Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,214   Online: 924
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: HP5 at ISO1600

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Bundesphotograph View Post
    The Ilford HP5 data sheets says 14 min with Ilfotec HC (same as HC 110) dil.B at 1600 ASA.
    4 agitations per minute.

    Cheers
    Wolfgang
    it also says 11m for HC110 Dil B @ 1600, which is what the OP used.

    Ilfotec HC & HC110 are better described as "equivalent" rather than "the same as".

    They are not the same developer

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,015
    If it was very low light, then 1/30 w/ a 3.5 lens sounds way too high, even considering a 1600 ISO setting. Your meter may not be that accurate in very low light.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,957
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    You need to bracket...

    You need to understand how your meter averages a high contrast scean, if your night environment was high contrast.

    You may need a heavy tripod and long exposures.

    Uprating film only moves the toe a small amount it also makes a print more difficult unless the shadows can be dark...

    It is not like digital increasing ISO.
    Thank you. I will bracket next time, to the extent that shutter speed allows. Great idea.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,957
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    The meter is most likely not failing you. More likely this is just a learning opportunity.

    Is this the camera you just bought a few weeks ago?

    Look at each shot and think about exactly where in the scene you metered (how bright was that spot?) and how far you were from the scene (what were all the subjects that were in the angle of view that the meter saw?).

    It uses a center weighted meter and it may simply be that the meter saw fairly bright subjects where you pointed it.

    Back when I was using cameras with center weighted meters I had to learn what it saw by trial and error then remember to point it appropriately when metering. That's not as tough as it sounds.
    Yep. I need to learn. Correct, this is a new camera.

    Once I have the scans in place, I'll be able to study them in better detail. More tests are needed.

    Thanks!

  5. #15
    Fixcinater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    886
    Images
    17
    Tungsten sensitivity is quite likely different (read: worse), which would require even more light.

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,394
    Images
    60
    You need to remember as well that "pushing" a film doesn't really increase its low light sensitivity.

    What it does is increase contrast.

    So if you underexpose a film by two stops, the push development will increase the contrast in those parts of the negative that received enough light to have some image on them, but it will not add detail in the areas (shadows) where there wasn't enough light in the first place.

    You need to meter the tones that are midway between the shadows and the mid-tones- they are the parts of the negative that will be shoved up into the mid-tones by the push development. The full shadows and near shadows will drop into nothing with two stops under-exposure.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #17
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225
    For what it's worth, I have had a lot more success pushing HP5+ in DD-X than in HC-110(B) {which I only tried once with HC110 I will admit so I didn't ever dial it in} but a few times now in DD-X and the results have always been very good, here are a few after my own thread about this, shot and pushed HP5+ to 3200 in DD-X for 20 minutes, a variety of different light situations and these were all scanned not traditionally printed, but the negs were not thin or anything.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303960.550947.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	183.0 KB 
ID:	83912

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303979.217525.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	185.3 KB 
ID:	83913

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303989.801651.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	157.6 KB 
ID:	83914

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1394303999.285886.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	190.8 KB 
ID:	83915
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,957
    Images
    38
    The images I shot were similar to your 3rd one Stone. Outdoors, at night, with very little light. Except that mine seem to have huge areas where nothing has been recorded on the negative. I dont think HC-110 is the culprit as literally NOTHING is on the film. Surely if exposed properly some part of the image would appear during development. DD-X might make it look better but it is not like HC-110 cant cause the image to form.

    I need to take metering more seriously when doing shots like this.

  9. #19
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225
    Yes correct, HC-110 would work fine to produce a good image, even pushed.

    I suspect what others said, under exposure. Good luck with your next try!
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #20
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,326
    Images
    343
    Would it not be better to rate 3200 film at 1600?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin