Orange filter and pushing ilford hp5+

[BrianShaw]

May I assume that you are happy? Nice images!

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

as promised I am attaching two photos developed from the test roll.
rollei 35 tessar with orange filter, ilford hp5 pushed to iso 1600 and developed with rodinal. scanned with vuescan and epson v500. no lightroom or post production.

Thank you very much for sharing with us. They look very nice.

 

[JensH]

as promised I am attaching two photos developed from the test roll.
rollei 35 tessar with orange filter, ilford hp5 pushed to iso 1600 and developed with rodinal. scanned with vuescan and epson v500. no lightroom or post production.

Ha, your concept works!
Even with such contrasty light... I'm surprised.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Cliveh was right... Why the filter and why 1600?
By the way, I've done both, but not both at the same time and for direct sunlight...
Please don't take me wrong: the images don't show what happens with the shadows at 1600 in rodinal.
Possibly some data are wrong, or maybe this is a digital thing.

 

[pentaxuser]

Please don't take me wrong: the images don't show what happens with the shadows at 1600 in rodinal.
Possibly some data are wrong, or maybe this is a digital thing.

Can you expand on this? Do you mean that the images don't show what the true effect on shadows at 1600 is or what the true effect of Rodinal is at 1600?

I feel I may not have understood exactly what you mean?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi pentax,
No direct print from HP5+ @1600 in Rodinal can show open shadows if wet printed... That's a huge underexposure, and if contrast is really high, go figure...
Scanning is a different field.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Juan for your explanation. So it appears that we may be back to the old problem of scanning automatically altering the true negative details even without the user realising it has done so, given that lodosan says he made a straight scan only.

It begs the question of how much we the viewers or he the owner of the negs can trust a scanner to show the true picture. It would seem that for the purposes of establishing what pushed film in some or all developers can actually do, we really need ideally darkroom prints of the negatives or digital representations of the negatives or at the very least user knowledge of what a scanner does to misrepresent the detail in a negative and how to correct such misrepresentation

Lodosan, is there any chance that you can show us digital representations of the 2 negs?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks Juan for your explanation. So it appears that we may be back to the old problem of scanning automatically altering the true negative details even without the user realising it has done so, given that lodosan says he made a straight scan only.

It begs the question of how much we the viewers or he the owner of the negs can trust a scanner to show the true picture. It would seem that for the purposes of establishing what pushed film in some or all developers can actually do, we really need ideally darkroom prints of the negatives or digital representations of the negatives or at the very least user knowledge of what a scanner does to misrepresent the detail in a negative and how to correct such misrepresentation

Lodosan, is there any chance that you can show us digital representations of the 2 negs?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The way to share results is a darkroom direct print when negative borders are black: when I was a student we should show also a print with those borders just before they reach black, so the teachers were sure the pure black print was not stretching things to reach black.
A wet print scan including a chart too, is trustable IMO.