My first two films developed, a few questions

[agenkin]

Greetings!

First of all, a big thank you to all who responded to my (there was a url link here which no longer exists) about starting out with film. Well, I got my first two films developed. I decided to stick with HP5+ 400 for the first little while, and I'm using Ilford DD-X, Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer for the chemicals. I just followed the steps from the Ilford's "Processing Your First B&W Film" brochure.

I exposed the first film at ISO 400, but the second one I pushed to 800.

The first half of the first film (the outdoor shots) was way underexposed, there was very little emulsion left at all. I would think that I was not developing properly, if not for the second half, which had a few indoors photographs, which were exposed just perfectly (as much as I can judge by looking at the negatives).

Coming from the DSLR camp, where I was used to underexposing most of the time, to avoid the blown highlights, I decided to over-expose the second film by 2/3 to 1 full stop, and it worked out much better. All of the street shots came out with lots of detail and contrast. I guess it's better to overexpose film, than underexpose.

Today I scanned a few frames from both films using my university's film scanner (Minolta D'Image something or other at 2840dpi). I am a bit surprised by the grain I'm getting, especially in the pushed shots. I thought HP5+ was supposed to be quite pushable; in fact, currently I have a roll of HP5+ 400 set to 1600 in my camera, I wonder what will come out of it. Here are a couple of examples. Is this grain normal, or is something wrong with my process? I have no aversion for grain, in fact I like grain, when not excessive. Just want to hear some opinions.

1. HP5+ 400 at 400
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

2. HP5+ 400 at 800
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

 

[Amund]

Looks perfectly normal to me. Remember not to "pixel peep" when judging grain, look at the image at "print size". When peeping at 100% in Photshop step 10 feet back, that would be the proper distance for a print at that size...

 

[Bob F.]

That looks like good tight grain to me. Remember that HP5+ is already a fast film, pushing it will increase the grain even more. The full images are 8"x5.5" on my monitor and the grain is not excessive. The blowup would be 48"x33", which is quite large...

You are correct that it is better to overexpose negative film than underexpose: that way you ensure that the shadows get enough exposure - you can't print what isn't on the negative, as they say. As you go along you will learn how to adapt your development to take account of different subject contrast ranges.

Have fun, Bob.

 

[Chazzy]

Looks normal for miniature format.

 

[hywel]

agenkin,

Good to hear from you again.

As Amund said you really shouldn't go scanning and then looking at 100% crops. I too calculate that your 100% crop is something like 32x48 inches for the full print, which is larger than 35mm should be taken. If you look at that crop at about 25% magnification, equivalent to about an 8x12 print, a good size for 35mm, then I don't think you'll be struck by the grain. Indeed I'm quite impressed how little I see: I was going to write that my expericence (with a flat bed scanner) is that scanning sees more grain than you can see in a conventional darkroom print of eqivalent size, but your crops probably look a bit like my larger darkroom prints.

If you push any film then the grain is going to increase. And the more you push it the more it will increase. HP5 is regarded as push-able film because most people find the grain acceptable even at 1600. If you are worried about the grain you see at 400 then perhaps pushing it isn't for you.

To your exposure question, yes, with B&W negative film, always err on the side of over-exposre. (Slide film is different, but that's for another place). You'll find many of us here who always rate HP5 at EI200, essentially always overexposing it by a stop. That said, in DDX I (and most people who seem to write here) am happy to use it at 400. If you got good results indoors then the problem could be in the metering you used outdoors?

Most importantly your full farme pictures look lovely, I wish my first rolls had looked that good (I wish many of my current rolls looked that good).

Hope that you are enjoying your first foray into B&W and that we'll hear from you again as you continue your adventure,

Hywel

 

[Neal]

Dear Arkady,

First, I would like to say that I like your stopwatch photo. Second, I must point out that 2840 dpi is insufficient to actually resolve grain. This is not to say that the grain in the scans is not due to the grain in the film, but the scan will exaggerate the grain due to "grain aliasing". (Check out http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm) I have the previous Minolta model and the easiest solution is to scan at a lower resolution (I know, it seems counterintuitive).

Neal Wydra

 

[tbm]

I exposed several rolls of HP5+ last year and was dismayed at the grain structure--I didn't like it at all. So, I went back to the latest version of Tri-X and was a very happy camper! The difference was amazing!

 

[laverdure]

One possibility for your underexposure outside might be, depending on what you're using, a less sophisticated light meter than was on your dslr. Perhaps it is reading too much of the sky. A rule of thumb in b/w negative photography is to always err on the sides of overexposure and underdevelopment, if you are looking for detail, fine grain, and ease of printing. I also like your stopwatch. Don't know anything about scanners, though.

 

[nworth]

These look like very well and properly developed negatives. The gradation is excellent and the grain is really quite fine. Pushing film emphasises grain to some extent, but these are excellent. To get the most out of your film, I'd suggest adjusting the exposure (and development) to the rated speed or a little less.

 

[dxphoto]

you overexposure did the trick was because the snow scene would trick the meter anyway, not that the over exposure would do any good the the film, i guess. for b/w, expose for the detail.

I had the same problem with the scanning. I used the dimage scanner and scanner my HP5+ at the top DPI and it looked horrible at 100%. But the same film in the wet prints to 11x14 was perfectly fine. dimage scanners are film dedicated scanner and it DOES focus on the film (compare to the flatbeds focus on the glass) so they are very "accurate" (sometime it can be bad).

our monitors are 72 DPI resolution, if you scan the neg at 3200dpi, you are taking it up to about 44x of the size of the neg, which means you are enlarge it to about 63x42 inch --- when you are looking at in on your monitor at 100%

I use canon flatbed to scan my neg for the web now, scan it at 2400dpi just for PS then down-sample it to something like 1500x1000 pixels, just good to cover the whole display area monitor. I have never printed the scanner b/w film since they intend to be soft anyway. However I scanned some color slides and neg at that rate and printed them out at adorama and they come out pretty OK. (for neg (400VC) the grain is more noticeable than the slide (provia 400F) but at acceptable level).