HP5 28 years old

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Excalibur2, Jul 12, 2009.

  1. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    [​IMG]

    Well before you all say "what a load of rubbish" the film served it's purpose to check a 35mm camera out on auto at different speeds.

    I used new promicrol 1:14 for 16mins (first B/W dev for about 15 years)...my opinion is:-it's very grainy and was contrasty (dunno whether its because of old film or the developer) and I think also it's pointless using 35mm for B/W......medium format is the way to go (which I bought the developer for).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2009
  2. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,926
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    For 28 years old, I can't bi*ch!

    Jeff
     
  3. brianmichel

    brianmichel Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I would have to agree with Jeff, for 28 years old, it looks only a little more grainy than a new roll of HP5, in my opinion.
     
  4. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Well I was also disappointed in the sharpness compared to a modern 400asa colour film...the lens used was a Hexanon 40mm f1.8 which is excellent.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2009
  5. Puma Concolor

    Puma Concolor Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    35MM pointless for B&W? All righty then...
     
  6. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Well I assume the guys here are not digital machine gunner types and have the time to take a shot, medium format quality was always superior to 35mm, and MF gear is cheap now so why not use it.
    And I have about eight 35mm SLR film cameras and 6X4.5 and 6X7 cameras, guess what ones I'll be using for B/W....I've never been happy with 35mm b/w for decades and my latest use (with a 35mm camera) hasn't changed my mind.
     
  7. nocrop

    nocrop Member

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    MF? Pfft! LF!

    Seriously, this is one ridiculous statement. HCB should never have bothered, then, right?
     
  8. wogster

    wogster Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Location:
    Bruce Penins
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Lots of photographers get pretty good results out of 35mm B&W negatives, as long as you work within the limits of the size of the material. For example in over 30 years I have never wanted an enlargement larger then 11x14, 35mm is capable of producing decent 11x14 enlargements with fine grain films and developers. Not to mention that 35mm is the most portable, and cheapest film system to work with. As someone who most of the time uses a bicycle or hiking when shooting, loading down with 20kg of MF equipment is often not an option.

    What isn't worth bothering with is d*****l when shooting B&W.... Although a little grainy, it's actually pretty good for film that expired in 1981.
     
  9. Colin Corneau

    Colin Corneau Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,878
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Location:
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Different tools for different purposes.

    Anything else stated is just trolling for arguments.
     
  10. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    ****Lots of photographers get pretty good results out of 35mm B&W negatives, as long as you work within the limits of the size of the material. For example in over 30 years I have never wanted an enlargement larger then 11x14, 35mm is capable of producing decent 11x14 enlargements with fine grain films and developers. Not to mention that 35mm is the most portable, and cheapest film system to work with. As someone who most of the time uses a bicycle or hiking when shooting, loading down with 20kg of MF equipment is often not an option.***

    Well I've had my share of B/W 35mm (and cheap cameras for other sizes) from about 1952-1975, and in the darkroom tiny dust spots and scratches were a curse when enlarging, and just can't go back........and I can remember when the press used Rolleiflexes, so maybe something like a Ricoh equivalent could be carried around at times (with a 35mm camera) for static shots in B/w (or colour).
     
  11. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm

    ...but as film users we are all on the same side, if we can't get the best out of film we all might as well get a digital P&S.
     
  12. wogster

    wogster Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Location:
    Bruce Penins
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I'll agree that dust and scratches can be an issue, they can with larger formats as well. However anyone who has spent 5 hours spotting a sky from a APS-C sized DSLR (been there, done that) will think of even 35mm as relatively dust free....:D Man those DSLR's can collect more dust in 5 seconds, then a 35mm camera does in 5 years.
     
  13. Nikanon

    Nikanon Member

    Messages:
    370
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    shoot rollei 25, or efke 25, or PANF and develop in D-76, dont print larger than 8x10 or possibly 11x14 and youll be fine on grain
     
  14. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    QUOTE=Nikanon;827628]shoot rollei 25, or efke 25, or PANF and develop in D-76, dont print larger than 8x10 or possibly 11x14 and youll be fine on grain[/QUOTE]

    Well using 35mm b/w today, reminds me of the early 1960's when I couldn't afford MF, colour neg was naff compared to today, and would have used kodachrome most of the time if I had the money.
    The only reason I can see for using 35mm B/W is say for rock concerts, pushing the film and no problems with artificial lights, but DSLR guys have told me low light shots with digital are superior and improving all the time.
    To use 35mm B/W for buildings, landscapes or portraiture is an insult to the film when MF is cheap now, but if guys want to be in a special time warp who am I to say they are wrong.

    Ok so I’m rusty developing a B/W neg, but I just use an old Digital P&S and get a better result for a computer screen in about a minute.….so this is what film users are up against and the 35mm digital guys can boast on their IQ, but MF B/W (or colour) can shut them up.

    Sony P&S, dunno if used at best setting, but it did at least equal the film shot for sharpness.
    [​IMG]
     
  15. damonff

    damonff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Location:
    Washington,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I have a 20x30 print from a 35mm negative shot with a Contax RTS III, Yashica 50mm f/2, and Technical Pan developed in Rodinal that shows no grain at all.
     
  16. DocChris

    DocChris Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hi APUG,
    This is quite an old thread and I am very fresh here.
    I just got 400 ISO film I suspect could be HP5 as it was bought in the late 1980s. It is 120 film, there is white paper with no trade mark, only clue is printing on developed film "0210" as shown in the image. Any idea?
    Cheers
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  17. moltogordo

    moltogordo Member

    Messages:
    186
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Location:
    prince georg
    Shooter:
    35mm

    x2