HP5 28 years old

Well before you all say "what a load of rubbish" the film served it's purpose to check a 35mm camera out on auto at different speeds.

I used new promicrol 1:14 for 16mins (first B/W dev for about 15 years)...my opinion is:-it's very grainy and was contrasty (dunno whether its because of old film or the developer) and I think also it's pointless using 35mm for B/W......medium format is the way to go (which I bought the developer for).

For 28 years old, I can't bi*ch!

Jeff

I would have to agree with Jeff, for 28 years old, it looks only a little more grainy than a new roll of HP5, in my opinion.

Well I was also disappointed in the sharpness compared to a modern 400asa colour film...the lens used was a Hexanon 40mm f1.8 which is excellent.

35MM pointless for B&W? All righty then...

Puma Concolor said:

35MM pointless for B&W? All righty then...

Click to expand...

Well I assume the guys here are not digital machine gunner types and have the time to take a shot, medium format quality was always superior to 35mm, and MF gear is cheap now so why not use it.
And I have about eight 35mm SLR film cameras and 6X4.5 and 6X7 cameras, guess what ones I'll be using for B/W....I've never been happy with 35mm b/w for decades and my latest use (with a 35mm camera) hasn't changed my mind.

Excalibur2 said:

I think also it's pointless using 35mm for B/W......medium format is the way to go

Click to expand...

MF? Pfft! LF!

Seriously, this is one ridiculous statement. HCB should never have bothered, then, right?

Excalibur2 said:

Well before you all say "what a load of rubbish" the film served it's purpose to check a 35mm camera out on auto at different speeds.

I used new promicrol 1:14 for 16mins (first B/W dev for about 15 years)...my opinion is:-it's very grainy and was contrasty (dunno whether its because of old film or the developer) and I think also it's pointless using 35mm for B/W......medium format is the way to go (which I bought the developer for).

Click to expand...

Lots of photographers get pretty good results out of 35mm B&W negatives, as long as you work within the limits of the size of the material. For example in over 30 years I have never wanted an enlargement larger then 11x14, 35mm is capable of producing decent 11x14 enlargements with fine grain films and developers. Not to mention that 35mm is the most portable, and cheapest film system to work with. As someone who most of the time uses a bicycle or hiking when shooting, loading down with 20kg of MF equipment is often not an option.

What isn't worth bothering with is d*****l when shooting B&W.... Although a little grainy, it's actually pretty good for film that expired in 1981.

Different tools for different purposes.

Anything else stated is just trolling for arguments.

****Lots of photographers get pretty good results out of 35mm B&W negatives, as long as you work within the limits of the size of the material. For example in over 30 years I have never wanted an enlargement larger then 11x14, 35mm is capable of producing decent 11x14 enlargements with fine grain films and developers. Not to mention that 35mm is the most portable, and cheapest film system to work with. As someone who most of the time uses a bicycle or hiking when shooting, loading down with 20kg of MF equipment is often not an option.***

Well I've had my share of B/W 35mm (and cheap cameras for other sizes) from about 1952-1975, and in the darkroom tiny dust spots and scratches were a curse when enlarging, and just can't go back........and I can remember when the press used Rolleiflexes, so maybe something like a Ricoh equivalent could be carried around at times (with a 35mm camera) for static shots in B/w (or colour).

Colin Corneau said:

Different tools for different purposes.

Anything else stated is just trolling for arguments.

Click to expand...

...but as film users we are all on the same side, if we can't get the best out of film we all might as well get a digital P&S.

Excalibur2 said:

****Lots of photographers get pretty good results out of 35mm B&W negatives, as long as you work within the limits of the size of the material. For example in over 30 years I have never wanted an enlargement larger then 11x14, 35mm is capable of producing decent 11x14 enlargements with fine grain films and developers. Not to mention that 35mm is the most portable, and cheapest film system to work with. As someone who most of the time uses a bicycle or hiking when shooting, loading down with 20kg of MF equipment is often not an option.***

Well I've had my share of B/W 35mm (and cheap cameras for other sizes) from about 1952-1975, and in the darkroom tiny dust spots and scratches were a curse when enlarging, and just can't go back........and I can remember when the press used Rolleiflexes, so maybe something like a Ricoh equivalent could be carried around at times (with a 35mm camera) for static shots in B/w (or colour).

Click to expand...

I'll agree that dust and scratches can be an issue, they can with larger formats as well. However anyone who has spent 5 hours spotting a sky from a APS-C sized DSLR (been there, done that) will think of even 35mm as relatively dust free.... Man those DSLR's can collect more dust in 5 seconds, then a 35mm camera does in 5 years.

shoot rollei 25, or efke 25, or PANF and develop in D-76, dont print larger than 8x10 or possibly 11x14 and youll be fine on grain

QUOTE=Nikanon;827628]shoot rollei 25, or efke 25, or PANF and develop in D-76, dont print larger than 8x10 or possibly 11x14 and youll be fine on grain[/QUOTE]

Well using 35mm b/w today, reminds me of the early 1960's when I couldn't afford MF, colour neg was naff compared to today, and would have used kodachrome most of the time if I had the money.
The only reason I can see for using 35mm B/W is say for rock concerts, pushing the film and no problems with artificial lights, but DSLR guys have told me low light shots with digital are superior and improving all the time.
To use 35mm B/W for buildings, landscapes or portraiture is an insult to the film when MF is cheap now, but if guys want to be in a special time warp who am I to say they are wrong.

Ok so I’m rusty developing a B/W neg, but I just use an old Digital P&S and get a better result for a computer screen in about a minute.….so this is what film users are up against and the 35mm digital guys can boast on their IQ, but MF B/W (or colour) can shut them up.

Sony P&S, dunno if used at best setting, but it did at least equal the film shot for sharpness.

I have a 20x30 print from a 35mm negative shot with a Contax RTS III, Yashica 50mm f/2, and Technical Pan developed in Rodinal that shows no grain at all.

Hi APUG,
This is quite an old thread and I am very fresh here.
I just got 400 ISO film I suspect could be HP5 as it was bought in the late 1980s. It is 120 film, there is white paper with no trade mark, only clue is printing on developed film "0210" as shown in the image. Any idea?
Cheers

Colin Corneau said:

Different tools for different purposes.

Anything else stated is just trolling for arguments.

Click to expand...

x2