As mentioned here,
I recently put a roll of HP5+ Ilford film through my new (to me) Olympus OM4.
I got the film back from AG Photographic a few days ago and have now scanned with my Sony Nex-5N and improvised scanning rig.
Very happy with these results, although the evenness of the scan illumination (from a cheap speedlight through two diffusers) leaves something to be desired. It’s more noticeable on a few shots where I’ve pushed the contrast.
. 
Happy for critique too!
Amazing
This is a very beautiful series of pictures. Amazing it took you only one roll of film to collect them!
I love the familiar rendering of HP5. I guess you were specifically looking for a more grainy soft result hence not using HP4?
No’s 1, 5 and 10 stand out - for me. Some others really close behind.
Regards!
Well, there was a lot of planning and deliberation, at least by my standards 
Actually, film choice was mostly because I had a few rolls in my drawer from a box of 10 I purchased about 3 years ago! But HP5+ is a favorite of mine regardless, and I do quite enjoy the grain, as well as the wide latitude.
I’m impressed with the sharpness of most of these images too - those old Zuiko lenses are not to be sneezed at…
(nor the Tokina!)
No. 10, the butterfly, was an interesting experience - I’m not used to working with max 3 frames (all I allowed myself on that roll!) when trying to get close to an unpredictable and relatively fast moving subject.
Olympus was such a great manufacturer then. I borrowed my brothers OM1 and loved the camera. As the lenses. Was looking for an OM2 and got a good offer for a Minolta XD7 (XD11 in the States I believe) so went accidentally that way…
Butterflies are fun to approach, some species are much more ‘nervous’ than others. You used a nice low vantage point fort his picture. I like that.
These are the photos that just splash my conscience with a fresh “All you need is good light and eyes to see the good in it” while I am lost in the “film like colors” or some other cliches of 21st century Hobbyist’s dilemma.
I love the highlights and the contrast (Both the abundance in some and the lack of it in others).
Thanks for the nice words!
My personal theory is that to fully appreciate an image, our minds like, want or need, a certain level of abstraction from what the scene really looked like. This allows our imagination to fill in, which, I don’t know how, adds so much to one’s appreciation of the image.
Paintings usually do this without trying, monochrome film does it (no colours) and colour film does it (subtly different colours.
Digital images can (not always) be too realistic for our minds.
Just my opinion!
Perhaps that’s well said.
I occassionally shoot film as well, my last roll was an expired Fuji colour film in an old ~1965 Agfa Paramat (half-frame), developed by a lab. The shots are far from perfect, some unsharp or half-sharp, some a bit over- or underexposed, some not well framed. My digital Nikon reflex does way way better.
BUT. What a charm do those “inferior” shots show, most of them I love!
You made some nice shots Steven! The dust spots come from your lab I think.
You might consider to develop b&w film yourself, it’s easy and cheap. If you like grain, try putting that HP5+ in Rodinal, one of the oldest developers in the world. With the right solution, say 1:100 with stand development (that means pour in the solution, agite for one or two minutes and leave it alone for 1 hour) you’ll get really grainy images!
These are lovely. I think my favourite is DSC04804. Congratulations!
Once you start doing this you’ll certainly be lost… forever 
I think you make a fine point that can be used as a mental note “Focus on the puzzle not the pieces” or something similar.
A reflection isn’t always 1:1 to reality (depending on the source). A reflection made by a mirror- Only pleasing when you put something VERY pleasing right in the center but not very inspiring irrespective of what it is.
Now if you take this for example (A digital photo processed in spektrafilm)
the lines created by the blocks on the floor and uneven water levels make the objects “mushy” and not exactly “Accurate to how they were in reality” but that leaves just enough room for this to be …somewhat interesting to me . The scene above ground was full of distractions so “more information” which is not really adding to your photograph is not really “better”.
That’s how I think about it, sometimes less is more because it leaves more for the interpreter to invent their own versions carefully bounded my composition.
A lot of the photos of reflections I find interesting have that “reality from the perspective of an observer/3rd person view” feeling. A window to a different reality …familiar enough to make sense but far enough from it to be interesting.
Its sort of film meeting digital and in my view finding the best of both worlds. Nice selection of shots. I would be interesting in seeing at least one of these as a playraw 
to learn the editing techniques you applied.
Yes! I find this too.
I have done this, a few years ago. Initially using a monobath developer from Cinestill, then tried Ilford ID-11 (aka Kodak D76).
I enjoyed* it, but unfortunately a move has left me without the kit (well, tank, reels and chemicals) and I’m not sure (yet!) if I want to dive down that hole again
I think that might be a little too much grain, even for me - I have seen images developed this way, and while they can be very good with the right subject, not sure if it works for me…
*except when I turned on the light at the wrong time, my second time doing it, and lost most of a roll of photos!
Done!
That’s part of the game, errors happen! 
