[pure-silver] Re: Good acutance and tonality for HP5+ 120 format
- From: Robert Randall <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:43:31 -0500
A lot of people are very happy with the results they get from HP5, and I¹m
not disparaging them or their results. I¹m just curious about their
feedback. Your story is interesting in that I probably would have never
guessed someone could get good results shooting snowscapes with Plus-X, at
least not brightly lit scenes.
Its sad to note how few films are available.
Bob
On 5/18/09 11:55 AM, "Sauerwald Mark" <mark_sauerwald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bob
>
> I used to shoot Tri-X in the summer time, and Plus-X in the winter time,
> mostly because I liked the way that Tri-X held detail in the shadows in the
> summer, and in the winter (I live in Maine where winter landscapes mean snow),
> Plus-X did a good job of holding detail in the highlights. I realize that
> the reasons that I liked these films were precisely because of the way they
> were NOT linear, and since I shoot mostly large format, grain is not a major
> concern. When Kodak discontinued Plus-X (in sheet film), I tried out a lot
> of other films. I didn't like the T-Grain films because I found it harder to
> control contrast with development, and I ended up falling on HP-5. I didn't
> like it as much as I liked the Plus-X for holding detail in highlights, but it
> was OK, and it seemed to do a decent job in the shadows as well. Being
> somewhat disgusted at Kodak for discontinuing what I considered to be a
> foundation of traditional photography, I moved wholesale over to Ilford and
> now shoot almost exclusively HP5. It may be a terrible performing film, but
> I am happy with the images that I get from it.
>
> Mark
>
> --- On Mon, 5/18/09, Robert Randall <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Robert Randall <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Good acutance and tonality for HP5+ 120 format
>> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 10:49 AM
>>
>> As a point of curiosity, I have a question for all of you regarding HP5. In
>> all my tests, it was the single worst performing film available. The grain
>> is horrible, the emulsion makes the film inherently soft, and the only
>> acutance to speak of is a measurable increase in the visibility of the
>> grain. Mind you, this is based on testing and not usage, so my question is;
>> why do any of you use it? What feedback do you receive from the final image
>> that causes you to like the film?
>>
>> Bob Randall
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
