations first.... and change from there if it doesn't meet your expectations? That might better give you a baseline from which to compare.

BTW, Kingsville... as in TX? I spent some quality time at Beeville and Kingsville during a very exciting phase of life. :)

[Michael R]

Okay, I am returning to 4x5 after quite a few years. I have a trip planned next week and will be shooting Illford HP5+. I shoot landscapes only. I want to make sure I have good detail in the shadows without blocking up the highlights. My thought was this: Either rate the film at 320 and develop normal; or shoot at 250 and reduce development time (not sure how much). Anyway, I hope to get some advice. Any thoughts appreciated.

EI on its own doesn’t mean much without knowing how you meter etc. that said, you can’t really go wrong giving a little extra exposure on average for safety, so you are fine rating the film at anything say 200 and higher. Develop normally. Reducing development time (ie contrast) is a separate thing from EI and won’t “improve” or compensate for anything.

[Drew Wiley]

HP5 has a somewhat long toe to the characteristic curve, so I find that under moderate contrast situation, box speed 400 exposure and normal dev works just fine; but with high contrast situations, you might want to change strategy and boost shadow exposure more, and develop a couple minutes less. But I have no idea of what developer you have in mind. I use PMK pyro, and really have a different tack for high contrast, which involves supplementary unsharp masking instead of "minus" development. But as others have already recommended, you should first experiment to determine your own personal boundaries with this film, in relation to your own metering style.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always shoot this film at EI 160-400, depending on subject brightness range (EI 250 for normal). It's toe is somewhere between Tri-X and TMY... It responds wonderfully to Xtol 1+1, or replenished Xtol. My favourite developer is Pyrocat-HD. Reciprocity isn't too bad, either. I find Ilford's chart to be a little over the top, so I use my own. The only thing I don't like about HP5 is that it builds up too much B+F density with extended development. Using a high contrast develop such as D-19 (I like it diluted to 1+3), skirts around this issue somewhat.

[Corran]

Personally I use an EI of 250, process in HC-110 dil. H (1:63) for 10 minutes at 68F.

[paulbarden]

First of all, ultimately I believe that its in your best interest to make a few exposures and vary the exposure + processing and evaluate the results to determine what works best for your tastes. We all do things differently to achieve the specific results we want, and film + developer technique has a large effect on the result.

But I do have one suggestion, since you're specifically asking about HP5: I have found that for my tastes, HP5 lacks separation of values in the upper tones. I find it renders the light values a bit flat, with poor tonal separation. But there's a developer that is known for delivering a better tonal range on HP5 and is capable of rendering better separation of higher values, and that's FA-1027 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA9IHtg_T6AhX4LzQIHfp6BmYQFnoECBcQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.argentix.ca%2Fspecs%2F591.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ErxadoPufQXY95S4759xR), available from Photographers Formulary.

"FA-1027 produces a very fine negative with Ilford HP-5 film, for example. There is a very distinct high value separation in Zones VI and above. In Zones V and below, there is just as impressive a separation, without the dumping of those values into murky darkness; as is the case with the Tri-X/HC-110 effect. The chemist responsible for the FA-1027 formula tells me that 2 restrainers, Potassium Bromide and Benzatriazole are responsible for this phenomenon; that one affects the upper end of the film curve (high values) and the other affects the low end (low values)."

I've used FA-1027 a lot in the past 2 years and I find that the statements about its performance are accurate and truthful. I have rarely liked images I've made on HP5, no matter what the choice of developer: I've always found the results lack "sparkle" compared to - for example - Delta 100. (You can view two photos I made to compare the two films here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarden/albums/72157719000985102) The differences are subtle, but what I'm describing should be perceptible)

FA-1027 improves the results I've gotten on all films, not just HP5, but its definitely made my HP5 negatives better. (for MY tastes - YMMV) So you might want to consider trying this combination for yourself. I've found that FA-1027 tends to give a bit of a speed boost to films: I'm able to expose HP5 at 250 to get what I want, instead of 160ASA. Also worth noting is that FA-1027 is a liquid concentrate, and it lasts for at least a year after opening the bottle. At the 1:14 dilution, its very economical.

[John Layton]

Years ago...I also purchased a bunch of untried film for "a trip that leaves next week," (Zion Nat. Park to hook up with Per Volquarz and a bunch of other folks) and boy, did I end up regretting this! It was Nov. 2004, and the "new" (to me) film was Bergger 200 - later processed in PMK to disastrous results (horribly clipped highlights on VC paper). Thing is...I'd had such great results using FP4 with PMK - and why, oh why, I'd decided to try something new for this trip is beyond me.

My advice - for going on a photo-trip? Either stick with what you know, or give yourself at least a month to evaluate something "new" to make sure it will work for you!

[Drew Wiley]

Interesting ... Bergger 200 & PMK was the finest combination I've ever encountered for 8x10 Southwest work; but it is a verrrry different animal than FP4, and even more than HP5. But yeah, one never want to be a guinea pig with an unfamiliar film on a significant outing. Do your experimentation homework first. Better to deal with the Devil you know than the Devil you don't.

[Ulophot]

McAir, I would like my answer to stick to the statement in your post. Since you're going next week and shooting HP5, you may have little available time for testing, and, as hinted in the comments above, there are more than a few variables -- and we haven't even started with shutters and meters.

Welcome back to LF photography. I returned about four years ago and chose HP5, which was already an old friend, but I switched developer and had to start my testing again.

Black and white, as you may well know, is rather forgiving, and HP5 is a very forgiving B&W film. Naturally, one wants to fine-tune exposure and development, but that's not likely to happen by next week in your case.

Unless your meter or metering, and/or shutter(s) are way out-of whack, I would side with those suggesting either box speed or a stop more exposure (EI 200) for subjects of relatively normal brightness range and normal development. For subjects of low contrast, that will do, but you can also stick to 400 to let the low values fall as they may and give an extra 10-15% development. If you encounter situations of very high brightness range, 200 and perhaps 15% less development will get you in the proverbial ball park. HP5 will offer you elbow room when you go to print; highlights are not likely to block up easily. Enjoy your trip and enjoy your photography. Just take good notes. Perhaps you'll return with some images to share with us!

Have a good time! You fine tune later.

[McAir]

First of all, ultimately I believe that its in your best interest to make a few exposures and vary the exposure + processing and evaluate the results to determine what works best for your tastes. We all do things differently to achieve the specific results we want, and film + developer technique has a large effect on the result.

But I do have one suggestion, since you're specifically asking about HP5: I have found that for my tastes, HP5 lacks separation of values in the upper tones. I find it renders the light values a bit flat, with poor tonal separation. But there's a developer that is known for delivering a better tonal range on HP5 and is capable of rendering better separation of higher values, and that's FA-1027 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA9IHtg_T6AhX4LzQIHfp6BmYQFnoECBcQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.argentix.ca%2Fspecs%2F591.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ErxadoPufQXY95S4759xR), available from Photographers Formulary.

"FA-1027 produces a very fine negative with Ilford HP-5 film, for example. There is a very distinct high value separation in Zones VI and above. In Zones V and below, there is just as impressive a separation, without the dumping of those values into murky darkness; as is the case with the Tri-X/HC-110 effect. The chemist responsible for the FA-1027 formula tells me that 2 restrainers, Potassium Bromide and Benzatriazole are responsible for this phenomenon; that one affects the upper end of the film curve (high values) and the other affects the low end (low values)."

I've used FA-1027 a lot in the past 2 years and I find that the statements about its performance are accurate and truthful. I have rarely liked images I've made on HP5, no matter what the choice of developer: I've always found the results lack "sparkle" compared to - for example - Delta 100. (You can view two photos I made to compare the two films here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarden/albums/72157719000985102) The differences are subtle, but what I'm describing should be perceptible)

FA-1027 improves the results I've gotten on all films, not just HP5, but its definitely made my HP5 negatives better. (for MY tastes - YMMV) So you might want to consider trying this combination for yourself. I've found that FA-1027 tends to give a bit of a speed boost to films: I'm able to expose HP5 at 250 to get what I want, instead of 160ASA. Also worth noting is that FA-1027 is a liquid concentrate, and it lasts for at least a year after opening the bottle. At the 1:14 dilution, its very economical.

Thank you for your comments. I can see the subtle difference in the images you mentioned. Makes me interested in trying the Delta 100 and making some comparisons. FA-1027 is also a consideration. Thanks again

[otto.f]

This is interesting before you dive into HP5+ : https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/still-playing-with-filters.195160/

[Drew Wiley]

Paul, that upper and midtone tonality problem you describe mystifies me; doesn't resemble any HP5 I know. In any event, a number of people including myself learned long ago that HP5 is happy in staining pyro formulas like a duck in water. Delta 100 is a different animal completely, but worthy of trying in its own right. I think of Delta as more the poor man's TMax, that is, if you boost the shadows further up onto the straight line using 50 as your speed instead of 100. Very different fine grain structure versus way faster HP5 with its large "watercolor grain" effect, at least in pyro. Frankly, I don't like shooting HP5 in any format smaller than 8x10 for that reason. But around 2X to 3X magnification in print, it can deliver some amazing results.

The double restrainer effect mentioned in relation to FA-1027 obviously comes with an inherent speed penalty. Even 250 versus 164 sounds awfully slow to me, though I don't know the specific metering style involved. The benzotriazole behaves as a toe cutter; no secret there.

[Michael R]

Drew, just for fun, what is this “watercolour grain” you always mention when talking about HP5+ developed in PMK? Is it like you use the wet emulsion as a support for watercolour painting or washes? Is it cold or hot pressed first? What’s your favourite brand of brushes?


Paul, that upper and midtone tonality problem you describe mystifies me; doesn't resemble any HP5 I know. In any event, a number of people including myself learned long ago that HP5 is happy in staining pyro formulas like a duck in water. Delta 100 is a different animal completely, but worthy of trying in its own right. I think of Delta as more the poor man's TMax, that is, if you boost the shadows further up onto the straight line using 50 as your speed instead of 100. Very different fine grain structure versus way faster HP5 with its large "watercolor grain" effect, at least in pyro. Frankly, I don't like shooting HP5 in any format smaller than 8x10 for that reason. But around 2X to 3X magnification in print, it can deliver some amazing results.

The double restrainer effect mentioned in relation to FA-1027 obviously comes with an inherent speed penalty. Even 250 versus 164 sounds awfully slow to me, though I don't know the specific metering style involved. The benzotriazole behaves as a toe cutter; no secret there.

[Drew Wiley]

It works well with duct tape, Michael, that is, to wrap over the mouths of certain people to keep them from disturbing the calm of my developing session. There are a few of my old watercolor brushes in that room, not only for print spotting use, but for applying bleaches like Farmer's reducer. Ever been bound and selectively bleached yet?

[Michael R]

LOL ok, ok I’ll stop poking the ibex on this one.


It works well with duct tape, Michael, that is, to wrap over the mouths of certain people to keep them from disturbing the calm of my developing session. There are a few of my old watercolor brushes in that room, not only for print spotting use, but for applying bleaches like Farmer's reducer. Ever been bound and selectively bleached yet?

[Roberto Nania]

Okay, I am returning to 4x5 after quite a few years. I have a trip planned next week and will be shooting Illford HP5+. I shoot landscapes only. I want to make sure I have good detail in the shadows without blocking up the highlights. My thought was this: Either rate the film at 320 and develop normal; or shoot at 250 and reduce development time (not sure how much). Anyway, I hope to get some advice. Any thoughts appreciated.

Hi,
I like and I use HP5 but it lacks contrast in my opinion which can be good or bad, depending on your taste.
I love instead FP4 which has a better contrast and handle the high lights better, with a very pleasant vibe, without any valuable loss in the shadows.
I develop both in HC110 form 1+31 to 1+47 depending if it is winter or summer (I can't control completely my water temperature). D76 (1+1) works better but it is now too expensive.
Since you want to do landscape, I'd go with the FP4 with no doubts (box speed or a touch lower if the scene has high contrast).
If you want to go with HP5 anyhow, I then suggest to stay at box speed, if you expose it any lower than 400 I found it too dull form my tastes. Sometimes I use it at 500 and give like +10% of the developing times.

[Drew Wiley]

Recognizing the differences between the characteristic curves of these films, and how those in turn are affected by specific exposure and development, is far more valuable than anecdotal observations. I can take ANY black and white film currently on the market and make compelling landscape photos. It's just a matter of which shoe fits the foot best, because lighting itself is not a constant, and there are many other potential variables, including individual taste.

Besides its finer grain and lower speed, FP4 has less of a toe and more long straight line than HP5, and is indeed likely to be more cooperative in high contrast scenes, but not to the extent of films with still longer linearity down into the toe like TMY and TMX. Then we might narrow down our selection based on format availability, cost, or speed (it is often windy around here). No sense going on and on. I've shot quite a number of films in 4x5 and 8x10 over the years, and have gotten superb shots outdoors with every one of them; but of course, I do have my own favorite and good reasons for them. And can't carry around a big selection all at the same time. So we look for versatility in a film appropriate to the lighting and contrast scenarios we are most likely to encounter, as well as that "look" we might especially like, which differs from one person to another. But there is no "best" choice. It all depends.

It can take a fair amount of time and experimentation to truly understand the personality and potential of any given film. But in terms of a middle of the road product which is relatively easy to learn and quite versatile, it would be hard to beat FP4. Even though it hasn't been my most-used film for a long time, I still always keep sheets of it on hand.

[Bernice Loui]

Been using HP5 for decades, it is FAR from being "low contrast"... it is much more a matter of how any B&W film is used.. effective EI used, contrast ratio in the image area to be recorded on film, film size, developer used and development process, how the film negative will be used (wet darkroom print, scan digital print), print goals and much more..

There are no absolutes with B&W, simply the image maker's creative goals due to the very nature of monochrome images..
All films or digital or image process remain mere tool and means to an end.


Bernice

[paulbarden]

Hi,
I like and I use HP5 but it lacks contrast in my opinion which can be good or bad, depending on your taste.
I love instead FP4 which has a better contrast and handle the high lights better, with a very pleasant vibe, without any valuable loss in the shadows.

I gave up using HP5 a few years ago (though I still have some left, getting staler by the minute) because I found that when compared to FP4+, it looked "flat" in the higher values: poor separation of details in the near-whites. Its a great film for many applications, but for me it lacked "sparkle" in the high values, where a lot of texture information is conveyed. I believe that it is this characteristic, however, that makes HP5 an excellent portrait film.

[Michael Kadillak]

I gave up using HP5 a few years ago (though I still have some left, getting staler by the minute) because I found that when compared to FP4+, it looked "flat" in the higher values: poor separation of details in the near-whites. Its a great film for many applications, but for me it lacked "sparkle" in the high values, where a lot of texture information is conveyed. I believe that it is this characteristic, however, that makes HP5 an excellent portrait film.

Completely agree with Roberto and Paul. I have seen marvelous images from HP5 so I know it is fully capable of excellent results. But one has to ensure you stay on its wheelhouse or you could be disappointed. Moving too far up the film curve (whether intentional or unintentional) for me caused a host of aesthetic and logistical issues I was not willing to work through as it induced two things I strive to stay away from. One of these is inefficiency in my darkroom processes and the other is having to spend time trying in the field to strategize around these limitations. With T Max 400 (the old version) I can photograph literally anything I choose with zero limitations because it can handle far more than I need from it (ie. straight line up film curve to the moon). I gave away a box of 11x14 HP5 (less two sheets) and tossed out the other HP5 I had in my freezer and moved on to Delta 100 and FP4+ to continue my desire to support Ilford.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - I too moved along to TMY400 as the most direct answer to high contrast issues. I've posted before how I tamed HP5 in such situations, not by beating the life and sparkle out of it using heavy-handed compression or minus development, but by deliberately overdeveloping it for sake of optimal midtone and highlight tonal separation, and then going back and registering a suitable contrast mask, in effect, having my cake and eating it too. Additional to that was the highlight control afforded by PMK staining developer, along with, nowadays at least, excellent VC papers, and the end result can be stunning tonality-wise. But I fully realize that the extra masking step might not be appropriate for everyone. So the longer inherent scale of TMY is a wise investment; or if one cannot afford that particular film, they could gamble with the dicey quality control and lower speed of Foma/Arista 200, with its own exceptionally long straight line.

But neither the original recipe Tmax 400 nor Col. Sanders extra-crispy current version of it had as much scale of Berrger 200 or good ole Super-XX. I sure miss those options, at least in 8x10 format (too grainy for me in 4X5; and so is HP5). In smaller roll-film formats, TMX100 is my current answer, with long-scale Efke 25 now gone.

[Vaughn]

Drew -- any experience with HP5+ in normal to medium-high contrast situations and getting more out of it...say a DR of 2.8, give or take a couple tenths...not where a lot of people hang out. Certainly not for silver gelatin printing (or for most printing needs for that matter). I like marching those mid-tones and higher values forward and getting them to spread out a bit.

So far, HP5+ just doesn't want to get up there easily for me, even with the stain giving a contrast boost for Alt processes. I have a bunch of 11x14 that I might want to use eventually if I ever go thru my FP4+. I just need to work with it more...see how it records an 8 to nine stop SBR and what I can do with it afterwards to boost it some.

Having fun with Kodak Copy Film, too, but that film has ideas of its own about how high the highlights ought to go...and when to start taking off. Neat stuff! Can be wonderful for kicking in that contrast from low contrast situation...though not necessarily 'realistically'.

[paulbarden]

I should add that my comments are to be viewed in context of the fact that I am now working almost exclusively on making negatives for Salted Paper printmaking, to which FP4+ is ideally suited. HP5+ simply has too much base density to be ideal for that purpose. Butr the last time I did use HP5+ (in 8x10 format) it was developed in PMK and exposing at 125 ASA, it delivered a very nice negative - better than 95% of the work I had done on HP5+ prior. But it still wasn't suitable for POP printing. For that I will rely on FP4+ and Delta 100, which is also delivering excellent negs for what I'm doing.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael - I too moved along to TMY400 as the most direct answer to high contrast issues. I've posted before how I tamed HP5 in such situations, not by beating the life and sparkle out of it using heavy-handed compression or minus development, but by deliberately overdeveloping it for sake of optimal midtone and highlight tonal separation, and then going back and registering a suitable contrast mask, in effect, having my cake and eating it too. Additional to that was the highlight control afforded by PMK staining developer, along with, nowadays at least, excellent VC papers, and the end result can be stunning tonality-wise. But I fully realize that the extra masking step might not be appropriate for everyone. So the longer inherent scale of TMY is a wise investment; or if one cannot afford that particular film, they could gamble with the dicey quality control and lower speed of Foma/Arista 200, with its own exceptionally long straight line.

But neither the original recipe Tmax 400 nor Col. Sanders extra-crispy current version of it had as much scale of Berrger 200 or good ole Super-XX. I sure miss those options, at least in 8x10 format (too grainy for me in 4X5; and so is HP5). In smaller roll-film formats, TMX100 is my current answer, with long-scale Efke 25 now gone.

Yes indeed. My personal choice in minimizing my time in the darkroom involves one major step - avoiding any and all masking iterations. Those of you that became comfortable with this process in the world of color materials I tip my hat to you. Myself I would rather dominate my photographic commitments to the wilds outdoors. Agree with you on Foma 200 (long scale and cross your fingers on QC) and the Efke 25 (have a stash in 11x14 that because of its low ASA should last a long time).

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - there does seem to be some fly-fishing tension controlling the highlights in HP5 while at the same time boosting negative density. Other than my salvage method involving masking, I simply learned to avoid high-contrast scenes when shooting HP5. I found TMY far more versatile in that respect. But back when I was still shooting a lot of HP5 in 8x10, I opted for Bergger 200 instead for the long-scale images. But even it wouldn't accept serious "plus" development to the degree of either old Super-XX or current TMY, even TMX.

Delta 100 expands well, and has been mentioned on this thread. It's closer to TMY than TMX grain size, but, unlike the two TMax sheet products, has a fair amount of toe to it, and an especially slick surface which gives me Newton Ring issues. I don't find it an acceptable substitute for mountain photography, where extreme contrast abounds, just like in the redwoods once the sun is fully out.

Given present film cost, I'm pretty much relying on whatever sheet film is stockpiled in my freezer, which fortunately contains a fair amount of both TMax emulsions, along with certain others, but not at this time any HP5. It's also nice how the TMax products apply to my personal usage clear down not only to 120 roll film, but even 35mm. And in 120, the extra expense over other films is negligible. I'm not a machine-gunner. One film I am running low on but will undoubtedly restock is FP4. It can handle a decent development boost, but can't dig way down into the shadows to the same extent as TMax, and is a bit too slow for windy days.

I was under the general impression that it can be difficult retaining upper highlight tonal distinctions in carbon printing. Dye transfer printing has that difficulty too.

[paulbarden]

As of the last Kodak price hike, TMY is no longer within my budget (well, I may buy an occasional roll of 120, but no more sheet film TMY). Delta 100 barely is.

[Drew Wiley]

Pretty stunning either way, either brand. But better than no film at all. I hope my stash of 8x10, especially color, handles my needs until I'm 80. After that it might starts showing signs of expiration, or I certainly might too, at least in terms of lugging around 8x10 gear any longer. But it is comforting to know what 8x10 I am shooting cost me about a fourth as much as the going rate today. And I dilute that expense itself quite a bit by resorting to 120 roll film far more often than before. That whole big freezer I stash it in cost less than the typical 10-sheet box of 8x10 color Kodak today.

But what is really killing me is the staggering price hike in museum board and plexiglass. Glad I'm not as ambitious as when I was younger.

[Michael R]

But what is really killing me is the staggering price hike in museum board and plexiglass

Well you know, chip shortage.

[Vaughn]

...

I was under the general impression that it can be difficult retaining upper highlight tonal distinctions in carbon printing. Dye transfer printing has that difficulty too.

The way I work, those highlights are much easier to keep. That was accidental...I was exploring ways to increase the raised relief and it turned out the variables that favor that also favor keeping the subtle high-lights. The highlights are a very thin layer of gelatin -- the pigment does not have significant distance to go to migrate out of the pigment. And slightly alkaline water softens the gelatin even more and allows more pigment to leave.

I work at minimum pigment levels, high DR negatives and strong sensitizer. This results in highlights made of a thicker layer of gelatin which retains the pigment better. I print so that the areas I want detail in the highlights just have a touch of texture...and they dry down wonderfully with delicate information in them. When it works...:cool:

[Vaughn]

Well you know, chip shortage.

Come here...my town has a closed down wood-fired power plant with a pile of chips just waiting...

A bit soggy...

[Michael Kadillak]

As of the last Kodak price hike, TMY is no longer within my budget (well, I may buy an occasional roll of 120, but no more sheet film TMY). Delta 100 barely is.

My backup plan when my stockpile of TMY (old formula) runs out is FP4+ in a RAD pyrocat development process which completely changes its film curve response. You can get FP4+ to do things it would not think possible + and - in a conventional film development regiment. Plus this film has considerable latitude and still performs.

[Drew Wiley]

That sounds interesting. But I still don't quite understand your chip shortage comment either. There might be cheaper ways to manufacture museum board than using linen fiber, via substitutes for that; but none of my own board smells like cow chip derived quite yet. Maybe buffalo chips would be considered more the eco or organic option these days. But both contain plenty of fiber.

[McAir]

Well, some of my initial return to 4x5 have been somewhat encouraging. I shot HP5 rated at 320 and reduced development by about 10% (~8min), Illford DD-X 1:4. Still refining my metering style using my Zone VI modified Pentax spot meter. Negatives were scanned using the Epson 850 flatbed. I was pleasantly surprised of the quality of scans and after post processing in Lightroom and PS, I feel the results were satisfactory, at least at this early juncture. Would love to hear your thoughts.
232520 232521 232522

[John Layton]

Very interesting discussion!

My take? That there is an extent to which any film and developer combo, when approached and utilized methodically, can be made to perform as wanted and needed.

But then again, maybe there is also an extent to which any film and developer combo, when approached and utilized methodically, can gradually (like the "clueless frog in the slowly heated until boiling water" experiment) alter how we perceive and react to (and express) what we are seeing, ultimately altering those "wants and needs." Make sense?

(hmmm...maybe will eventually double-post this on the presently-adjacent "which developer?" thread)

[Michael R]

Looks like the negatives are good enough. From there, it’s all in your scanning/editing skill. Just like in the darkroom where print quality is heavily dependent on what you do under the enlarger/lightbulb. As long as the negative contains all the basic information you need (which is really just giving enough exposure to get whatever detail you want in the darkest areas), virtually everything is what you do with your scanning, Lightroom, Photoshop etc.


Well, some of my initial return to 4x5 have been somewhat encouraging. I shot HP5 rated at 320 and reduced development by about 10% (~8min), Illford DD-X 1:4. Still refining my metering style using my Zone VI modified Pentax spot meter. Negatives were scanned using the Epson 850 flatbed. I was pleasantly surprised of the quality of scans and after post processing in Lightroom and PS, I feel the results were satisfactory, at least at this early juncture. Would love to hear your thoughts.
232520 232521 232522

[Ulophot]

McAir, since you asked...

You don't need my comment that you have a strong eye for composition, and the "prints" are striking indeed.

I am particularly drawn to your first image. The other two bother me a bit -- just my taste -- because the sharpness and contrast seem to suck the air, the atmosphere, out of the deeper space. Everything is so sharply defined and contrasty that I feel that physical reality has withdrawn.

[Doremus Scudder]

Beautiful images, McAir! Unlike Philip, I like the sharpness (sorry Philip...). Of course, small images on a computer screen aren't real prints, but these look great on my monitor.


Doremus