Going old School for Classics

[hoffy]

Hi,

Its been an awful long time since I have posted here. Recently (well, in November), I got some film out for the Classic Adelaide rally to see if I could get some period style photos. These are crappy scans of the 8x10 prints:


Ferrari 250 California


Mercedes 300si Gullwing


Mercedes 190sl


The film was Ilford HP5+, shot at ISO 400.

I am seriously thinking of extending this type of photography personally next year......Just wondering how big I can enlarge!!

Cheers and thanks for looking.

[Tim Falce]

Why do you want to go for HP5 and such a high ISO number? Why not use FP4 of even PanF and maybe 100 or 200ISO if you have the light. Not all old photographs were grainy and at the film and speeds you quote you will be limited on the size you can enlarge to.
I am of course assuming you are using 35mm rather than 120 or bigger.

BTW, nice pictures.

[hoffy]

Yes, you are right in saying they are 35mm. I don't think I am strong enough to lug around a 645 or a 67 and a long enough lens all day (mind you, these were probably shot at 50mm).

But why HP5? Thats all that I had at the time (except for some EFKE ISO25). You are right, FP4 may be a bit more suitable and its something that I am wanting to try.

That being said (& the scans probably accentuate the grain more), they came out exactly how I wanted. I am toying with toning, but like "Not all pictures were grainy", not all pictures were sepia! Obviously, selenium is what I should be using, but I only want a hint

Cheers for the comments.

Cheers

[Tim Falce]

Do you use digital at all?

[hoffy]

Yes and pretty much exclusively for M/sport for the last 3 years. But I have taken up film for other photography again, so its only natural that it creeps into this!

[Tim the Grey]

I have a load of HP5 kicking around, as I can expose it, and develop it, from 100 to 6400 ASA! Different developers.

[hoffy]

Exactly right Tim (not sure, though, if I would go below ISO200 or above ISO1600, but thats personal)

The more I think about it, the more I am probably looking for a slight amount of grain, as opposed to grainless images (if that was the case, I would stick to digital).

The other thing that I probably need to do is get into fibre based paper as well. As I am still learning, I am pretty much exclusively sticking with Resin Based. I think fibre will help with "the look" as well (I am scared, though, of all that washing and curly prints)

Cheers

[Tim the Grey]

Oh, yeah baby. Then get water colours, and fine brushes.
HOURS of fun, there. Try some FB. The only downside is gallons to wash it at the end...

[djb]

fibre based prints do have a richness to them that rc doesnt, but remember there is more dry down darkening, and if you do ever go FB, do use multigrade. Dont get suckered into being told that a grade 2 or 3 paper is "better" than multigrade, I worked as a BW printer for ages and shot and printed all my personal stuff in B+W, with MG, you can fine tune the contrast just right, and change the filter for a given part of the print if need be (overblown sky for example)
yes, curled prints are part of the fun, so getting access to a press or something similiar will be a necessity (tho I suspect you could get away with a clothes iron if need be, especially if you rig up some drying screens, prints face down adn even put another screen on top. 8x10s and 11x14 should be able to be ironed flat. Printing bigger than that means a bigger easel, more space for the trays, washing etc.

Have fun if you have a go at it. My feeling though is that for all the trouble, you may not see that much of a difference. These shots (nice ones btw) show that you have good printing skill, so you may benefit from FB...but the extra work and washing time....
Oh, be sure to get some "wash-aid" as it is or was called here. After fixing the proper time (dont over fix!!) you do a short wash (forget, 1min or 2) then wash aid tray which takes more of the fixer out which greatly reduces the final washing time. Just be sure not to plop freshly fixed prints into the wash water on top of the print you will be "washaiding" as you will deplenish the wash aid unnecessarily quick. Oh, and dont ever put test strips or not washed prints on your screens, it will contaminate the screens for all the properly washed prints.

I imagine the scans pickedup some contrast? They actually look nice on myscreen, so with fibre, you may want to watch for the highlights drydown that can be disappointing from seeing it sparkle in the water to when they are dry...as they say, your mileage may vary.
I used HP5 for years for press type stuff, was loads cheaper than Tmax400 and was more forgiving with flash overexposure and /or overdevelopment, though a bit grainy for my tastes. Prefered Tmax with Tmax dev. for the crispness, but highlights could go over the top if not careful, moreso than with HP5 or TriX--but Tmax could look realllly nice if exposed well enough and not over, over developed, has a nice tight grain to it.
Same was for Tmax 100, could be finicky, HP4 works well and has smoother tonalities IMO.

All my babble is my own opinion, and I am the perfect example--everyone has or had their own opinion of what worked "best" (there is no "best")--it is more important to shoot well (a good shot I mean) and then after that expose properly, then after that, find a film, dev, and finallyn paper and paper dev combo that works fine for you and how you expose, your enlarger etc etc. On top of that, what I think is a good print may not be yours, but your scans do show me that you are a good printer.

ps, the reflections on the Merc are darn purty.

have fun with it but odd to say, I dont miss the darkroom. A little bit misses the artisinal aspect of the hands on part, but I did so much boring commercial printing that I cant see myself ever doing it again. Who knows. What I do miss is shooting B+W with its inherent larger tonal range than digi in B+W in contrasty situations. I also do miss the smooth gradations....oh well, I guess I do miss it...
I also do miss walking arouind with a nice light simple unobstrusive body with a 35 on it, with a 28 and a 50 in pockets. I kept my manual focus lenses and recently tried them on a recent digi body, and they look nice compared to the af zooms, especially the 35....my fave. Im still old school, I could live with a 35, a 50 and an 85. (but throw in a 20 or 24, and maybe a 105)

cheers from snowy Canada

yup--I do miss it....

[wtlwdwgn]

I haven't been able to shoot motorsports since the sixties (Yikes!) but I did a lot of it using a Pentax SV and Tri-X. I've just bought some Tri-X to shoot some film again. I'm going to have the film scanned at the time of processing so I'l have digital images to work with afterwards. Maybe a local lab can scan your negs and give you better quality images than using prints. Just my ¢¢.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by wtlwdwgn

I haven't been able to shoot motorsports since the sixties (Yikes!) but I did a lot of it using a Pentax SV and Tri-X. I've just bought some Tri-X to shoot some film again. I'm going to have the film scanned at the time of processing so I'l have digital images to work with afterwards. Maybe a local lab can scan your negs and give you better quality images than using prints. Just my ¢¢.

I had a 6x6 negative from the 60s scanned on a Pro drum scanner. If cost uite a bit - the price was based on the output file produced. At 4000 dpi it was about 110Mb. It's not that much better than my own scans using an Epson flatbed scanner.

35mm is another game though. I have not scanned 35mm B&W but have scanned colour. Grain cuts in before you can go very large.

B&W processing is more expensive locally to me than colour. When I had colour film processed I had them scanned to CD rather than printed. The scans were OK so long as I don't want to do much more than print at 6x4. I would be too scared to ask how much it would cost to scan at a decent resolution although I know my most local processors don't offer such a service. A dedicated photoscanner would make a good attempt at the prints. Good enough for most purposes.

Nice shots by the way hoffy. Very nice.