Pushing HP5+ to 3200

[StoneNYC]

I have to point out... not a single one of you has actually posted anything relevant except one guy (who's awesome by the way) who posted the boxing pictures... he used a PICTURE to illustrate what his experience was, even if it wasn't quite with the same stuff, it was at least an example ... hey, I did this, and THIS is what I got...

It seems so simple ... but no one ever backs up their stuff... heck, Michael R, you don't even have any images at all in your gallery or any links to your images anywhere... and you talk so much smack about me knowing anything or being "all over the place), PROVE you even know anything about photography ... at least Shawn and Chris and Thomas can back it up with something ....

Sorry I'm just annoyed and the fact that I come online to see your "style" and you don't even have anything... at all... lame.. at least I try...

 

[Chris Lange]

examples of pushed to 3200 (pretty sure these are all HP5 but there might be a Tri-X in there.)

 

[markbarendt]

Ansel invented his own system, why can't I?

*barbaric yawlp*

You could, but to be blunt Stone, you haven't shown the willingness or the discipline it would require. Ansel on the other hand was willing to do lots of testing and be disciplined in experimentation and production so he could figure out why/how, and then he developed a system (dumbed-it-down) to help lay people make good photos.

Ansel's "dumbed down" version took three volumes to publish.

Sometimes things aren't simple.

 

[removed account4]

examples of pushed to 3200 (pretty sure these are all HP5 but there might be a Tri-X in there.)

i haven't a clue what this thread is about anymore
but wanted to say really nice work chris ...



===

mark

ansel didn't even invent the system, did he ?
i had always read he took what people had already been doing
for decades, and improved upon it, and allowed others to
learn from his experiences. but year, ansel a wasn't a slouch by any
stretch of the imagination ... and i think from what i understand
his excessive OCD kicked in and allowed him to focus to the extreme
(pardon the pun)

 

[eddie]

I have to point out... not a single one of you has actually posted anything relevant except one guy ...

Everyone has made relevant posts. You've been repeatedly told you need to do the work to make film work for you. Instead, you demand to be spoon fed the simplest of photographic concepts. If you have any desire to attain any semblance of competence, you need to back up, and start from scratch. One film/one developer. Read the books which have been repeatedly suggested. I get the feeling all of your confusion/lack of focus comes from taking all the disparate things you read online as gospel. You need to learn the most basic principles, before you'll ever be able to translate your artistic desires into anything of substance. Everyone here (and everywhere), producing quality work has put in the time, and effort, to get where they are. What makes you think your path can be different?

 

[markbarendt]

mark

ansel didn't even invent the system, did he ?
i had always read he took what people had already been doing
for decades, and improved upon it, and allowed others to
learn from his experiences. but year, ansel a wasn't a slouch by any
stretch of the imagination ... and i think from what i understand
his excessive OCD kicked in and allowed him to focus to the extreme
(pardon the pun)

You are correct John, that is my understanding too. I over simplified to make a point.

Stone this is a good example of what happens when I leave pertinent things out.

 

[cowanw]

Why does everybody forget Fred Archer.

 

[eddie]

Why does everybody forget Fred Archer.

He didn't do "Moonrise".
It could be because he died before photography really began it's ascent in the art world. ZS has been associated with AA for so long, now...

 

[erikg]

Thanks, but I'm using the film as Ilford states it can be used... as a 3200 speed film... that's per ilford...

? And I said to follow Ilford's recommendation in doing so. Good luck.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks, but I'm using the film as Ilford states it can be used... as a 3200 speed film... that's per ilford...

This would say to me that you don't understand what a 3200 speed film is.

But I think that is wrong as well.

Ilford has recommendations for you on how best to deal with three stops of under-exposure. I would certainly recommend them as a good idea.

Unlike digital, there is no dial/menu setting on your "sensor" (film) that changes its ability to respond to light.

 

[StoneNYC]

He didn't do "Moonrise".
It could be because he died before photography really began it's ascent in the art world. ZS has been associated with AA for so long, now...

Sorry, but to me, moonrise is a terrible image, I never understood why anyone thinks it's any good... Ansel had some fine imagery but that certainly isn't one of them to me...

 

[StoneNYC]

This would say to me that you don't understand what a 3200 speed film is.

But I think that is wrong as well.

Ilford has recommendations for you on how best to deal with three stops of under-exposure. I would certainly recommend them as a good idea.

Unlike digital, there is no dial/menu setting on your "sensor" (film) that changes its ability to respond to light.

Huh? No I'm saying that Ilford says HP5 is pushable to 3200 so I'm using it as such, just like they say D3200 is pushable to 3200 (and beyond) they wouldn't list it if it couldn't at least produce semi decent results.

 

[StoneNYC]

Everyone has made relevant posts. You've been repeatedly told you need to do the work to make film work for you. Instead, you demand to be spoon fed the simplest of photographic concepts. If you have any desire to attain any semblance of competence, you need to back up, and start from scratch. One film/one developer. Read the books which have been repeatedly suggested. I get the feeling all of your confusion/lack of focus comes from taking all the disparate things you read online as gospel. You need to learn the most basic principles, before you'll ever be able to translate your artistic desires into anything of substance. Everyone here (and everywhere), producing quality work has put in the time, and effort, to get where they are. What makes you think your path can be different?

Eddie ya know what, you can go (expletive delete) yourself, do you know how much time and effort I put into shooting, all I do is read and research about film and developing, I spend all my available time shooting and developing reading and learning, and then when I need help I ask a question, when I'm curious about something someone says I ask for elaboration on the subject, and I buy books on photography and I read them, and I look at others imagery and view different styles and emulsions and light and composition, and my whole life is photography, I'm putting in my time, and I'm learning at the pace I can absorb stuff. And again (expletive delete) you for saying nothing I've ever done had been of substance, you're a real (expletive delete) for saying that kind of (expletive delete) to me.

And I don't mean relevant to what YOU want me to do, relevant to the actual question I posed.

I said .... If you've done this, please post any info you have on deviating from the listed times.

If you haven't done this STOP POSTING seriously, anyone who hasn't actually done this, I wish you would just shut up, because you're doing nothing but derailing the entire post into another "tell Stone how to do things differently" thread.

Im really sick of it, it's like talking at a bunch of (expletive delete), if you haven't done this, please just stop posting. You're not being helpful and you're making me not even want to be on this forum anymore....

Please don't mistake this for not valuing the knowledge you have, I do, separate from this post, but NOTHING you people are saying is actually helpful RIGHT NOW except the few who have SHOT WITH HP5+ at EI 3200 AND DEVELOPED IN DD-X... AND GIVEN EXAMPLES OF THEIR RESULTS the rest are just blowing smoke because you're too proud to admit that YOU HAVENT DONE THIS and so don't have any knowledge to share in regard to this specific procedure.

I made that perfectly clear in my first post, I don't know why that's so hard for people to comprehend.... If you don't like that I'm asking for examples of others that have done this before me, then don't share, that's fine, you can keep your secret, you're just another one of those people who step on the little guy to make sure he stays on top instead of sharing with the community, that's fine, don't share, but also don't share if you have no experience shooting HP5+ at 3200 and Dev on Rodinal...

Can you tell I'm PO'd right now?....

 

[Xmas]

Calm down you will attract trolls and maybe moderators.

This week I bought a 2nd calibrated thermometer cause I tried to duplicate a chums dev time and temp standing Rodinal and did not like the results. Both thermos were the same.

The Kodak and Ilford figures are only recommendations every one will have tried some of them and got different. results.

So im going to ignore my chum and back to my norm. I duplicate Ilfords figures and temper all the wash water to a within a degree.

If it is dark I OD on latte in coffee house cause my negs are difficult enough to scan and wet print already. I only scan for proof and filing records.

Enjoy yourself more.

 

[StoneNYC]

Calm down you will attract trolls and maybe moderators.

This week I bought a 2nd calibrated thermometer cause I tried to duplicate a chums dev time and temp standing Rodinal and did not like the results. Both thermos were the same.

The Kodak and Ilford figures are only recommendations every one will have tried some of them and got different. results.

So im going to ignore my chum and back to my norm. I duplicate Ilfords figures and temper all the wash water to a within a degree.

If it is dark I OD on latte in coffee house cause my negs are difficult enough to scan and wet print already. I only scan for proof and filing records.

Enjoy yourself more.

Thanks man, I would enjoy myself more if people weren't so insulting, just too many insults in one post for me to ignore him. Some people just need to be dicks to others to make themselves feel better. But sometimes I just can't let that stuff go.

Anyway it sure made me feel better. Now I know what another poster was talking about on a separate thread about the same guy. It all makes sense now.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Listen more, speak less?

 

[Richard Man]

So how did the pictures come out, after this epic thread?

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

It seems to be working.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Still working.

 

[Xmas]

Listen more, speak less?

eeeeeeeek
you are a disciple of, 'do as I say, not as I do.'?

 

[rjbuzzclick]

StoneNYC-

If you just want development times and examples just go to filmdev.org:

http://www.filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=HP5++DD-X+3200

Even there, you'll see differing information and your results will most likely be different as well. I'm currently experimenting with pushing AristaEDU 400 to 800. I did a bunch of online searches and saw widely different results. All I learned for sure was that it WAS possible to get results like I was looking for. I combined that research with my personal experience with AristaEDU films and got very close on my first film. It was the personal experience that made the difference. My first try at new film/developer combinations almost always produce less than desirable results, and then I learn and tweak from there. My point is that had I asked here, I would have received widely varying responses because everyone's process and tastes are different.

I think what rubs people the wrong way with you is that you tend to jump in as an expert on posts when it doesn't seem like you have a lot of knowledge in the area. For example, just this morning you jumped in on someone's classified ad selling Fuji FP-100B, telling them that FP-100B didn't exist and had to be either FB-100C or FB-3000B. A simple internet search would have told you what FP-100B was. Posts like that leave an impression that you don't want to do any of the education work yourself, but want to be told just what you should do.

It could also be that you end every other paragraph with HAHA or LOL, but I'm over 45, so maybe that's just me...

(post intended respectfully)

 

[eddie]

Eddie ya know what, you can go (expletive delete) yourself, do you know how much time and effort I put into shooting, all I do is read and research about film and developing, I spend all my available time shooting and developing reading and learning, and then when I need help I ask a question, when I'm curious about something someone says I ask for elaboration on the subject, and I buy books on photography and I read them, and I look at others imagery and view different styles and emulsions and light and composition, and my whole life is photography, I'm putting in my time, and I'm learning at the pace I can absorb stuff. And again (expletive delete) you for saying nothing I've ever done had been of substance, you're a real (expletive delete) for saying that kind of (expletive delete) to me.

I've told you before, you've posted images I like. And, I've always admired your enthusiasm. You seem to be someone who wants to accomplish something with your photography. But, when you post 250+ times per month, with questions all over the place (TMY vs Tri-X/How do I process this film in that developer/ etc) expecting definitive answers (read Ilford's instructions isn't good enough?), I have to question your willingness to put in the work necessary to excel. The reason why I, and others, keep saying you need to simplify your methods and materials is because it's really the only way to grasp the basic science of photography. It's only when the basic principles are mastered, to the point that they're intuitive, that one can concentrate on making images of substance.

I think everyone has been where you are. I know, when I started, I jumped around between films and developers, too. Like most people, I came to the point where I wanted to produce better images. I became tired of hoping I'd get what I want, rather than knowing I'd get what I want. Like most people, I came to understand that I wouldn't get there flitting from film to film, developer to developer. I spent years just using Plus-X/D-76. I spent months photographing gray sandpaper, under controlled lighting conditions. I analyzed what happened with changes of times, temperatures, and metering techniques. It was only then that I felt confident that what I visualized would end up on paper. I'm pretty sure everyone, here, had a similar experience.

I've been harsh because I really do believe you want to be good at this. I used to teach photography, and had many students like you. They had talent, they shot a lot, but they were too unfocused to take their work to the next level. So, you'll get your wish... I won't waste my time responding the next time you ask how to do something which is written on the box the roll of film came out of.

 

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC-

If you just want development times and examples just go to filmdev.org:

http://www.filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=HP5++DD-X+3200

Even there, you'll see differing information and your results will most likely be different as well. I'm currently experimenting with pushing AristaEDU 400 to 800. I did a bunch of online searches and saw widely different results. All I learned for sure was that it WAS possible to get results like I was looking for. I combined that research with my personal experience with AristaEDU films and got very close on my first film. It was the personal experience that made the difference. My first try at new film/developer combinations almost always produce less than desirable results, and then I learn and tweak from there. My point is that had I asked here, I would have received widely varying responses because everyone's process and tastes are different.

I think what rubs people the wrong way with you is that you tend to jump in as an expert on posts when it doesn't seem like you have a lot of knowledge in the area. For example, just this morning you jumped in on someone's classified ad selling Fuji FP-100B, telling them that FP-100B didn't exist and had to be either FB-100C or FB-3000B. A simple internet search would have told you what FP-100B was. Posts like that leave an impression that you don't want to do any of the education work yourself, but want to be told just what you should do.

It could also be that you end every other paragraph with HAHA or LOL, but I'm over 45, so maybe that's just me...

(post intended respectfully)

Sometimes I make mistakes about products I'm un-aware of because they existed before I was using them, like the Polaroid stuff, I have only used the FP stuff the past year or so, and I've never in all my purchasing searches, seen that 100B stuff so I assumed the poster made an error (and they often do at times) and I was wrong and I admitted it

Anyway sometimes I try to be helpful and I'm wrong, like I would say to you, as far as I know, arista premium is Tri-X and arista EDU is FOMA so you should look up the push processing for FOMA 400 to get more results. But I could be wrong, though, it's worth investigating at least. Personally I wouldn't bother with FOMA films, their reciprocity is terrible and they have emulsion issues with spots (or the stuff I've used has) but if it didn't, I would use it because it does give a nice look aside from those issues.

 

[StoneNYC]

I've told you before, you've posted images I like. And, I've always admired your enthusiasm. You seem to be someone who wants to accomplish something with your photography. But, when you post 250+ times per month, with questions all over the place (TMY vs Tri-X/How do I process this film in that developer/ etc) expecting definitive answers (read Ilford's instructions isn't good enough?), I have to question your willingness to put in the work necessary to excel. The reason why I, and others, keep saying you need to simplify your methods and materials is because it's really the only way to grasp the basic science of photography. It's only when the basic principles are mastered, to the point that they're intuitive, that one can concentrate on making images of substance.

I think everyone has been where you are. I know, when I started, I jumped around between films and developers, too. Like most people, I came to the point where I wanted to produce better images. I became tired of hoping I'd get what I want, rather than knowing I'd get what I want. Like most people, I came to understand that I wouldn't get there flitting from film to film, developer to developer. I spent years just using Plus-X/D-76. I spent months photographing gray sandpaper, under controlled lighting conditions. I analyzed what happened with changes of times, temperatures, and metering techniques. It was only then that I felt confident that what I visualized would end up on paper. I'm pretty sure everyone, here, had a similar experience.

I've been harsh because I really do believe you want to be good at this. I used to teach photography, and had many students like you. They had talent, they shot a lot, but they were too unfocused to take their work to the next level. So, you'll get your wish... I won't waste my time responding the next time you ask how to do something which is written on the box the roll of film came out of.

Thanks,

Let me get there in my own time please.

Be well,

~Stone

 

[cowanw]

He didn't do "Moonrise".
It could be because he died before photography really began it's ascent in the art world. ZS has been associated with AA for so long, now...

I think this is an interesting read
http://www.iconicphoto.com/pdf/the_zone_system_1104.pdf

The Zone concept was conceived by Fred Archer, a photographer and instructor at
the Art Center College in Los Angeles. In a series of articles in U.S. Camera magazine in
1939-1940, he set out a unified approach to determine the degree of adjustment necessary
to improve contrast to remedy the effects of lighting differences in an image. Archer built
on the system of aperture f-stops that had been adopted by the photography industry. He
introduced a matrix that tied f-stop gradations to a virtual scale from absolute black to
maximum light, allowing photographers to map images for brightness using readily
applicable f-stop equivalents.
Ansel Adams read the material with interest, communicated with Archer and took
the project in hand. Adams went on to further develop and popularize the Zone System,
elaborating the framework in the terminology used today.