Bodhi's in the bed

I honestly think the lighting on the other print was much better. Maybe not technically perfect, but it had more atmosphere.

- Thom

I don't disagree. I'm mainly concerned with getting to know the developer at this point. I plan to try some 4x5 FP4+ this weekend for seven minutes at 1:100. When I'm comfortable with conventional development the next step is semi-stand and after that semi-stand and DBI. I'm introducing one change at a time.

That's a good approach. You're way ahead of me there. I've been using mainly Pyro-HD for my film, and it's killer with FP4. For some reason, however, I've liked HP5 or Tri-X much better with the Holga.
May I ask how you modified your Holga?

- Thom

I really like this picture. Great mood. Reading the thread got me curious so I checked your other version. Like the other person here, I probably like that one better but they are both excellent.

May I ask what you mean by the terms semi-stand and DBI? I probably know them by a different name but I am just curious. Thanks and thanks for sharing this beautiful picture.

There are a lot of threads on both (and I've read them all) that I highly recomend. DBI is development by inspection, do advanced searches for both DBI and inspection and those two searches turn up pretty much all the threads. Stand, Semi-Stand, EMA (extreme minimal agitation) are all variations on using developers in high dilutions, long development times and reduced agitation. Again, the existing threads will explain it far better than I can. I'm switching over to FP4+ for this stage of my process simply because the massive development chart has a time for FP4+ and I'll start with that before I extrapolate for HP5+. For FP4+ at ISO 125 in 510-Pyro diluted 1:500, it's 50 minutes. The benefits have to do with local "micro" contrasts and edge effects. It's in the threads...

I have only shot HP5+ in the Holga.

I didn't do the mods. I bought my Holga from Randy at holgamods.com. Check out his site. I love my Holga.

I like the tones you have in the print.
I was considering trying a staining dev. but I thought that the point of using one was to improve highlight separation. I note here that you are split grade printing and so bringing the highlight detail in during printing. Have you tried printing on a single grade?
Thanks for sharing,
Regards
John

Thanks Michael. I have worked with those techniques but I just didn't call them that. Well, I knew development by inspection by that name but I just didn't associate the DBI acronym to it.

Although I do use some special techniques and have experimented with just about all of them at one time or another, after 40 years of film photography, I have come to the conclusion that simple, straight-forward techniques work best for me. However, I do use SLIMT quite often and it can work wonders.

Every once in a while I play around with special techniques even now, but I have found that it is best (again, for me) to stick with what works. But I am not into "arty" photography including blurred images, out-of-focus, etc. But there's nothing wrong with that; that's just not my style. As you know, most of the greatest photographers of all time pretty much did the same - that is, stuck to the basics. Special techniques can be fun and they are often useful but it is easy to get carried away with them. I have noticed that beginners often get fascinated and side-tracked with them. I am NOT implying that you are a beginner and I know that's not the case. I am just mentioning something that I have observed over the years.

Like I suspect is true of you Tom, I've always strived for maximum visual acuity in my personal work. Frankly, the Holga has been a bit of a revelation and it's been very freeing. As I turn back to the view camera a lot of those traditional concerns for maintaining a high degree of control over what appears on my ground glass will quickly return.

I don't view anything I'm doing with split grade printing, f-stop printing, taking up the use of staining developers, semi-stand development or development by inspection as in any way arty or even what I'd call special techniques...though they are all new to me during this period of return to darkroom photography.

They are all things, that having been exposed to them via APUG, having read up on them, heard others' anecdotal stories, and seen the results of their work, I have come to believe all make available capabilities in the finished work that are otherwise unavailable, all make good sense for me in terms of work flow and if I can get them in hand, all can become my standard procedures for producing prints that appear in no way "arty" and exploit the limits of my meager creative aesthetics.

I'm trying very hard to teach myself these things in a patient, organic manner, placing no timetable on myself and putting very little pressure on myself in terms of the images I'm making. Concentrating on process is also very freeing.

John, I don't rule out the use of graded papers. I still have a stash of old "blue box" Oriental Seagull graded papers. Right now, I'm very focused on learning more about split-grade printing which is something I'm still very new at.

I notice in various threads that you seem to be trying all kinds of development techniques. I almost get the impression that you are searching for the Holy Grail of developers. It also appears that you are very interested in precision. But I found it surprising that you mention that you don't have a densitometer. You really should get one. You can get great densitometers on eBay now for very little with all the labs closing down. I have had one for decades but I picked up another one just for a backup and I may even get a third! From what I have seen of your posts in various forums, I would suggest that you stick to a standard film/developer combination and master it. Having a densitometer will be huge help in doing that and should pretty much eliminate your need for using DBI. I developed by inspection many many years ago using a dim green light but I abandoned it because I have found it simply isn't necessary.

The problem with trying too many thing is that someone can drive themselves crazy trying so many things and you rarely master any of them that way. Ansel Adams advised against this practice and for good reason. Almost every experienced photographer that I know has settled into one or two films and one or two (maybe three) developers and, in almost every case, those are standard developers.

I have have a theory that photo magazines have encouraged this constant experimentation with various techniques. After all, they have a magazine to sell so they have to come up with different things each month. But I can't count how many photographers I have known over the years who, after learning the basics, went off on a chase for the Holy Grail only to return to the basics when they finally burned themselves out on all those chases. That was when they really got good because they then mastered the subtleties of good, basic darkroom procedure. They never did master the basics when they were on their search for the ultimate film/developer combination.

As I mentioned, I have tried just about everything at least once over the years. Every once in a while when I have spare time, I may try the latest fad but, but stick to the basics for serious work. I do traditional expanded and contracted development based on careful testing. I never rely on someone else's charts except for starting points. I mentioned that one technique that I really have found useful is SLIMT. If you don't know what it is, just do a Google search for "slimt" and it should be your first hit. The article may make it sound complicated but nothing could be more easy. It simply takes the place of plain water in the pre-soak. It will bring down high densities without compressing middle densities or changing film speed. It takes no longer to develop film with the technique than your normal procedure (if you use a presoak) because it simply replaces the presoak. Nothing could be easier. It's very useful when you are shooting interior scenes with a strong light that can "burn out" or in interior scenes where there is a window in the scene. In your picture of the bed, for example, it would have brought down the values in ceiling light without affecting the mid tones. But SLIMT does not require changing anything else. You just use your normal development procedure but substitute it as the presoak.

My standard film/developer combination for years has been Tmax100 in HC110. It works beautifully for me. For some it doesn't, though.

My suggestion to anyone is to master a couple basic standard film/developer combinations and don't fall into the trap of trying all kinds of things. If you do, you will never master any of them. Experiment conservatively when you see that your current methods are a limiting factor for you and only change one variable at a time. Settle in with what works for you and master it. That's when the reward really comes. Fight the urge to try every new or odd technique that you read about or hear about. And, by all means, get a densitometer.

Keep it Simple (KISS).

I'm not sure where you got certain impressions. I've used nothing...*nothing* but HC-110 dil. B for as long as I can remember and since I rebuilt my darkroom, it's all I've used except for finishing a jug of D-76 I had leftover from a class. I've been asking a lot of questions about other developers, mainly Rodinal and it's variants but Pyro-510 is my very first experiment with anything unfamilar to me. There is simply too much great stuff being done with staining developers not to see what that's about.

As for film. I've been shooting HP5+ and I'm about to shoot FP4+ too.

I'm totally with you on piking what works, knowing it well, sticking with it...and then concentrate on making pictures. I dont believe in holy grails. But I have taken a methodical approach to selecting the processes I plan to concentrate on.

I planned to buy a densitometer then I decided to give DBI a try, which oviously is a very different approach. I haven't tried it yet. I may decide that I don't care for it. My mind is open. My understanding is that if I decide to stick with a staining developer and do wind up dealing with sensinometry, I will require the use of a color densitometer.