HP5 vs. RO9

I want to start a discussion of HP5 in RO9 based on my search for some kind of look.

All these photographs were taken on 35mm HP5. Same model camera. Two of them are 1600 ASA, One is 400ASA and one is 320ASA.

All were dev'd in RO9 at 1+25.

All scans from prints. Prints are generally on or around grade 3 multigrade.

I hope you don't mind, but before I explain why I'm posting these particular prints and raise my questions, would anyone care to briefly guess which are which?

(I'm removing the appropriate tags from the flickr set)

A. fullsize can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlessness/5557455454/ :



B. fullsize can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlessness/5891536649/ :



C. fullsize can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlessness/5892166332/ :



D. fullsize can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlessness/5891536621/ :

I'm guessing the 1600 ASA shots are the 1st & last ones shown, based on slightly higher grain levels. They all look good to my eye.

Ok, only 3Dfan took the to the challenge and thank-you for your response. On reflection it was probably a cheap idea as I expect most would answer the same way if pushed but many would have instantly suspected a set-up. It was.

I'd probably say the same thing as 3Dfan, too, but the answer is the opposite. Here's the facts:

A. HP5 at 400ASA. Dev 8m 1+25, RO9
B. HP5 at 1600ASA. Dev 12m 1+25, RO9.
C. HP5 at 1600ASA. The same roll as B.
D. HP5 at 320ASA. Dev slightly pulled at 7.15m.

A is my first roll processed and I have never been able to get the same result. Harsh tight grain.
B+C are pushed to 1600, so why less grain than A or D?
D. is another attempt to get the same result as A but pulling so I'd retain hi-lights and be able to print at higher contrast for extra grain.

The only thing about A that is unusual is that it was 2 years before I processed it. It was shot in California in bright even sun and the camera may have over-exposed due to it's top speed of 1/500. It was also agitated every 60s so we get the uneven lines below the sprocket holes. All other rolls were agitated at 30s intervals which cures the uneven dev.

My big question is – How can I get the grain of A again? – This is my preferred look out of all the HP5 and Tri-X rolls i have shot and dev'd in RO9 since that first roll.

B at 1600 ASA is nice but 1600 ASA needs to be shot in flat light otherwise shadows are black or hilights are burnt out. They also have less grain than A. This is a real surprise to me. C was printed hard to get the local contrast but on grade 2 it looks almost like it was stand developed. At the moment, I don't get it. Where's the grain?

D. Is also Ok but the grain feels very different to A - fluffier. I prefer the hardness of A.

Any comments, analysis, advice welcome, please.

What happens if you shoot in the middle of the day, expose at 400, and process exactly the same way you did in A?

If the lighting situation changes, exposure and development will have to be different to yield similar low, middle, and high values. There simply is no one recipe to make every picture look the same as your 'A' scenario. You have to figure out, by bracketing and altering development, how to treat flat, medium, and high contrast lighting, so that you get the results you want. Bracket a roll, cut it in thirds, and develop one third at a time, until you have what you want.

- Thomas

Grain is an artifact of exposure and development. Over-expose and over-develop like Ralph Gibson and get a ton of grain. I think you want to expose fully and develop fully. You can control contrast by adjusting agitation. You may try going so far as stand or semi-stand development, you'll get enhanced edge sharpness which will give a more defined look to the grain. But as Thomas points out, apparent graininess depends on where much of the subject falls on the tonal scale and how large the tonal fields are, and all that varies from shot to shot. Even Gibson's work doesn't show the same level of grain from image to image.

Second Thomas' and erikg's comments.

It's difficult to evaluate your variation with the image (subject) varying so much.

If I really want to test a combo with variables, I shoot the same scene in quick succession (same lighting, so the image is a constant) with the different speed ratings, then develop them at the times being tested. I would use a 36 exp roll, shoot the first section of film with all the speeds, one after the other. Then space a couple of frames, then repeat, then again. When you take the roll out to process, you can process all of the speeds in each development variation, kind of like a matrix (if that makes sense). You just cut a strip in the dark about the length of the exposure range. I usually repeat the frames (4 speeds in your case) twice to ensure all four in each developer condition. Cutting the film in the dark is approximate.

Rodinal / R09 get more grain if processed warmer. Try to develop at 24°C and shorten the developing time by a factor of 1.5. Overdevelop and overexposing helps additional.

>Thomas
I have a few HP5 films that are overexposed by 1/2 stop (320ASA) but none betray that grain pattern of A. Mostly they are shot in mid-day. I would have thought that the 1/2 stop would not make that much difference. The 320asa example is one.

Sage advice on methodological work patterns, thank-you.

erikg>

I tried to show 3 images with sky, which is where grain does show up. One at 320, one at 400 and one at 1600. I know they are not the same tonally but still my eye seems to tell me that the grain structure of A is different. All the shots on roll A have the same grain structure even if some of them show it more due to tonal scale in the shot.

I have read the Gibson technique and used to have that Darkroom book. I think this is why I started rating at 320 and kept my dev time at the max suggested for 400. I also have a condensor enlarger and chose not to reduce the dev time to decrease the gamma. I thought that I was therefore I was over exposing and overdeveloping in D.

What about push developing? Did I dream that this was supposed to create a lot of grain? How does pushing HP5 to 1600 and developing at 150% time not produce more grain? Am I the only one to find this strange?

>George,

I have read your described technique before in these pages. I like its simplicity and economy of time and materials.

And ok, so I hear what you are all saying. Understanding is obtained through incremental steps not through revelatory leaps. Method, method, method!

piu58,

I may try this as a second approach. In the summer its often hard to get 20C so 24C might be a good thing to try.

But anyone care to comment on the fact that film A was two years in the can?

mr.datsun said:

erikg>

I tried to show 3 images with sky, which is where grain does show up. One at 320, one at 400 and one at 1600. I know they are not the same tonally but still my eye seems to tell me that the grain structure of A is different. All the shots on roll A have the same grain structure even if some of them show it more due to tonal scale in the shot.

I have read the Gibson technique and used to have that Darkroom book. I think this is why I started rating at 320 and kept my dev time at the max suggested for 400. I also have a condensor enlarger and chose not to reduce the dev time to decrease the gamma. I thought that I was therefore I was over exposing and overdeveloping in D.

What about push developing? Did I dream that this was supposed to create a lot of grain? How does pushing HP5 to 1600 and developing at 150% time not produce more grain? Am I the only one to find this strange?

Click to expand...

In example D you are overexposing only by 1/3 stop and you have reduced development. I think you will want more exposure and longer development. That will be closer to your first example and that is the direction that will lead to more visible grain generally speaking. It's hard to say exactly what effect leaving the first roll undeveloped for two years had, but it's very likely the film picked up some extra density in the form of base fog.
As for the classic push, which is a two stop under exposure combined with 150-200% development, you will get some visible grain increase, but you see it most in the high values, in the mid to low values less so. Shadow values are pretty empty though so that leads to a different type of picture. Expose at 200 and develop 150%, that will give a more pronounced grain, and some increase in base fog too. Don't discount alterations in agitation, edge effects can have a big impact on the look of the film grain.

erikg said:

In example D you are overexposing only by 1/3 stop and you have reduced development. I think you will want more exposure and longer development. That will be closer to your first example and that is the direction that will lead to more visible grain generally speaking. It's hard to say exactly what effect leaving the first roll undeveloped for two years had, but it's very likely the film picked up some extra density in the form of base fog.
As for the classic push, which is a two stop under exposure combined with 150-200% development, you will get some visible grain increase, but you see it most in the high values, in the mid to low values less so. Shadow values are pretty empty though so that leads to a different type of picture. Expose at 200 and develop 150%, that will give a more pronounced grain, and some increase in base fog too. Don't discount alterations in agitation, edge effects can have a big impact on the look of the film grain.

Click to expand...

Erik,
thank-you for your detailed reply. I'm going to do some tests strip films as suggested and head for between normal, 1 and 2 stop over exposure with standard and increased dev times. Later, I might try reducing agitation every 60s again if I can control the sprocket streaking..

I'm starting to think that Rodinal is remarkably low grain at 1600. This seems to fly in the face of the opinions that it is the wrong dev for 400asa and greater films.