HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 73
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 1
  • 65
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 4
  • 0
  • 65
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 2
  • 68
Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 120

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,792
Messages
2,780,910
Members
99,705
Latest member
Hey_You
Recent bookmarks
0

Gerald C Koch

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
May I suggest the following sign to be put on the wall of all darkrooms.

Rodinal
HP5+
Fine Grain

Choice of 2

:smile:

Seriously this thread illustrates what I find is a general perverseness on APUG. That is, people are constantly trying to make materials do what they were not designed to do. Quite frankly it is becoming rather tedious. :sad:
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
I think the OP proved your "choice of two" point.

As to bending the materials to our will, IDK, on one hand fine tuning our processes is a good thing in a general sense, on the other hand the bending of a specific film/developer combo is a fight over peanuts.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
My very simple theory is:
When the image is recorded on film, one has to do everything possible to give birth to this image by developing it correctly by means of a proven and proper technique. The darkroom work is very technical. There is no place for improvisation or voodooism in there. Once the image is recorded the darkroom technician (the photographer himself or anyone else) has to go by strict guidelines in order to get the most. And yes, "the most" involves printing. Scanning strips at least 50% of any given film's information and its inherent conctrast curve and native properties.
If one is scaning and not printing in the darkroom, the choice of film and developer is absolutely unimportant. You can then stand develop for a whole week with ilfosol in a fridge (yeah, it's been recommended by someone on apug some time ago) and it would be ok (ugh!)!
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
NB23 I do agree that voodooism and myths should be given no quarter. Proven processes are very important for anyone that has specific expectations of a given shot as a given print.

Many people don't think that far ahead though, many others are just gathering raw materials with the negatives, they aren't wrong in their methods.

I don't view darkroom work as needing to follow lots of rules (except the rules of physics), improvisation with a goal and some experience can be very worthwhile anywhere in the process.
 

TheToadMen

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
3,570
Location
Netherlands, EU
Format
Pinhole
What if Fox Talbot or Niepce didn't improvise & experiment?? Or Barry Thornton??
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
What if Fox Talbot or Niepce didn't improvise & experiment?? Or Barry Thornton??

Yes, exactly: what if?
You are one of them? Better, even?

Look, my point is very simple: the darkroom is a technical place. I'm not sure why you want to contradict this so much.
 

zsas

Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
1,955
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
35mm RF
Technical places are meant to be thought different about....I commend the OP thinking different, so what if it might be a dead end, what if another idea spawns because of it....that's the problem....don't squash learning.....

Just ask the widow of the late Steve Jobs (Apple), or Bill Gates (Windows), Ken Thompson et al. (Unix), Linus Torvalds (Linux), Ted Codd (SQL).....


How's this, start a thread about how consistent your film, camera, lens, agitation, dev, print, tone are.....write about it here day in and day out - how pleased you are about how consistent and understandable your results are......see how exiting that thread will be...

Sometimes these kinds of threads spawn others, as well as the OP to think different or understand the nature of the life cycle....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
NB23 the darkroom can be a factory but it can also be an artistic place, it is not a purely technical space where we leave emotion and intuition at the door.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
NB23 the darkroom can be a factory but it can also be an artistic place, it is not a purely technical space where we leave emotion and intuition at the door.

Agree with this. We all make choices so that our prints can be presented a certain way at the end of the day. To me it's an incredibly rewarding journey when I'm rewarded with a print that looks exactly like I had intended. All of the technical exercise is hopefully employed to bring forward some content of emotion and mood, where the craft serves the art, weaving the two together.

For example, I've shot Kodak Tri-X for a good bit of time now after a stint with TMax 400. When I shoot portraits I like to have a certain amount of detail, but I also love the prints to show some grain. In close-up scenarios, Tri-X looks fantastic, because the grain of the film doesn't obscure any of the facial details I like to show, and it adds some really great texture. Shooting close-ups with TMax 400 is equally rewarding, in spite of its much finer grain, and in the end there is not that much difference. With either film, details are clearly resolved.

But if I shoot a landscape scene, where there more areas of even tonality, the Tri-X grain becomes a lot more prominent, and finer details in the scene may or may not be obscured by the grain, but at a certain point, there isn't enough resolution to show those details clearly, and I think it's here that people in general object to grain the most. If I use TMax 400 for the same scene, I get finer grain and a sharper print than with FP4+, with smooth shifts in tonality and a grain that is less obstructive.
If you're like me, you won't care about this grain being there - I've shot plenty of landscape pictures with 35mm Tri-X, and I do not think less of them just because they are grainy. In fact, I almost prefer it. But in the end, the biggest point I'm making here is that I do see a clear difference, but I also do not care much. It's so far down the list of what makes a good photograph (in my mind) that it barely registers.

HP5+ and Rodinal is, in my humble opinion, a very beautiful combination of tools, which can be used successfully to photograph anything. It's just a matter of taste, subject matter, and what you intend to produce in your prints that determines whether it works out or not. Keep an open mind, see what you can do with contrast, diffusion and tonality adjustments at printing time, and make the most of what you have. Fine grain with HP5+ in Rodinal isn't going to be easy, if even possible, especially from 35mm. But hopefully with your experimentation you will find something that you really love about that combination, move on to use it, and continue to practice to make beautiful, meaningful, and interesting photographs.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,902
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
If a photographer has control of the darkroom variables, it is much easier to make artistically successful choices in the darkroom.

And if a photographer understands his/her darkroom processes, it can be rewarding to experiment, because the results of the experiments are more likely to be understood, and any "happy accidents" are more likely to be repeatable.
 

Gabino

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Waterloo, On
Format
Medium Format
Experimentation ... experimentation... like Thomas B and Matt above have suggested. I can't really suggest anything for that combo, but I've found this photographer who has gotten it right:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgodzinski/3447881393/ - pushing HP5 to 1600 and developing with R09-rodinal for 24 min, at 20C. I dont know how he did it without lowering Temp.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgodzinski/3443036818/ -same here.

He looks like a very accomplished photographer, and he latter changed to TriX-Rodinal combo.... exceptional work...
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
Nothing against the photographer and his abilities, they are in 120 and do not show grain as much. To see what a developer can / can't do use it in 35. It will reveal all it's strengths / weaknesses.

Here is a few 35mm HP5 shot at ei 3200. This would be 1:100 semi stand at room temp. Pretty boring skill wise.

4102416846_8fed887279_d.jpg

4060395555_0a9a3a5eda_d.jpg

I was developing for acutance.
 

viridari

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
347
Location
Raleigh, NC
Format
Hybrid
So earlier in this thread I was trolled over scanning negatives and not printing and somehow that made my opinion of Rodinal irrelevant. Well I ran into a cheap Beseler 23C II yesterday, and after a couple of tests I got this to come out (apologies for the dust bunnies; this really was intended to be nothing more than a test run).


first darkroom print! by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

35mm Tri-X in Rodinal (I don't have notes but I'm about 75% sure this would have been a 1:50 mix, following Massive Dev Chart time/agitation), printed 5x7.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
Hmmmmm... Dooonutssss
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
viridari, welcome to the club.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
Welcome!!! Sir.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
Viridari,
I have to be honest here for a second.
You can't get over the fact (hallucination?) that you got "trolled". The trolling in question was me correcting you from spreading blatant misinformation. You we're actually recomending a very bad technique (stand development) as a magical measure to drastically reduce grain while, in truth, it is comon knowledge that agitation has no effect on grain. Never.
As far as I'm concerned, the trolling was more about you spreading misinformaion then me correcting you.

You now have a darkroom. That's good. That's a nice first step. Now may I suggest that you go out shooting more serious subjects. Ansel Adams didn't get famous and respected by shooting and showing off pics of junk food restaurant interiors and people strobed in their face. That's if you want to be more technical and to sound more knowledgeable when you give advice.

The second step is to start using proper FB paper.
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
Wow, isn't that an attitude.

I will think of you every time I develop stand with reduced grain.
 

viridari

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
347
Location
Raleigh, NC
Format
Hybrid
NB23, I didn't ask you for a critique of my subject matter or of my development techniques. Please go play in traffic.

I'm perfectly happy with my photos, printed, scanned, and otherwise. Your suggestions fall on deaf ears, as your opinions are rude, unwelcome, and fly in the face of results that plenty of us stand developing types are more than happy with.
 

Chris Lange

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
770
Location
NY
Format
Multi Format
What's funny is how much strife is created over a bottle of red / brownish stuff.

NB23, dude, chill the fuck out, Ansel isn't a demi-god, and no he didn't get famous by shooting junk food, but Martin Parr certainly did.

Viridari, congrats on the 23CII, keep at it, and make sure to break some of those cardinal darkroom rules here and there. They're boring.
 

Chris Lange

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
770
Location
NY
Format
Multi Format
And, if i might add, before this thread should just die already, I'll put forth a quiz.

I'll give 6 months of renewed APUG subscription to the first person to tell me which image was made on a Rodinal neg, an AB55 neg, an Xtol neg, and a D76 neg. You know, since it's so plainly easy to tell which developer does what.

9153320396_fa77a9e2a0.jpg
9153384268_e3d6229468.jpg

8373594631_39bbd02420.jpg
8373167535_690baf25c3.jpg
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
1 - Rodinal.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
Give me the negs or a proper print of each of those images and I'll give you the right answers.
For all I know, these scans could all be lightroomed and silverefex'd from
A P&S. If you are really serious about it and not just smartarsing us, I will PM you my address for you to send me the negs/prints. It will then be my pleasure to play.
Thanks.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,902
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
And, if i might add, before this thread should just die already, I'll put forth a quiz.

I'll give 6 months of renewed APUG subscription to the first person to tell me which image was made on a Rodinal neg, an AB55 neg, an Xtol neg, and a D76 neg. You know, since it's so plainly easy to tell which developer does what.

It is a trick question. None of the images came from "a Rodinal neg, an AB55 neg, an Xtol neg, and a D76 neg".

You probably used only one developer at a time for each of the images.

Irritating pedantry aside, well done viridari.

I expect I would enjoy a spirited discussion with you about the pros and cons of stand development. Personally, I am not a convert for general use of the technique, but I would be happy to hear your arguments for it, especially if some photographs are involved.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom