matthew_smeal1

<p>Hi John,<br>

That's a good thought but I developed the film when I got back to Sydney. I've never had any problem with that before which is why I'm a bit confused and concerned. It's pointing to a condensation issue but if I had developed in the field I would have immediately suspected the water (especially considering where I was....).</p>

<p>Thanks Tim, I was thinking the same thing. It would explain why it was not on all negatives. Perhaps, as you say, just on the film out of the canister but not on the take-up spool. Maybe changing lenses contributed too, letting in a bit of warm, moist air. Not sure how to get around it next time but I'll certainly be more aware of it.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Chris, it was 35mm. I tend to agree with you about condensation. At a 1+3 ratio needing 20 minutes in the tank, and agitation every minute, I would have hoped that any air bubbles preventing development would have been sorted out. </p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Has anyone had experience with this? I recently returned from Cambodia and found a lot of marks on the negs. It's not on all frames, nor all rolls but I have never experienced this in many years of developing film.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17773993-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1500" /><br>

The process is Ilford HP5 developed in ID-11 1+3 @ 20 deg., the same process I've used for years. At first I thought it was simply dry marks but nope. Condensation maybe? I was in and out of air conditioning and it was crazy hot and humid but I would have thought it would be more uniform across all frames and film shot if that was the case. Plus, I've done a lot of work in Asia in the past (and Africa) and never found this. <br>

Other rolls that came with me on the trip but I didn't use have since turned out to be fine now that I've used them back at home.<br>

Any thoughts?<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

Matt.</p>

Thanks all for your responses. Greatly appreciated. Matt.

Hi all,

I just got back from photographing a gig where I had to push HP5 to 6400. I usually develop HP5 in ID11

(1+3) but have never pushed film that far. I didn't want to develop it without running it past you learned

folks first. Previous posts seem to mention Microphen but I was wondering if anyone has had any success

pushing HP5 in ID11. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Matt.

I like the inherent abstractness of a b&w print - it makes you look; perhaps I should say, it

makes you see. Colour is all around us and we are used to it. I guess black and white

reduces the subject to the bare minimum, allowing the viewer to focus more on form and

texture and tonal variations. Colour is great for some shots but it can be distracting and a

bit same old, same old.

 

I also dig what Lex said about enjoying the process and was only thinking about this

recently: what do I prefer: the taking, the developing, or the printing? To be honest, they

are all intertwined and, for me, one can't exist without the other.

 

I've done a lot of photojournalism work in recent years and shot both colour and B&W. I

can hardly remember any colour shots - I just don't respond to them. I think in B&W and

visualise the finished print as a B&W print.

 

As for it all being a hassle - no way. I find computers, scanning, PhotoShop a hassle. I like

something tactile: I want to see it, hold it, touch it. When a computer screen is involved I

always feel one step removed from what I'm doing which is one step too far.

 

Film etc, well I'm an Ilford fan. Recently though, I've shot on FP4 (Ilford), developed in

Rodinal (Agfa) and printed using Dektol (Kodak). By and large though, Ilford FP4, HP5 and

Pan F. Ilford ID11 for developing, Ilford multigrade paper and Kodak Dektol for printing. I

like to keep it simple and get to fully know and appreciate what I use. That can only come

from experience.

 

Grain doesn't particularly worry me. The only time I'm that close to a print is in the

darkroom. In a portfolio/album or on a wall, it shouldn't be a problem. Sometimes it adds

to the print. Some of Jeanloup Sieff's prints are outrageously grainy but they work

wonderfully. Same with Sebastaio Selgado's work - it's not all grain free but definitely

stunning and moving. The quest for no grain is a bit overdone methinks. Ever seen the

thick brush marks on the work of some of the Masters? I've never heard painters carry on

about getting rid of brush marks. Perhaps us photographers should take a leaf from their

book and see grain as an inherent part of our chosen medium.

 

Finally: shoot it, develop it, print it - that way it's yours.

Paul, you've been given some good advice here. I'll chime in with ID11 for HP5. I haven't used

HC110 but hear it's very good. I use ID11 usually at a dilution of 1+3. Kodak's D76 is the

same. HP5 and ID11 seem made for each other. Ilfostop Stop Bath and Ilford Rapid Fixer have

served me well for years. A wetting agent like Kodak's Photoflow is definitely worthwhile.

I'll second the vote for HP5 as an all purpose film. It's quite forgiving which may be good if

you're getting back into it. For a developer, try ID11 at a dilution of 1+3 for 20 minutes at

20 degrees C (78F). At that dilution it's a one-shot developer but works out to be very

economical. Kodak's D-76 is pretty much the same but the times are a little different.

HP5 is a 400 speed film, for something a bit slower, I'd go with Ilford's FP4, which also has

a lot of latitude and is a beautiful film. If you only ever used one film, FP4 would be a

great choice, especially for the uses you mentioned. Again, ID11/D76 are great all round

developers that really suit FP4.

For the record, I rate HP5 at 320 and have just started rating FP4 at 64 with beautiful

results. You won't have any problems rating it at the recommended speed though. Good

luck and welcome back!

Laurent, HP5 with ID11 (1+3), 20 minutes at 20 degrees celsius. I do 4-6 inversions (over a

10 second period) every minute. I've done 17 minutes at 22 degrees occasionally with no

noticeable difference. The film was rated at 400. I've just started using it in 120 (6x7) and all

I can say is, wow! Great results and, what grain? It's all subjective and personal but it's a

really good combination for my needs.

Stefan,

I've had a little bit of experience with Neopan 400. ID11 (Ilford's version of D76) worked a

treat at 1+3. That will be a touch grainier (read: sharper) at that dilution, so D76 at 1+1

or stock might suit your needs. I've done 8x10s from 35mm with no noticeable grain so

I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

I will second Brooks' thoughts on Pan F in Rodinal 1+50 too. FP4 at 1+50 is gorgeous as

well and will give you an extra stop. It's a really classic look, IMHO. I've just been

experimenting with that combination and I'm really excited by it.

 

For what it's worth, Ilford HP5 (400) in ID11 at 1+3 gave me a wonderful film/dev

combination for the best portrait work I ever did while on some photojournalism

assignments in Uganda and Kenya. Beautiful skin tones and a joy to print. May I also

suggest using a K2 yellow filter on the lens to give a bit of tonal separation. I've found it

gives a nice amount of contrast in the neg and makes printing a whole lot easier. That was

all handheld, no flash, and mainly outdoors or sunlight through windows. The yellow will

only lose you a stop so handheld should not be a problem.