Shot and Push-Processed Ilford HP5 at 12800 - results

Agulliver · Mar 10, 2021

pentaxuser said:
As I said above, we may never know. So two pities 1. We lost him as a member after as little as 7 days for reasons that we do not know and 2. we are no further advanced in our collective knowledge

pentaxuser

We probably lost him because several responses to his message were effectively "I don't believe you".

I've done similar, with similar results.....possibly more contrasty and darker than ideal but usable negatives that one can fashion into good photographs. It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that OP was truthful.

pentaxuser · Mar 10, 2021

Agulliver said:
We probably lost him because several responses to his message were effectively "I don't believe you".

I've done similar, with similar results.....possibly more contrasty and darker than ideal but usable negatives that one can fashion into good photographs. It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that OP was truthful.

Yes I strongly suspect that you may be right.

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 17, 2021

Thought I'd give it a go and see for myself what would happen if I pushed HP5-Plus to EI 12800. I have never pushed film before.
I shot one sheet at box speed (which I never do...usually EI 250), and another sheet at EI 12800. Developer was Ilfosol-3 1+9. 6.5 minutes for box speed negative, 18 minutes for EI 12800. (24C).
I scanned in both with no adjustments, then with the mid-tones overly lightened to show any degradation of blacks; then another example showing best possible image.
In the image there are two columns. Column on the left is box speed. Column on the right is EI 12800. Top row is scan with no adjustments in PS. Middle row shows extreme lightening of mid-tones to show degradation of blacks. Bottom row adjustments made for best image possible for both.
I would have to say I'm quite impressed. I can't see myself ever exposing film at such a high EI. Maybe 6400. Box speed gives pretty nice results.

pentaxuser · Mar 18, 2021

Thanks Andrew The 12800 one doesn't seem a million miles from those shown by the " departed in a week" OP. At 12800 it is far from ideal of course but on the other hand taking the kind of night shots he showed at 12800 may in fact look rather better as no-one expects shadows to be other than almost detail-less

As a trad enlarger and darkroom printer can I take it that your best adjusted image could be replicated as a darkroom print with correct dodging for the inside of the shed?

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 18, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Thanks Andrew The 12800 one doesn't seem a million miles from those shown by the " departed in a week" OP. At 12800 it is far from ideal of course but on the other hand taking the kind of night shots he showed at 12800 may in fact look rather better as no-one expects shadows to be other than almost detail-less

As a trad enlarger and darkroom printer can I take it that your best adjusted image could be replicated as a darkroom print with correct dodging for the inside of the shed?

pentaxuser

I could get it out close, but as you know, scanners can pick up detail that you had no idea was there.

pentaxuser · Mar 18, 2021

Andrew O'Neill said:
I could get it out close, but as you know, scanners can pick up detail that you had no idea was there.

Thanks I didn't really know that scanners can do this. As they can and if this detail can be printed fully on inkjet paper then I suppose the next question is : Why in the hell are any of us messing about in the dark with enlargers and chemicals ?

I literally don't know any better as I haven't got a scanner and ipso facto do not have the scanning skills either but what's the excuse of those have?

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 18, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Thanks I didn't really know that scanners can do this. As they can and if this detail can be printed fully on inkjet paper then I suppose the next question is : Why in the hell are any of us messing about in the dark with enlargers and chemicals ?

I literally don't know any better as I haven't got a scanner and ipso facto do not have the scanning skills either but what's the excuse of those have?

pentaxuser

Printing in the darkroom is still way more fun!

Helge · Mar 18, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Thanks I didn't really know that scanners can do this. As they can and if this detail can be printed fully on inkjet paper then I suppose the next question is : Why in the hell are any of us messing about in the dark with enlargers and chemicals ?

I literally don't know any better as I haven't got a scanner and ipso facto do not have the scanning skills either but what's the excuse of those have?

pentaxuser

Projecting, whether by slide or enlargement is still bar none the best way to get the most out of film.
To get the most out of a darkroom, you need two things that strangely most people cheap out on: A great enlarger lens and a great grain enlarger.
Failing either of those two and it’s going to be close to impossible to get really high resolution enlargements.

pentaxuser · Mar 18, 2021

Thanks all but has anyone an answer on whether the greater detail that is possible from a skilful scan can be transferred onto an inkjet print such that for a difficult neg or one that has been pushed more than 3 stops the inkjet print wins?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Shot and Push-Processed Ilford HP5 at 12800 - results

Agulliver

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Helge

pentaxuser

Shot and Push-Processed Ilford HP5 at 12800 - results

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency