HP5 at 3200 in Rodinal : doable ?

[koraks]

I agree that rodinal does retain at least some activity beyond 20 minutes. When I just started out with film processing I sometimes developed two consecutive rolls of film in the same rodinal batch, which kind of worked as long as it happened on the same day. However, due to the rapid oxidation of rodinal, exactly how active it remains after 20, 40 or 60 minutes is unsure. There will likely be a non-linear drop in activity, which makes extended development times somewhat unpredictable. Personally I don't like development times beyond 15 or max 20 minutes. I've had too many issues with unpredictable outcomes with longer development times, and there usually is no real need for such long times anyway. Just mix the stuff stronger so times can be kept shorter and all is well, in my experience.

 

[Yaeli]

(Edited to include my answer to Koraks)
Thank you for your answers

I'm not sure I know what to answer, because :
1) I'm no expert in "development potency" after a certain amount of time.
2) I know that Rodinal is (by far) not the recommended developer for pushed 400 speed film, as I have stated from the start (with explanations as to why I'm attempting it anyway).
3) I don't know what "best / only option", "decent image" , "worst grain in history" or "bad tone" mean... I thought that in photography, there were no absolute "do's and don'ts", that it was all, as you seem to acknowledge also, Juan Valdenebro, personal preference...

Each one of us can decide the limits we accept [...] I don't really like it [...] I prefer the tone of ISO3200 film[...] decent IMO [...] I like Rodinal's grain very much when it's small, sharp and tight.

4)

If the goal is scanning and creating digital files, it makes a lot more sense to capture digital images instead of using film.
There's nothing good in using film, only in using film perfectly for the tone it was designed for wet printing.

This is your opinion, which I respect. But considering that I also shoot color negative film quite a bit, that wet printing color film appears way too high a goal for me, and that labs digitize color film before printing it anyway, there is de facto a "digital" step for color. I have a B&W enlarger, and I do intent on printing B&W film someday, but I neither have the money nor the time nor a solid "plan" for installing a darkroom in my apartment at the moment. Again, I don't know what "using film perfectly" means, and I'm not sure I want to do that. And finally, there are tons of reasons why I prefer film over digital, even if the process includes scanning : I like the whole process (as mentioned in my introduction post), I like the constraints but also the freedom it brings, I like to experiment, I like the "look", I like the "tactility", etc...

@koraks : Yes, "Everything on HP5+ at 3200 is underexposed", as you stated. What he meant, I suppose, is that those 2 pictures were underexposed even for HP5 at 3200. That's how I understand it anyway.

Sincerely,
Yael.

 

[Yaeli]

P.S :

at EI3200 many light sources and even white walls fool meters, so it's common some frames end up being exposed at 6400, 12800 or 25000, so the situation is often even worse.

As mentioned in my original post, I used an incident light reading for the faces of the musicians, which, hopefully, should help prevent such "worse situations".

 

[pentaxuser]

Yaeli I assume you have not yet developed the film so there are no negatives to show us yet?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Yaeli]

@pentaxuser : unfortunately no... First, the tank that my friend gave me broke when I tried to clean it. It was an old Paterson tank, with the screw type lid, and the lid broke in two - not the plastic, but there were 2 pieces glued together and the glue "snapped", so I had to order a new one (budget has already "exploded"...). Then, when I received the package yesterday, I noticed that the thermometer I had ordered was missing... They'll probably send me one, but it comes from Germany (Fotoimpex) and I'll have to wait, again... I was considering using the thermometer that is in my fridge, but I'm not sure it would work as well or be as precise for the kind of temperatures I'd be dipping it into.
But rest assured, I will post the results !

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've had too many issues with unpredictable outcomes with longer development times, and there usually is no real need for such long times anyway. Just mix the stuff stronger so times can be kept shorter and all is well, in my experience.

With this working solution I did a clip test on a film leader. It nicely blackened the leader.

What I've found is that many people who run into problems with Rodinal (usually from mixing the working solution and leaving it to stand around, rather than mix it and get it in the tank as fast as possible) seem to do so around the 1+50 dilution - and not because it fails completely, but rather because the activity falls away dramatically faster than they expected, usually after 20 mins or so. Which isn't to say that there are clearly a few films that can be developed beyond 20 mins - Agfa's own data states that the last APX400 they made needed 30 mins in 1+50 to reach the 0.65 aim gamma - yet they state that HP5+ is not suitable for 1+50 (likely because it cannot deliver 0.65 under Agfa's criteria - but it can deliver enough density to satisfy Ilford's criteria at 1+50) - not that I care, 1+25 does the job for when I need the Rodinal 'look'.

 

[Yaeli]

Good evening to you all !

Quick update : development over, and... there's something on the roll ! Which means I didn't screw up the whole process
For a first time developping at home, I consider it, so far, a semi-success (I'm still afraid of what it's gonna look like once scanned). I was very excited to see that there was something on the roll !
Here are 2 pictures, taken off-handedly (not sure the translation is correct for that word) in my bathroom, lit with my phone's torch, with a macro lens. The negative was still wet. Impossible to tell what the grain will be like, but the exposure seems decent enough, I'd say. They're very low resolution (I kept receiving an error message saying that they were too large, so they're only about 2Mb).
I hope to be able to scan this weekend and give you a more "in depth" result.
I followed the recipe almost to a T : Rodinal 1+50 (7ml in 350ml water) at 20°C (I tried to monitor it but the temperature probably rose a little during the process), 1 min gentle inversions at first, then 1 gentle inversion (roughly 10 sec) each minute for 52 minutes. I couldn't remember whether or not you're supposed to agitate during the stop bath and fixer, so I did about 30 sec in Ilfostop 1+19 with constant agitation, and then 5 min in Adofix 1+4 with almost constant agitation also, and then a 10 min rince, all at 20°C.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Congrats!

 

[Yaeli]

Thanks Alex Benjamin !

 

[koraks]

I couldn't remember whether or not you're supposed to agitate during the stop bath and fixer

Yes, you should. You did it right. You can also agitate 5 or 10 times every 30 seconds, that would suffice as well.
The results look promising!

 

[Helge]

Looks very encouraging, and nice shots those two.
Maybe it isn’t such a terrible combo, depending on the look you want.

 

[Yaeli]

Thank you for your comments

Yes, you should. You did it right. You can also agitate 5 or 10 times every 30 seconds, that would suffice as well.

Thank you for the information ! I slightly over-fixed also (5 min instead of 3-4 recommended), but I thought "better safe than sorry". Don't know if that was a bad idea or not...

Looks very encouraging, and nice shots those two.
Maybe it isn’t such a terrible combo, depending on the look you want.

I'm scanning them right now. We'll see if the tones and grain are decent when viewed "large". I can see some weird black streaks on some negatives (see the one of the singer above). I thought yesterday that it was only water, but it's still there. I have no idea what it can be...

 

[Helge]

Thank you for your comments


Thank you for the information ! I slightly over-fixed also (5 min instead of 3-4 recommended), but I thought "better safe than sorry". Don't know if that was a bad idea or not...


I'm scanning them right now. We'll see if the tones and grain are decent when viewed "large". I can see some weird black streaks on some negatives (see the one of the singer above). I thought yesterday that it was only water, but it's still there. I have no idea what it can be...

Looks like scratches. Did you squeegee the film or run some other implements along it?
You can probably carefully clone it out of the image of the woman, since it hasn’t hit any detailed facial features.

If it’s not scratches you can always try a rewash of the film, and use some wetting agent if you haven’t already.

 

[Yaeli]

No, I didn't use a squeegee (didn't have one... another thing I forgot to buy), but I very gently ran the film between my fingers, without applying pressure, just after hanging it to dry. I didn't use a wetting agent either, and to be honest, I have no idea what the quality of the tap water is here... Beginner's mistakes... I'll know more after the scans.
So far, from the 12 first pictures, I can say that, to my eye, the tonality is decent, and the grain surprisingly not too bad (that's what I was fearing the most). It's quite noticeable on some pictures, and much less on others (it's worse on uniform tones like light grey which, as far as I understand, is normal). It could also be my scanning process, because I'm not master at that either... It looks like the grain is a bit worse when I "lighten" (open ?) the grey point. Overall, for my taste, I'm pretty happy with the result. The thing I'm not happy with is all the rest : composition, moment captured and all that But I suppose it comes down to practice : the first pictures I took of skydivers were honestly so bad that I can't for the life of me understand why they agreed to let me come back Now, after 3 years, it's much better. So... we'll see in 3 years !

 

[Yaeli]

Ok, here are 3 samples : the one which shows the most grain of all (018), one with a rather low amount of grain (012), both flat / unedited scans on the V600, and probably my favourite, with a quick edit (but no grain reduction). I don't know what you think, but I'm glad I tried that recipe. I can't see any of the horrible things many people (not specifically here) foretold me if I were to use Rodinal on HP5 at 3200...
All were shot on an OM2n, with the 28mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4 or the 135mm f/2.8.

 

[tezzasmall]

Very well done Yael.

I have found through experience over the years, both on forums and in books and magazines, is that you can look or ask for an answer to just about anything, in this case photographically, and you will get sometimes, dozens or more of different replies, all giving different advice.

The best way to learn anything is to both read, but also to try things out yourself. For as you have learned, what your actual result is like, is quite different from many of the answers given.

One can definitely learn from books and others, but sometimes one just has to go with ones own feelings and give something a go.

Well done once more.

Terry S

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Really Nice work. 12 and 17 look absolutely wonderful. Problem with 18 is not grain - grain gives it a wonderful atmosphere; it's more a question of focus, the main challenge when you photograph concerts full open.

 

[M Carter]

Just a note if you continue down this path - I've pushed HP5 in DDX to 1200 and even 1600 and man, that combo really hangs onto the shadows. I'd imagine Tri-X may be even better. I don't scan (just print) and I've consistently disliked Delta 3200's grain as print size goes up - it seems sort of mushy and detail-killing to my eye. But HP5 in my initial tests is startlingly good (and I really love Rodinal at 1+50 or 1+60 for images that marry well with its look, but I tend to give a healthy exposure bump to hang onto shadow detail).

 

[Yaeli]

Thank you for your replies and kind comments

@tezzasmall : I concur ! It's a good thing to look for advice, but it's also important to learn by yourself. Trial and error (huge error, sometimes), is a very good "teacher". Thank you very much for your kind comments !

@Alex Benjamin : thank you I agree, this one is out of focus, and it really makes a huge difference with the others. It was with the 135mm at f/2.8, and also backlit by the only small window in the room. The other thing that doesn't work is the "floating head" framing : it's way too close. As Peter Hurley would say : "WTFB" (where the 'fudge' is the body) I noticed, when I took pictures at a friend's wedding some years ago (on FP4 and HP5), that, to my eye, the misfocusing (? is that even a word ?) really stand out in analogue photography, even if it's slight. I'm not that great at manual focusing. I lack practice, and I've been spoiled by the amazing autofocus on my EOS R... I have to work on that !

@M Carter : Thank you for your advice ! I do plan on trying a more "conventional" developer in the future, probably DDX (since it's liquid and easier for me to store). When looking at the scans, depending on the pictures and the direction of the light, some are indeed really dark and contrasty, with no detail (or almost none) in the shadows, which is not systematically a bad thing, depending on what it hides, but I agree, it would probably be cleaner with another developer.
As for Delta 3200, I don't know. I've seen great results but in 120. Maybe it's not great for 135. I think I will give it a try someday (even though it's a good 40% more expensive than HP5 here in France).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Careful not to make a dogma out of the idea that you need shadow detail. The answer to the question of whether or not you do is always: "it depends". If you look at the work of W. Eugene Smith, one of the most extraordinary documentary photographer there ever was (and a great jazz fan to boot), you see that in many series, there's hardly any shadow detail. He worked really hard both while take the picture but also in the darkroom to take out shadow detail in order to "sculpt the light". Makes him bring out, to great effect, what he wants you to see, not what the camera saw.

He got this from Caravaggio.



Point is: there's no interest in having something in the shadows if there is nothing of interest in them.

 

[Yaeli]

@Alex Benjamin : I agree with you ! I was just saying that it could be good to try something else, just because you can always learn something and be pleasantly surprised, even though, personally, I do prefer the "dark" look (the chiaroscuro used by painters, like you mentioned). It has a certain mood, a certain atmosphere that I really like, and it can leave a part to the imagination (what was in that dark area ?) which is not present when everything is clearly visible. The PoS effect (if you've seen the movie the 51st State) : power of suggestion . That's why I love the portraits from Studio Harcourt in France, or the "film noir" look, that kind of photography.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Good evening to you all !

I'm new here, but didn't find any "introduce yourself" thread, so just a quick word : I'm Yael, a 43 year old French guy who started on slide film when I was a teenager, dropped photography altogether for years, had a digital phase for a few years but now wants to get back to (mostly) black and white film. I'm just starting home development and have read a lot about it but have zero experience in this department. I scan my negatives at home on a V600.

I know that Rodinal is not recommended for pushed film, and not even for 400 speed film from what I've read, but it's what I bought because I don't have much money, because I wanted an all-purpose developer with a long shelf life, and because I don't really mind grain (as long as it doesn't look like static).
I shot a roll of HP5 during a band rehearsal in a low light setting, and decided to push it to 3200. I used an incident light meter for all the reading, exposing for the faces of the musicians (between 1/60th and 1/125th at f/2.8). The light never changed much during the shoot.
From what I found on the Massive Dev Chart and on some other sites, I have basically 2 options :
1) Rodinal 1+25, about 18 minutes.
2) Rodinal 1+100 semi stand, probably around 90 min or even a little bit more maybe.
Since I have no experience developing film, I am tempted to stick to "normal" development. I read somewhere in here that maybe lowering the temperature to 18°C (65°F) and agitating (rotating) very slowly only once every minute could help achieving a decent result without a horrible amount of grain.

What would you recommend, considering the infos I gave ? Normal or stand ? How long should I develop the film if I choose 18°C instead of 20°C (I couldn't find any reliable info online for Rodinal times and temperatures) ? Should I mentally prepare for unacceptable levels of grain and blocked shadows (I don't mind the latter much, tbh, but am afraid of getting "static" grainy negs) ?

Thanks beforehand,
Yael.

A lot will depend on the light you are shooting in. If it's harsh and contrasty, then get ready for way more of that (blocked highlights, impenetrable shadows) BUT...if it's relatively flat, even light you may end up with very grainy but much more feasible negatives.

I shot a project on 120 HP5+ at EI1600, using Rodinal to develop. I wanted the grain and 'look', given the subject matter. And I liked how they worked. You can see them here, if you're curious: www.colincorneau.com/pressmen

 

[koraks]

Careful not to make a dogma out of the idea that you need shadow detail.

That's a very valid point.

 

[radiant]

I tried HP5+ at EI 1600 in Rodinal, once. Too many years ago, so I don’t recall time, temperature, or dilution. It was a music performance in a dimly-lit club, one of my favorite subjects. But this roll was not a success; simply gigantic grain and no shadow detail at all.

If you don't give shadows enough light, then you don't get anything in shadows. No developer will save that.

Rodinal? of course and if you play golf,You'll have all the golfballs you'll need.

Golf ball size, my ass Can I get a refund?

Few things that I hope would be common knowledge:
- Pushing film is not a miracle process; it is basically underexposing the film and destroying your shadows for good. Which you might actually like. Me likes. There isn't a developer that would magically bring those back.
- There isn't golf ball size grain. Modern films with Rodinal produce mild-medium grain at max. Don't believe the hype! Rodinal is not a "grain" developer. Rodinal doesn't ruin your pictures.
- It really doesn't matter what film developer you use. The differences are in reality small.
- You aren't seeing grain actually; you are seeing the holes between grains
- Film development time; the development effect slows down each minute. By overdeveloping you aren't destroying anything. It might get a bit more contrasty but nothing to worry about. When in doubt, overdevelop and stop worrying.

@Yaeli no 17 - beautiful!

 

[radiant]

That's a very valid point.

I agree with this too.

I have to repeat my new idea for the phrase "expose for the shadows" which is "Your preferred shadow taste is adjusted with exposure".

I don't understand why film photography is taught in a manner where maintaining shadows is the only correct way to do it.