- This topic is empty.
Homer on HP5
-
Not really sure where else to post this??
Just got my second ever roll of HP5 developed and scanned… Contrast wise the results were much better than the C41 stuff I used last time. Courteousy of a very kind person, I now have two other rolls (XPAN and TRI-X) to play with, which I’ll probably get to when I’m over in the states.
For now, here’s a shot of my miserable, abused doggie.. Homer.
Good doggie.
Nice film – judging by this shot, never tried it, it looks quite similar to neopan. What speed is this film, 1600? Is the crop from a landscape or portrait aspect?
The shallow DOF is great with his super-sharp eyes. Give him a pat on the head for me.Really like this. Lovely looking dog, super facial expression, exposure, dof, contrast etc really nice. If i was to be picky the only thing i might change is that you cropped out his toy (think thats what it is) at the bottom center (leave it all in or take it out, i presume though if you took it out Homer would not have stood still for you) but this might be a personal thing.
I like the grain also its something you don’t see much of on this site as most people shot digital here
Martin
Believe it or not, this is only ISO 400 :shock:
When I got my first roll of HP5 developed I was blown away by the size of the grain and it made me laugh a little about the arguments that people get into over noise in digital images at high ISO. Even ISO 1600 on my D2X is cleaner than this. But that said, I like the grain. It doesn’t suit every style shot, but for some I have found that it really adds to the atmosphere. What’s also interesting is the different amount of noise between FP5 ISO400 and the C41 film also at ISO400.
Anyway.. roll on the XPAN film next :)
ciaran wrote:
Believe it or not, this is only ISO 400 :shock:
When I got my first roll of HP5 developed I was blown away by the size of the grain and it made me laugh a little about the arguments that people get into over noise in digital images at high ISO
There really isn’t a substitute for doing your own developing if you want to control the look of your film-
And as I have already mentioned,
your choice of scanner will affect the way the grain reproduces.If this were to be printed optically,
using a diffuse or semi diffuse enlarger would help minimize the appearance of grain.HP5 is a high speed film,
and there is an argument that it should be rated slower anyway-
though I never used it much myself;
the last 35mm b+w 400 I used was T-Max 400 with tabular grain-
or the old Agfapan 400For really fine grain I used Pan-F,
though the 50 asa necessitated the use of a tripod for most shots.
Panatomic-x also produced nice results. (at 32 asa)I’d quite like to try Adox Bluefire http://www.adox.net/Products.htm
which looks like it could give good results at medium speeds-Failing that, to minimize grain, you could try to reduce the amount you need to enlarge the original-
a 10″x8″ print from 35mm is an 8x enlargement,
from a 4″x5″ original, it only has to be enlarged to double the size-Granularity is a subjective quality,
if it is seen to be a problem,
it can be controlled-However, its usually easier to maximize grain than minimize it-
j
jb7 wrote:
ciaran wrote:
Believe it or not, this is only ISO 400 :shock:
When I got my first roll of HP5 developed I was blown away by the size of the grain and it made me laugh a little about the arguments that people get into over noise in digital images at high ISO
There really isn’t a substitute for doing your own developing if you want to control the look of your film-
And as I have already mentioned,
your choice of scanner will affect the way the grain reproduces.Yeah I agree and this is really what will stop me shooting a lot of film. I’m just not interested/willing/motivated into buying all the euipment, chemicals, scanners etc in order to do it myself. I’d rather buy a new lens :)
Lovely shot.
I’ve found C41 B&W to be nice and contrasty. XP2 is the only one I’ve tried but it seems pretty punchy to me. The grain is quite fine too. Here’s a few I’ve tagged with XP2 if you’re interested… http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmorton/tags/xp2/
Most of them were shot in good sunlight at rated speed 400. If it’s dull, you can shoot it at 200 and process normally.
Aimee wrote:
ISO 400!!!
I know.. hard to believe isn’t it?
mort wrote:
Lovely shot.
I’ve found C41 B&W to be nice and contrasty. XP2 is the only one I’ve tried but it seems pretty punchy to me. The grain is quite fine too. Here’s a few I’ve tagged with XP2 if you’re interested… http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmorton/tags/xp2/
Most of them were shot in good sunlight at rated speed 400. If it’s dull, you can shoot it at 200 and process normally.
Nice shots Mort.. as for shooting above/below the rating, I think I’ll play it safe and boring for a while. I’m still getting used to this lark, so don’t want to add yet another variable to the flow.
Know what you mean. I’m new to the film lark too but I’m like a kid in a candy store :wink:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
