ILFORD HP5+ shot at ISO 1600

[brbo]

I'd also mention that these images were not manipulated. I converted them with Negative Lab Pro, and it was automatically set to the Lab - Standard profile by default. I didn't even adjust anything further, so this is how they're supposed to look if developed with the method I mentioned above.

They were manipulated (by NLP), 'Lab - Standard' profile means nothing (or even less) and negative film does not have a 'supposed look'.

It's what you capable of achieving in the scan or print is what you are 'supposed' to have.

 

[hiroh]

They were manipulated (by NLP), 'Lab - Standard' profile means nothing (or even less) and negative film does not have a 'supposed look'.

It's what you capable of achieving in the scan or print is what you are 'supposed' to have.

What I meant to say is that if you convert your negatives with the NLP, and do nothing else, that's how they will end up looking.

 

[brbo]

What I meant to say is that if you convert your negatives with the NLP, and do nothing else, that's how they will end up looking.

Yes, I get that, but bringing NLP into discussion is pointless. A random software is no reference for how scanned negatives will/should look like, no matter how many 'Pro' monikers they use in the name. And, no, negatives developed in X developer for Y minutes using Z agitation will NOT all have the same look just because they are inverted with NLP. There are many other variables that will effect the results...

I'm not a Luddite and have quite a bit of experience at scanning, but this IS 100% analogue workflow forum. I'm all for showing the results (even if that inadvertently requires some shifting of the electrons) in analogue workflow forums, but lets not give people impression that NLP is something accepted as a 'standard' (or anything close) in digital workflow.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

HP5+ is my go-to film for 1600, day-time natural light indoors or night shots outdoors. I always develop it, and like it a lot, with Ilfotec DD-X. Contrast is tamed through agitation. Ilfotec HC also works well, albeit with a grainier result. I would definitely avoid Rodinal.

I'm always surprised how fine-grained Rodinal1+25 is.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'm always surprised how fine-grained Rodinal1+25 is.

Don't get me wrong. I love Rodinal, and I looooove grain. I use it 1:25, 1:50 or 1:75 with slow speed films, and once in a while with Tri-X. My comment was only regarding pushing a 400 film to 1600 with it, unless you want a specific look.

 

[rduraoc]

Just scanned my roll. It turned out quite grainy, which I don't mind, but it seems underexposed, which is strange as I was shooting on a bright sunny day at f/16, 1/1000, and ISO 1600. I was hoping it would be overexposed. What do you think, is this underexposure or something with the development? The scanning shouldn't be an issue, as I used the settings that I always use for my scans with a digital camera.

And this is in Lisbon.

 

[albireo]

What I meant to say is that if you convert your negatives with the NLP, and do nothing else, that's how they will end up looking.

In spite of not using NLP, I scan my film and I understood exactly what you meant, and found your samples informative to an extent - and so will many lurkers to this forum.

So thank you for sharing. Good results by the way, Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50 is just great.

 

[eli griggs]

I would use the massive development chart and take it from there. It reflects the sum of many pople's experiences.

What do you think of, when shooting still objects/landscapes at 1600, of pre flashing the negative for better contrast control?