Is this photo overdeveloped or does HP5 always look like this?

Bill Watts

Well-Known Member
I normally stick to Ilford FP4+, Delta 100 or Acros, however on this occasion I used HP5 in an Olympus iS-3000 which I know exposes correctly and generally give excellent results.

I processed the film in Ilfotec DD-X at the time specified for the water temperature and exposure rating (ISO 400). The Scanner and Software, Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV and VueScan 9 Pro have always performed well in the past.I have made no change to how I operated the scanner or software. Scanned in 24bit colour and inverted in VueScan.

The results are not as contrasty as I expect, although the negatives themselves look of good density, the skies in particular seem irregular and crystalised.

I would like to ask the collective mind if this is normal for HP5 or have I overdeveloped?


iS3000_21.jpg
 
It looks good to me. I don't see a problem with it. It displays everything I would expect from a 400 ISO film. Maybe tweak it a bit in editing software ?
 
You don't say if you have applied any post but, if not, I would say the resulting tones are the result of the scanning stage because you have a predominance of higher value tones here which the automation has probably 'stretched out' more than the lower ones when trying to optimise values. An adjustment in Curves in software would let you bring back a more usual tone distribution. Grain is very good for HP5, definitely finer than I would have expected so Ilfotec certainly suits the film. It may be an influence on tones as well of course.
 
You don't say if you have applied any post but, if not, I would say the resulting tones are the result of the scanning stage because you have a predominance of higher value tones here which the automation has probably 'stretched out' more than the lower ones when trying to optimise values. An adjustment in Curves in software would let you bring back a more usual tone distribution. Grain is very good for HP5, definitely finer than I would have expected so Ilfotec certainly suits the film. It may be an influence on tones as well of course.
Thanks Tony, The original image had no post processing, the image below has bee adjusted to my preference for black and white, I think I prefer FP4+, Delta 100 or Acros

iS3000_21.jpg

Appreciate the comment on expected grain.
 
I initially shot a bunch of HP5+ when I picked up the Barnack but felt that the film (and the old Summicron) lacked contrast. In general, I have no qualms about tweaking film scans in post. To say that I'm enthralled by Silver Efex would be putting it mildly. I guess we'll see what happens once I start developing again (v. sending out).
 
Thanks Tony, The original image had no post processing, the image below has bee adjusted to my preference for black and white, I think I prefer FP4+, Delta 100 or Acros

View attachment 19967

Appreciate the comment on expected grain.
Sorry Bill, didn't read carefully enough. So if you didn't apply anything in post do you have a preset for the scanning stage? It is some time since I scanned my negs which was all manual from memory so the software has probably moved on quite a bit.
I would have thought this had been taken with a much finer grain film/developer combination. And the Olympus has produced some very fine detail indeed.
I must say, also, that on my Macbook Pro the reproduction of the image in the reply box has stronger tones and contrast than the original post.
 
Sorry Bill, didn't read carefully enough. So if you didn't apply anything in post do you have a preset for the scanning stage? It is some time since I scanned my negs which was all manual from memory so the software has probably moved on quite a bit.
I would have thought this had been taken with a much finer grain film/developer combination. And the Olympus has produced some very fine detail indeed.
I must say, also, that on my Macbook Pro the reproduction of the image in the reply box has stronger tones and contrast than the original post.
Hi Tony, The second image was reprocessed in Affinity Photo 2 just to increase the contrast, no other alterations were made and it has not been sharpened in post or during scanning. I don't use any profiles with my scanners preferring to work with a standardised image from the scanner in post.

The iS-3000 never fails to impress - remarkable performance from a bridge camera. It is my "go to" camera if I want to know the images will be just about spot on or to test other unknowns like processing, scanning or different emulsions,
 
Ah, that explains the difference. I use Affinity v1, very good software and the iS-3000 a surprisingly good camera - I borrowed my daughter's on a trip to NZ before we moved down here. So convenient. On reflection, I think your grain is as it is affected by the developer. I use Rodinal these days and it produced much more defined grain than, say, the ID 11 I used previously.
 
Back
Top