Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Uprating HP5 vs Ilford 3200 film |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Hello Terry,
I've also got a Fuji GA645zi and was curious about the max film speed so looked it up and the manual says between 25-1600 asa. So you may have to use it together with exposure compensation in order to fool the camera and meter correctly on auto.
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Great camera don't you think? I love using it. Terry S |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Definitely a great little, 'big camera'. It's my goto for point and shoot.
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Well I did some tests fairly recently and found that DDX required very long dev times to get above 1600 speed whereas Microphen achieved 3200 speed easily using Ilfords recommended stock and dev times. Maybe I should re-test sometime but I was somewhat underwhelmed with DDx and D3200 at the time. Microphen is their push developer as far I'm aware. just my experience YMMV. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I once went to a talk given by Dave Butcher, who used to be a chemist at Ilford. He said he used DDX for FP4 and HP5. He described it as "liquid ID11", and said he used it because it saved him the bother of mixing ID11....The implication was that there was very little difference between the two. When it was pointed out that DDX is an expensive product, he said he got it for nothing...
The powder developer recommended by Ilford for pushing HP5 to 800 is ID11. Above this they recommend Michrophen, with DDX as the recommended liquis developer. But they do give a time for ID11 stock solution and HP5 at 1600. 14 minutes. I have tried this quite a few times,and found it worked very well. Certainly better than Delta 3200 rated at 1600. I have often had need for extra speed when photographing on hill farms on the North York Moors, My film of choice for this long-term project has always been HP5 developed in ID11 or D76. When following the action from outside into a barn I have a second camera body , also loaded with HP5, for uprating. It's a big advantage being able to stick to one film and one developer. But I've never gone beyond 1600 with HP5. Alan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Terry,
From how you have described the conditions at your shoot it sounds to me like HP5+ will work fine without any pushing. Also I have found that the darkroom tech guys (do they still have those?) know HP5+ and ID11 inside out and are worth seeking out for advice. There is a reason art colleges and universities use HP5+ = it is very forgiving and adaptable to a variety of situations. It's probably worth asking yourself: What are your tutors looking for from you in this project? What style of prints are you hoping to produce? Only if HP5+ can't deliver this would I consider using an alternative. Faced with similar situations at art college I used to cut a roll of film in half and shoot half at 400 and half at 800 as a test. Also remember the light will change throughout the day so what works in the morning may not work in the afternoon etc.. Enjoy the shoot and good luck with the project John |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Use a tripod.
__________________
regards, Tony |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A tripod is something I would rather avoid if possible Tony, although for another project on the go in tandem (on... dare I say... dig...it...al...), I purchased a Manfrotto monopod and head. It was great in helping me get really low exposures at nice low ISO's Comparing this to the ISO 3200 I used on an old (now), (digi) camera, which gives an awful lot of noise at this speed compared to newer ones that are great at higher ISO's.
But anyway, the advise I require on here is about film! So, I will be trying out the monopod if needed again, as it is so much more versitile and moveable compared to my VERY heavy and sturdy Manfrotto tripod. It is there of course if needed as a backup though. Terry S |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Just to keep you all updated...
I've now shot three test films = Ilford HP5+ on a Pentax MZ5N 35mm camera with a f1.4 lens; Ilford FP4+ on a MF 6 x 4.5 Fuji GZ645zi camera and Ilford ISO 3200 film on the Fuji camera as well. All were developed singularly, in Ilford LC29 at 1+19 dilution at 20 C. From all of these, I made contact sheets and printed one frame from each so far on 12 x 16 Ilford RC Pearl MG paper, with 2" borders (I like my wide white borders! ) All of the prints came out well, despite all of the negatives being a little dense and which could easily do with about minus 20% in developing times. I'm saying this after I did film/ dev tests with my first recent bottle of Rodinal. These lower development times I have found to suit my style of printing. Anyway, the results for me were much as expected really. I had a few frames of FP4 left to use on this test in the MF camera. Shutter speeds and apertures were pushed to the extreme with me trying to handhold at about 1/8 second, with the aperture wide open. It was totally grain-less, with smooth tones and good contrast. The HP5 on 35mm, was still very good. There is a good range of tones and contrast, with only a small amount of grain visible at close inspection. The f1.4 lens performed marvelously, with a better depth of field than I imagined that I would get from it at the lower apertures, when not focusing too close! The MF ISO 3200 performed well and I would use it again. But in this instance, comparing the print from it to the others, the grain was obviously more noticeable, but not overly so, but I did find the contrast and tonal range not to be as biting as the other two films. There also seemed to be a slight fog over the whole of this (few years old now) film. Is this normal? All of the films have been stored in the same cool conditions, although they do vary in age with some being younger. None are past the expiry date yet. Although I did think about getting some fresh HP5 to use for the test on the MF camera as well, the aperture size does restrict me somewhat, giving the conditions that I will be shooting under ie window light in an otherwise unlit large room. The camera only has a range of f4.5 to f6.9 with 55 to 90mm zoom. So, I think I will happily shoot the rest of the project with the Pentax 35mm camera, using the f1.4 lens for the majority of it. Terry S |
Tags |
hp5, ilfosol 3, iso 3200, lc29, uprating |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak discontinues its 3200 film | Mike O'Pray | Monochrome Film | 8 | 4th October 2012 12:13 PM |
Expired Tmax P3200 (TMZ 3200) - a case for the dustbin? | TimoS | Monochrome Film | 3 | 8th February 2010 04:10 PM |
Ilford Delta 3200 | Argentum | Monochrome Film | 6 | 11th March 2009 12:01 AM |
Ilford Delta 3200 and Prescysol or Exactol Lux | Argentum | Monochrome Film | 2 | 1st October 2008 06:34 PM |
Ilford Delta 3200 in pmk | Argentum | Monochrome Film | 0 | 28th September 2008 03:36 PM |