Ilford classic grain films and direct sun... Which one do you prefer?

[Bormental]

It's all about what % of your workflow you want to be in analog domain. It is difficult to be a purist. Otherwise, shoot for the longest straight line, digitize with a modern sensor and learn how to use a computer. As long as the information is on the negative in some form, one can draw any toes/shoulders with a mouse. Which means that for a hybrid workflow you should care only about the range of the characteristic curve, the shape doesn't matter: I can straighten any toes and shoulders, compress or stretch, but its easier to make my own from a straight line.

 

[grain elevator]

There's no traditional magical film that's best for high contrast scenes (though t-grain films are great for reciprocity characteristics during long exposures). It's really just a matter of capturing shadow detail during exposure and developing to place the highlights where you want them.[...]

That's what I thought.

[...] many sunny images remain sadly cold in mood.

I think I know what you mean, for me this seems to come from underexposure, blocked shadows and only specular highlights in the upper end of the tonal scale. This doesn't allow the viewer into the scene, and maybe also reminds us of what bits of snow can do to our vision in the sun in an otherwise snow-free scene, maybe therefore the "cold" impression.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nope, Bormental. Learn what film can actually do by itself, and understand they're NOT all the same with respect to how they handle tonal extremes. If it can be done with curve reconfiguration via a scan, it can be done at least as well in a darkroom, without the qualitative loss of an intermediate generation. I'd rather have the full flavor of real ice cream rather than imitation ice milk.

 

[Bormental]

Nope, Bormental. Learn what film can actually do by itself, and understand they're NOT all the same with respect to how they handle tonal extremes.

Drew, no one is arguing. Exploring different film looks is what this is all about. I've been writing image analysis software for lithography steppers (think high-precision "enlargers", hehe) and I'm pretty sure I can take a photo with my Canon 5D and write software to generate Fomapan/TMY/Delta image from it using the characteristic and spectral curves from their manufacturers (and a microscopic shots of grain patterns at different densities), but where's the fun in THAT?

If it can be done with curve reconfiguration via a scan, it can be done at least as well in a darkroom, without the qualitative loss of an intermediate generation

And this is where you're walking off the traveled path into the darkness, my friend.

I'd rather have the full flavor of real ice cream rather than imitation ice milk.

If it's the experience of the process that you're after, I am 100% with you. But if the goal is the best possible image out of a B/W negative, my advice of picking a film with the widest curve range and not worrying too much about curvature, stands (leading to digital post-processing and printing)

 

[DREW WILEY]

That path was well traveled for many decades before anyone ever heard of scanners or digital cameras. Digital techniques merely mimicked it, hence all the cannibalism of graphics film terminology itself, like "unsharp masking" or "edge sharpening". If you don't care about the characteristic curve of the film to begin with, then fortunately you weren't doing it then, or you would have found yourself in the La Brea tar pits. If you haven't noticed it, it's the Post-Digital Era, as far as I'm concerned. We tortoises and crocodiles might move slower than all the fancy dinosaurs, but we were around before them, and will be around a lot longer. My film punches will still be working 200 years from now, long after multiple generations of electronic devices and associated software have gone extinct, and me too. Take CD's for example. What are those discs going to be good for except down at the skeet shooting range along the Bay? That's about the most fun with anything digital I can conceive of.

 

[Bormental]

That path was well traveled for many decades before anyone ever heard of scanners or digital cameras.

I was referring to math and physics. What's on the negative can be broken down to each individual silver crystal, analyzed and manipulated without any loss of information. I did this for a living. Computers are simply mechanical accelerators of this process. We may ignore the tools available just for kicks (which is what I do when I shoot film) but let's be honest about what's going on. Want to capture shadow+highlight detail? Well, shoot digital then. Oh, you want to play and shoot film? Then pick the widest-range straight-curve one, digitize and post-process. Oh, you want to make it even harder for yourself? And then it turns into an absurd game of picking film where it's hard (HP5) but not too hard (Fomapan). Using densitometers is allowed, but RAW capture is not, the rules of the game are weird, but... sure, let's play. But why so much seriousness? I find this amusing.

Take CD's for example

Why would I do that? CDs is what was affordable to laymen back then. You did not have access to digital tools, now you do. What point does this prove?

 

[Bormental]

I am noticing the conversation drifting to "anti-digital" argument, which is not why we enjoy shooting film. Let's leave it at that. And to answer OP's original question, I can only suggest looking at the characteristic curves of both films. Dynamic range of an emulsion is not someone's opinion or experience. It is a documented design target of the Ilford's engineering team.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I am noticing the conversation drifting to "anti-digital" argument, which is not why we enjoy shooting film. Let's leave it at that. And to answer OP's original question, I can only suggest looking at the characteristic curves of both films. Dynamic range of an emulsion is not someone's opinion or experience. It is a documented design target of the Ilford's engineering team.

Your suggestion is wrong...
What was a good idea to do, is what I did.
Now I have seen what both films do.

 

[Bormental]

Your suggestion is wrong...

My suggestion can't possibly be wrong because my suggestion was to read the freaking manual. You just "discovered" that HP5+ has greater range. The Ilford data sheet is nodding in agreement. You prefer to be learning by doing, which I applaud. But you should also try reading to compliment your routine.

This advice is even more valuable in more dangerous endeavors, like riding a motorcycle or operating heavy machinery. RTFM, Juan...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I just discovered what I already knew from previous posts, that you - Bormental - conceive of Digi manipulation as a crutch when you don't really understand film itself, and namely, a crutch for bludgeoning one type of film into another, when you could have just chosen something more appropriate to begin with. Find a funky used book store with a pile of old Kodak Graphics and Film Guides. Specific films have changed; but by studying the various intended applications in relation to curve structure and so forth you'll get a better idea of why one shoe does not fit all types of feet. ... If you knew what these film curves represent, you would not be making a blanket statement that HP5 has greater range than such and such... It's all relative to the distribution of tones in the scene itself. The long toe of HP5 will give you "something" down in the shadows, but will poorly resolve deep gradation if you have to retain crispness in very high values at the same time. So it can't be considered long-scale in that respect, but somewhat limited. But I'm not going to go beyond that basic statement in this thread. I do know how to make HP5 dance, no digi futzing around needed, but it's a more advanced topic,