Ilford hp5 is finer grain possible?
Old 01-24-2018   #1
jbrubaker
Registered User
 
jbrubaker's Avatar
 
jbrubaker is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 108
Ilford hp5 is finer grain possible?

I just developed a roll of hp5+ using d76 1:1 as I used to do years ago for tri-x. I am surprised at how grainy the negs are - more than I remembered from a few years back when I shot film. Is there a way to use Ilford hp5 and get a more moderate grain? thanks, john.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #2
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Properly exposed at 400 and developed in D76 1+1 @20C, HP5+ is not particularly grainy. It depends on what you call "grainy".

Using Perceptol and exposing at 200 will reduce grain, but quite marginally, at the cost of one f-stop lost and very low contrast.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #3
ACullen
Registered User
 
ACullen is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 155
Perceptol does clearly reduce the grain in my experience but with some lack of sharpness. The flip side of lowered contrast and lowered grain is a beautiful tonal range.

I've tried Ilfosol 3 with HP5 rated at 400 and really liked the overall result. It's now my first choice for HP5 and Delta 100 at box speed. Pushing by one stop gives good results with marginal increase in grain. Pushing two stops when using Ilfosol 3 is unwise. Thin negs result with massive loss in shadow detail.

HP5 in DDX works well but I tend to reserve this for it rated at 800 and above (mainly 1600). DDX doesn't have the same acuity that I like about my results with Ilfosol 3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #4
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,982
At box speed, HP5+ in HC-110 is like 'buttah.' Dilution B works although a lot of folks opt for Dilution H for longer dev time.
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #5
kevin_v
Registered User
 
kevin_v's Avatar
 
kevin_v is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 71
Jumping off of Keith's comment, I just scanned a roll that I developed in HC-110 Dil H, and I'm quite happy with the results, specifically w.r.t. grain.




The roll was exposed at ISO 400, and developing was at 20C for 11 min w/ inversions every 1.5 min.
__________________
Kevin Viratyosin
@viratyosin on Instagram

Last edited by kevin_v : 01-24-2018 at 14:34. Reason: image embedding
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #6
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
At box speed, HP5+ in HC-110 is like 'buttah.' Dilution B works although a lot of folks opt for Dilution H for longer dev time.
I don't use dilution H but do love B with HP5 at box speed. I wet print with an Ilford MG head which is a diffusion source and I'm really happy with tonality and minimal grain. 8x12 prints don't show any noticeable grain.

To get the best results, as always it's important to expose and develop properly. Bad exposures and processing give bad results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #7
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Ive made this comment several times that film wasn't designed to scan. Film is dedigned to wet print so results are going to look different if scanned. Most consumer scanners like Plustek, Epson, Nikon use a hard LED light source that exagerate grain where as pro scanners like Imacon, creo Kodak eversmart, Fuji Finescan such as the Lanovia Quattro all have cold cathode lights that soften grain.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #8
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
FWIW, I've found HP5+ to be astonishingly low grain in Caffenol-C-H(RS). Being a homebrew developer it may not be something you're interested in, but it can work well with this film. I can post samples if you like.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #9
Perks
Registered User
 
Perks is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
I switched from D-76 to Xtol and see noticeably less grain.
I scan with a plustek.
There's a small increase in speed also. I shoot at 400 and get better shadow detail.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #10
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perks View Post
I switched from D-76 to Xtol and see noticeably less grain.
I scan with a plustek.
There's a small increase in speed also. I shoot at 400 and get better shadow detail.
I think the least amount of grain I've ever had with any film has been with Xtol. Amazing stuff!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #11
jbrubaker
Registered User
 
jbrubaker's Avatar
 
jbrubaker is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 108
Thanks for all the replies. Since I do have a bottle of HC110, I will try that next. I have used Xtol in the past with good results, but only with tri-x. Caffenol sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about consistancy with home mixed developers. regards, john.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2018   #12
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 572
You could shoot Delta 400, TMAX 400 or C41 process Ilford XP2 Super for extremely fine grained 400 speed films.

As another commenter noted, most scanners accentuate the grain. What would be a very fine grained image in the darkroom is much grainier in a scan.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #13
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,265
I really like Agfa Studionol for HP5+ at box speed. Now available as R09 Spezial from Compard. DD-X also seems to give less pronounced grain, and +1 on HC-110b.

These are my three developers of choice for HP5+ in no particular order.

I only wet print film however, so do not see grain in the same fashion.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #14
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,040
Not only developer influences the grain, the lens does too, believe it or not. I've found out that when scanning Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 negatives (Tmax400) you'll get a finer grain than when scanning Summicron 50mm f/2 negatives on the same film.

However, on wet prints (made with a Focomat IIc) there is no such difference visible.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #15
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Ive made this comment several times that film wasn't designed to scan. Film is dedigned to wet print so results are going to look different if scanned. Most consumer scanners like Plustek, Epson, Nikon use a hard LED light source that exagerate grain where as pro scanners like Imacon, creo Kodak eversmart, Fuji Finescan such as the Lanovia Quattro all have cold cathode lights that soften grain.
Right on!
Take any negative and print in darkroom.
Hardly any grain! Some "grain" is slight reticulation,
if chemicals and was water not same temperature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #16
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin_v View Post
Jumping off of Keith's comment, I just scanned a roll that I developed in HC-110 Dil H, and I'm quite happy with the results, specifically w.r.t. grain.




The roll was exposed at ISO 400, and developing was at 20C for 11 min w/ inversions every 1.5 min.
Very nice results, and thanks for the dev time tip. HC 110 dil. h is one of my two go-to developers (the other is Diafine). Will try it with some HP5 soon.
__________________
Steve

FS: Zeiss-ZM Planar 50 plus hood, Pentax MX, Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.0 SLII in Pentax K-mount, Takumar 100/2.8 and 35/3.5 lenses: See my ads in Classifieds

M3, M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS

My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #17
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,484
HP5 from 250 to 400 with HC 110h is a great combo. Lots of detail and smooth contrast, but the grain is small.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #18
Ccoppola82
Registered User
 
Ccoppola82 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 289
I prefer a longer tonal range vs "fine grain". Barry Thorntons book "edge of darkness" is a great read and demonstrates well how grain = perceived sharpness. In digital terms I would look at what sharpness or clarity sliders do.....they increase "digital grain". If you're shooting hp5 anywhere from 200-800 you should get some nice grain and if developed in a developer that gives a full tonal range, you will have plenty of options to increase your contrast in digital or wet print.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2018   #19
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
 
drewbarb's Avatar
 
drewbarb is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,432
My friend Timothy Briner shot his Boonville project mostly on HP5 (and FP4). It was shot on a mix of 4x5 and 120 film, but I processed all of it in HC110, mostly dilution B. You can see the work at http://timothybriner.com/boonville

Ok, this is larger film than 35mm, but it shows what's possible. It looks pretty good in 35mm, too.
__________________
-drew

Last edited by drewbarb : 01-25-2018 at 20:49. Reason: Because I can't work the inter webs
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2018   #20
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,265
Perceptol.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #21
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier...

When I wet print HP5+ and Tri-X I can't tell the difference between them.

When I scan, HP5+ has much more grain than the Tri-X.

This has been true with any number of scanners -- Noritsu, Imacon, drum scanner...

Why? I have no idea, but HP5+ is clearly not optimized for scanning.

It is an otherwise excellent film, and these comments are about 35mm scans. At MF and larger, I don't think grain is an issue.

Rolfe
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #22
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolfe View Post
Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier...

When I wet print HP5+ and Tri-X I can't tell the difference between them.

When I scan, HP5+ has much more grain than the Tri-X.

This has been true with any number of scanners -- Noritsu, Imacon, drum scanner...

Why? I have no idea, but HP5+ is clearly not optimized for scanning.

It is an otherwise excellent film, and these comments are about 35mm scans. At MF and larger, I don't think grain is an issue.

Rolfe
I've never noticed this. I find HP5+ to have very little grain when scanned, even when pushed a couple stops. Here's one processed normally:



And this was pushed to 1600:

__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #23
Perks
Registered User
 
Perks is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
They look fine grained indeed, what developer did you use 02Pilot?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #24
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perks View Post
They look fine grained indeed, what developer did you use 02Pilot?
Homebrewed Caffenol. Standard dev is C-H(RS) for [email protected], 1min agitations, +2 push is C-L for [email protected], stand w/two turns at 35min.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2018   #25
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrubaker View Post
I just developed a roll of hp5+ using d76 1:1 as I used to do years ago for tri-x. I am surprised at how grainy the negs are - more than I remembered from a few years back when I shot film. Is there a way to use Ilford hp5 and get a more moderate grain? thanks, john.
I've usually printed B&W in a darkroom. Even then, I'm usually unhappy with enlarging 35mm beyond 8x10 (that's with borders). I used to use D76, but I'm now only using XTOL.

You could move up to medium or large format.
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2018   #26
Perks
Registered User
 
Perks is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Homebrewed Caffenol. Standard dev is C-H(RS) for [email protected], 1min agitations, +2 push is C-L for [email protected], stand w/two turns at 35min.
Caffenol stand? I will have to look into that one of these days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2018   #27
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,501
I just bought from B & H some 120 HP5 Plus. I’m going to develop with Mic-X from Freestyle.

When I use a 35 film camera the biggest enlargement I make is usually 8x10. Even when using slower speed films.

At any rate, medium format helps me with films with higher ASA.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2018   #28
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,486
Split D23 or divided D23 unless the film has been reformulated to thin emulsion.

In that case, shoot at 200 and reduce developer time 20%.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2018   #29
jbrubaker
Registered User
 
jbrubaker's Avatar
 
jbrubaker is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 108
I switched from D-76 to a fresh batch of XTOL. I'm now getting the kind of negs I want - full film speed and nice tight grain with high acutance. As some of you have noted, wet printing will probably give even more pleasing prints, but it's not always possible. thanks john.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.