HP5 28 years old

[Excalibur2]

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).

[Jeff Kubach]

For 28 years old, I can't bi*ch!

Jeff

[brianmichel]

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.

[Excalibur2]

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.

[Puma Concolor]

35MM pointless for B&W? All righty then...

[Excalibur2]

35MM pointless for B&W? All righty then...

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.

[nocrop]

I think also it's pointless using 35mm for B/W......medium format is the way to go

MF? Pfft! LF!

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

[wogster]

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).

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.

[Colin Corneau]

Different tools for different purposes.

Anything else stated is just trolling for arguments.

[Excalibur2]

****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).