springfield
journeyman
Reged: 23/12/2007
Posts: 57
Loc: Somerset
|
|
I recently took a roll of HP5, using my inherited Nikon F80, a Tamron 28-200 lens and an orange filter. I sent the film away to a lab for developing, and had some 10 x 8 prints done of a few of the better ones.
These were resin coated hand prints on semi-matt paper. The results look very grainy to me...although it is quite atmospheric. Is this 'graininess' a function of the paper, perhaps? Would it look less grainy with gloss paper?
Edited by springfield (29/03/2008 11:40)
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 3979
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
I recently took a roll of HP5, using my inherited Nikon F80, a Tamron 28-200 lens and an orange filter. I sent the film away to a lab for developing, and had some 10 x 8 prints done of a few of the better ones.
These were resin coated hand prints on semi-matt paper. The results look very grainy to me...although it is quite atmospheric. Is this 'graininess' a function of the paper, perhaps? Would it look less grainy with gloss paper?
The grain would look the same on either type of paper as it is inherant to the film you use.HP5 is 400asa speed and has a bit of grain even at 400 asa, obviously it will be more pronounced when uprated.
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 313
|
|
If you find the grain is excessive for your liking, I would suggest either using a slower film, such as Delta 100 or FP4+, or use XP2 super/Fuji Neopan 400CN. The latter are processed in C41 chemistry as used by colour negative films and can be processed alongside them. Prints made on colour paper from the latter tend not to exhibit deep blacks though, and are best printed on conventional black and white paper.
|
springfield
journeyman
Reged: 23/12/2007
Posts: 57
Loc: Somerset
|
|
Thank you for your comments and advice. Maybe I was a little surprised, I expected pin sharp pictures. I expect many people would like that grainy effect, though. I will have to get myself some slower film.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I will have to get myself some slower film.
For fine grain:
Try Pan F developed in Perceptol (rate at 32 ASA/ISO). Or Delta 100 provided the light is reasonable and your lens is reasonably contrasty.
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2086
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
If you want 400 but fine grain, try Delta 400. Very nice film.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I guess we are rather spoiled with the high ISOs we rather take for granted with digital. 1600 forced to 3200 with Royal X Pan was the limit in the olden days and that looked like soot and whitewash. I used to like Tri X which was the same speed as FP5 but went down to Panatomic X when I was being fussy. Ah happy days. 
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2382
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Sorry for the late reply, I've only just spotted this thread.
Quote:
...roll of HP5... I sent the film away to a lab for developing, and had some 10 x 8 prints done ...
... results look very grainy to me......
Any chance that your film was over-exposed?
Or, I wonder if the lab used a "universal" developer when developing your film? At least it suggests that the prints were done with a half-decent enlarging lens!
I've not used HP5 that often, but "very grainy" on a 10 x 8 print sounds wrong to me.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
springfield
journeyman
Reged: 23/12/2007
Posts: 57
Loc: Somerset
|
|
I don't think the film was over-exposed, I used the aperture priority auto on my F80.
The original 10 x 8 were done by Monolab, and were "hand printed".
I later sent the negs to Club 35 for 12 x 8 's and they were nowhere near as grainy, but lost the nice contrasty feel to them as well.
I have since invested in a roll of Delta 100. Now, where did I put that monopod........
|
Burgy
Grateful not to have one
Reged: 13/04/2001
Posts: 5188
Loc: This far, from beating 7 shade...
|
|
Grain shouldn't overly affect sharpness. I have shot Tri-X and and HP5 pushed to 1600ISO whilst grain and contrast increase it shouldn't affect sharpness. grain will be "more" noticeable on Glossy (and proper matt) prints than on lustre/pearl
--------------------
Cheers
Burgy BSRIPN, BSc, DSO and Bar (now open 24/7).
it's not what you've got, its who you do it to
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 2917
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Quote:
Grain shouldn't overly affect sharpness. I have shot Tri-X and and HP5 pushed to 1600ISO whilst grain and contrast increase it shouldn't affect sharpness. grain will be "more" noticeable on Glossy (and proper matt) prints than on lustre/pearl
I once used T-Max 3200 in a project at college to show the effect of grain. I pulled one half of the roll to ISO 25 and the other half to ISO 25,000 then developed accordingly. The subject stayed the same for comparison purposes. The latter had grain the size of golf balls - the former had very little grain. Both images were pin sharp.
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. well early stages anyway)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
