New Film and Technique to Try

ColColt · Aug 14, 2015

I got several rolls of HP-5 today in the mail and loaded up the M2 for another test tomorrow. I had adjusted the vertical misaligned rangefinder and tings pops into focus much better now. It wasn't off bad but enough, I feel, to cause a little off focus images in my last roll.

At any rate, I'll shoot similar images I shot before for comparison's sake. This time instead of my usual method of developing I'm going to try Dilution H instead of B and see how the images look. I'm anxious to see if my adjustments made a difference so I'll probably take the entire roll tomorrow and develop late tomorrow afternoon. Also, I'm going to make sure the room is humid enough as my last roll of Tri-X curled and was hard to get it flat enough to be able to scan. I'm hoping the extra humidity and maybe even a change from my Tri-X in conjunction with the vertical misalignment fix I made everything will look better...stay tuned.

John Bragg · Aug 15, 2015

Good luck with this film dev combo. It is my favorite recipe and I find that rating at Ei200 works well for me. May pay to bracket a few on the first roll ?

ColColt · Aug 15, 2015

I'll do that. I'm thinking developing times around 11-12 minutes.

John Bragg · Aug 15, 2015

ColColt said:
I'll do that. I'm thinking developing times around 11-12 minutes.

12 mins works for me. I would say that is my standard time for HP5+ Delta 400 and Tri-X. To get the best out of dilution H, dont agitate too much.

ColColt · Aug 15, 2015

Eleven minutes was a tad contrasty for about half the roll. I think next time I'll add 50ml of water more to the 6ml concentrate to make 350ml for a 1:58 dilution.. I did agitate the first 30 seconds and then 5 seconds each 30 seconds...my usual method.

John Bragg · Aug 16, 2015

I would think that you may see huge benefits by reducing agitation, both in perceived sharpness and contrast control. The old Kodak regime is a bit strong for this combination. Try 5 seconds every other minute ? I use even less. 15 seconds initial and 2 inversions at 4 minute and 8 minute marks for a total of 12 minutes, (but that is me).

ColColt · Aug 16, 2015

I'll give that a try next time but looks like that would affect the contrast-i.e., lower due to less agitation. The few examples I've seen from you apparently work well as I've seen no HP-5/HC-110 developed film that looked better.

John Bragg · Aug 16, 2015

Thanks for the kind words.That is the case and because the dev is dilute, the contrast reduction is mainly in the highlights. The reduced agitation causes a compensating effect where shadows are fully developed and highlights held where they should be. Good luck and I am sure you will get it dialled in very soon.

ColColt · Aug 16, 2015

that roll I just shot was just a test roll after I had corrected the vertical misalignment in my M2. Everything looked more sharp afterwards and most likely the combination of HP-5 and HC-110 helped as well. Thanks for those tips and dilution recommendation. Nothing like a picture perfect negative.

ColColt · Aug 16, 2015

After shooting another roll of Tri-X today and with the HP-5 shot yesterday and doing a fair share of scanning, I've come to the conclusion what I need is a better scanner that can keep the negatives flatter. The flatbed I have just ain't gettin' it. Can I get some recommendations? The HP-5 looked good and I'm going to try John's recommendations on it but the scanner is the Achilles's Heel in the quotient.

something else I found. I use to shoot a lot of Agfapan 400 and Rodinal and have come to the conclusion it was better than either HP-5 or Tri-X with HC-110. These were both Agfapan 400. I found the negatives today and thought one of them was Tri-X but it's Agfapan.

This one of my Dad in the early 80's

Dad022 by David Fincher, on Flickr

My kid brother around the same time line...

Donnie029a by David Fincher, on Flickr

Xmas · Aug 16, 2015

You can get 3rd party film holders for most of the film scanners or get your enlarger out of storage wet print and scan that.

Your Trix scan from the past looked super on a web page, that is all most people do.

But the 10 GBP scanner (not a flat bed) I use for proofing would do good 10x16 prints on an A3 printer but not tried yet... I don't use photo shop either.

ColColt · Aug 16, 2015

I don't know...something has changed. I was fanning through my old negatives and found quite a few Tri-X and HC-110 negatives that looked better than the current roll of Tri-X and HC-110 I did the other day. Those negatives were tack sharp and with a 10x loupe I could detect no grain. The old 5063 Tri-X is not the current version of it, sadly.

This is a shot of a downtown store I did back in the mid 80's using a 50 f2 DR Summicron lens on an M2 with Tri-X and HC-110. I have yet to get anything that looks that good in the past few days with this new Tri-X. Something's amiss somewhere.

Downtown014a by David Fincher, on Flickr

another one...

img016a by David Fincher, on Flickr

Xmas · Aug 17, 2015

Hi David

Trix and Tx are different films, Tx has finer grain and is sharper.
Your new M2 is different
Ditto the planar
The only thing common is the scanner.
I was in the states in '87 nice photos I get bad nostalgia.
Look at the negatives back lit with a loupe, the planar will do for this
Or get the enlarger out of storage.
Try putting the negative file in a book with a stack of books on top wait a week...
Check the moon is at infinity or a TV tower a mile away at least. If the vertical is out normally the horizontal is at risk.

Noel

John Bragg · Aug 17, 2015

Hi David. The Agfapan does look good and I think part of that is the crisp uniform grain that gives it a certain structure and micro contrast. I'm not sure which modern film would best duplicate that look ? Someone here may have an answer. Perhaps HP5+ in Rodinal ?

ColColt · Aug 17, 2015

I liked Agfapan. I hated to see it's demise. With Rodinal is was great, I thought. Some didn't like the grain structure but to me it was classic. Just for the heck of it I miked some old Tri-x to see if the thickness had changed since the new stuff was curling more than I recall the old 5063 emulsion and both were identical at .0055" so, that's not the problem. I suppose the emulsion in some form has changed as it just doesn't look the same.

I'm going to work with TX400, as it's called today, a little more since I ordered a dozen rolls of it recently. Maybe try ID-11. I'm definitely going to work with HP-5 some more as it looked promising on the first roll I shot with developing in HC-110.

I did develop HP-5 with Rodinal long ago. I'll have to dig out some of those negatives and have a look-see.

ColColt · Aug 17, 2015

I'm going to try some of Ilford's Delta 400 and see how that looks.

John Bragg · Aug 17, 2015

Delta 400 is more like T-max. Very smooth and less obvious grain. On reflection, Kentmere 400 may be worth a go as well.

ColColt · Aug 17, 2015

That's a definite new one to me. Up until recently I had never heard of it. I'm all for experimenting. That's how I found Tri-X(old) and HC-110 was such a good combination only Kodak's developing times were too long at their recommended 7 1/2 minutes-too contrasty so, I modified it a bit. Another great film has always been FP-4 in Rodinal or what use to be called ID-11 plus but, it's not 400 film.

ColColt · Aug 17, 2015

I use to go out at lunch time when I was still working and take my rangefinder and just walk around town. I was pretty much shooting Tri-X exclusively back then. These were taken with the M2 and Tri-X. I could always depend on it being the same from roll to roll...no surprises.

img100a by David Fincher, on Flickr

img101a by David Fincher, on Flickr

img098a by David Fincher, on Flickr

ColColt · Aug 17, 2015

Thank you, sir. I use to love street shooting when I worked downtown. When the '82 World's Fair was here it was but two blocks away from work and I went nuts shooting there. I got shots while it was under construction, during the Fair, and finally six months later as they began tearing it down, I was there shooting.

Xmas · Aug 17, 2015

ColColt said:
Thank you, sir. I use to love street shooting when I worked downtown. When the '82 World's Fair was here it was but two blocks away from work and I went nuts shooting there. I got shots while it was under construction, during the Fair, and finally six months later as they began tearing it down, I was there shooting.

Nostalgia is in fashion again.
I'd forgotten what US cities looked like.

ColColt · Aug 18, 2015

Most look a bit different. Those places are no longer there. The area is still there but different shops occupy those places now.

New Film and Technique to Try

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency