1800006_Noels_Outfit_Ilford_HP5_007_web

Mick, I prefer the look of this one. Seems to have more contrast and "punch" and the highlights are not so bright but as the shutter speed and aperture are the same in both, does this explain it? As it looks to be a sheet film camera did you compensate in development time?
Thanks

I concur with you with regard to this being the better negative.

I developed the negatives a bit longer to give me a bit of a contrast lift, which that did. I haven't used this film for close to 8 years, give or take, so this was a bit of a learning curve. I looked up my developing notes and printing notes of the same film done all those years ago and thought I would be close; I was.

The day in question was a very cloudy low contrast day. Literally, as I was pulling the film holder out after exposing this sheet of film, the sun started to shine through the clouds. Knowing this was an opportunity to experiment, I turned the film holder around, added ½ a stop to the aperture to f/22½ from f/22, then fired away. Probably before I had the dark slide back in, the sun went away for the rest of the day.

I didn't compensate development time, both sheets were developed together. I did something I rarely do these days, I made an instant decision to expose another sheet, with a gut feeling aperture change to enable me to hold more of the new highlights that appeared because of the sunshine. Both negatives are very good, but this one is really good.

I'll be making a print from this negative, roughly to the proportions you see. I cropped the negative to a panoramic (almost) format as that is what the end result will be. It is fairly heavily cropped on the top, bottom and right side. Left side is almost to the edge of the negative.

Yes it is sheet film and the camera is a Shen Hao, 4x5" wooden folding field type camera.

Mick.

Thanks Mick. When you mention changing the aperture from f22 to f 22 1/2 This looks like a very marginal change and certainly not a half stop. Isn't the half stop from f22 to f 27. Was the f22 1/2 a typo for f27?

Thanks

f/22½ (f/22 and a ½), is exactly that. It can be very exact, or in fact, quite inexact. When I wish to be more exact, or as exact as one can be with a free sliding aperture lever, I use 1/3 f/stops. Meaning I would choose from f/22 to f/25 to f/27 to f/29 to f/32. My light meter, which is a Gossen Profi-Six has 1/3 stop markings, wherever the needle rests, I just emulate that on the aperture dial on the lens in use, with any adjustments recorded for that shutter/lens combination, allowed for.

Essentially, on the f/stop range on the shutter itself, one slides a lever to approximately mid way between one f/stop and another f/stop. That approximate change, would be f/27 as you suggest. Half an f/stop is not a marginal change, it is in fact, quite a bit. This negative is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly exposed and perfectly developed; something I strive for, but rarely achieve.

The other negative is pictorially better, but this is what I was originally aiming for and managed. I was quite pleased when I hung the negative up to dry, I was hopeful of a great negative when it dried; it is.

From the information from this negative and the other one, with regard to exposure using this shutter and lens, I now have a reference standard. The developing of these negatives has also given me a reference standard that I can now apply the shutter variables of my various lenses, within reason, to sort of accurately expose the single batch of 200 sheets of HP5+ that I am now starting to use.

While I still use a fair amount of 35mm film, 4x5" sheet film is so much more fun to use. Individual exposure and developing from sheet to sheet, if required, is one of the things I find so much of an allure.

Mick.

Thanks Mick It was my misinterpretation of what f22 1/2 means. I had taken it that this was just maybe half way between f22 and f23 or more likely a typo but in fact this is f22 plus a half (stop) which as you say is not marginal