A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

Please do not say that you subscribe to the whole "if it isn't 'straight out of camera' it lacks integrity and skill on the part of the photographer" crowd.

This ideology came along at some point when a bunch of idiots decided that photoshop was an invention of the devil, and coincidentally, they happened to be the offspring of the same bunch of idiots that believe that Henri Cartier-Bresson never cropped a single photograph.

The whole point of a negative is to give you a wide record of a scene's characteristics, not an small slice of it, like a slide would. Why do it this way instead of like chromes? Have you ever even read the myriad complaints that people have with printing chrome, re: contrast masking and other bugbears?

I'm not ashamed to say that I use extensive Lightroom and Photoshop adjustments, probably more than most people shooting digitally in RAW, on my negative scans. But you can bet your ass I can also make that same print in the darkroom.

I think...

Everyone has the right to make decisions about their own art creation.

I think the zone system of working is just as valid as "straight out of the camera" because film and art is what you want it to be and shouldn't put a restriction on it unless that's what YOU want as a restriction.

For me, I don't want, and won't enjoy, hours in the darkroom fiddling with exposures to get it right, I enjoy the photo taking aspect, spending time in the field, so I want my negatives to reflect the print and inherently hold the detail I want in the image, not "as much detail as possible" because I'm not creating a scene to then be adjusted later, I'm creating a scans NOW to simply be displayed later.

From MY perspective, someone who is a good PHOTOGRAPHER can make a good negative that is easy to print right out of the cameras, and a good DARKROOM PRINTER (or Photoshop expert) is someone who can manipulate that image in post to create something else, call them a painter with light, but a painter I am not...

Maybe I will hate printing and not do it, or maybe I will design a system that works for me out of the gate without a lot of fuss.

I don't want ALL the detail, I only want the detail I need for thee pre-conceived and pre-visualized image. And for me, that can begotten in the film, not in the print.

In the future this may change, but my whole life (at least since I was 12 and shot my first roll) my idea of photography was to make a good negative out of the camera... Hard to change that philosophy 20 years later...

Only time will tell...

 

[nworth]

I do understand what you mean, but what I'm saying is, given a certain film ... HP5+ for an example (or any film it doesn't matter) it's a 400 speed film (in theory, pretend it's a Velvia50 which I expose at 50 and with my way of metering come out with almost perfect exposures almost every time) so if I treat HP5+ the same way, and expose it at EI400 the exposure should be spot on, so when printing that negative, onto a given paper, I should always have the same exposure process every time assuming I've properly exposed the negative...

If you're constantly having to adjust your times for printing, then you aren't very good at properly exposing your negatives in the first place.... Even if using the zone system properly (as I understand it ... Limitedly) when you push or pull to correct for the -n1 or +n2 or whatever (I know you don't call it pushing but essentially that's what it is let's not be stupid and argue about this, you're changing the standard development time to compensate for a different exposure than standard) if you've done it properly and exacting, your printing time should be the same... If it's not, your fault is in not exposing as exactly as you could be...

Different materials behave differently, so the consistency you seek is difficult to impossible. There is variation among both films and papers. For a given set of conditions (light, contrast), you can often find a match, but it will change with changing conditions. For a lot of examples of just how complicated this can get, see Davis, "Beyond the Zone System." You might be able to make a paper that matches HP-5+ in average daylight conditions, but that paper would work properly with only that film in those conditions - not a very economical marketing strategy. By the way, the object of N+ and N- development in the Zone system is to adjust contrast, not exposure. You decide on what development is needed at the time of exposure, and you adjust the exposure to compensate for the development and to adjust the zone placement of gray values.

 

[canuhead]

Actually, Rodinal is a fine print developer in concentrations of about 1+10 or so.
In the old days the developer was used as such in a pinch.

sure but that'd be the same as saying Dektol can be used to process film. It will do (have done it on deadline pinch) but only if one likes golf ball grain and what a waste of Rodinal to be used on prints ha ha

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm sorry this is dragging on with no movement these past days, I had planned to develop more like... Thursday (and I think show "zoomed" scan edges) but life as always gets in the way, essentially my GF's ex has her child and was supposed bring her back by plane quite a while ago, and have been stuck at her house with my computer but no access to the files since Thursday, and before then was taking care of more important things in preparation for her return. I'll be home tomorrow, so will be able to do more.

I hope I'm never as spiteful and petty as he is, changing dates 2 hours before the plane is supposed to land (oh by the way we didn't take that flight so you'll have to take more time off from work tomorrow to pick her up... Grrr

End if off topic rant.

 

[StoneNYC]

Maybe we're getting closer to the crux of the matter. It would seem you are the type who is concerned with the picture, and that it stops there (ie not interested in the "expressive print" etc.). Nothing wrong with that, but then this seems a little inconsistent with the process-related rat holes you're always going down regarding different developers, "sharpness", weirdo films/formats etc. If you aren't interested in the printing part, and are on a quest to find film/developer combinations that essentially create the prints for you, I'm telling you this ain't gonna happen. Actually I'd have to honestly say given everything I've read you post over the past year or so, I can't figure out why you bother with film at all. Why not just shoot digital?

Well understand it's been a journey. I restarted my love of film in 2010 after a trip around the country shooting Kodakchrome, before then I had been digital from 2007 to 2011 mostly (besides November 2010-December 2010 with Kodachrome) I wanted to try out all these films that everyone lamented over so first I tried developing and shooting those starting somewhere mid 2011, antique expired films, then I tried Polaroid and Fuji products, then more modern films and a few different developers. Some of which were experiments, some were because I couldn't find times for films I already had shot with developer I had on hand so got something else that was recommended.

I don't like just "picking a course and sticking to it" because I believe that's a blind and foolish path, you should try a few at least and after knowing the differences THEN specialize.

So now I'm at the end of my film specialization (Acros100 and HP5+ and one other 100ish film,,FP4+ or Delta100, not decided yet).

And I HAD developers for each, but that's changed with rotary, which was the next step, to de-GAS and cut down on all the stuff I have, I don't want so much clutter, too many developing tubes etc, I can't handle the piles of boxes etc. So JOBO seems a better fit for that mentality, one 2551, one large print drum, and MAYBE a 3010 and 3005 and THATS IT, no Paterson tanks and all the extra reels, it's too much clutter.

This is the path I'm choosing, like it or not...

 

[Chris Lange]

Don't tell cliveh or the other zen folks who swear the negative has "integrity".

Clive also appears to be a pretty wicked printer though...

 

[Chris Lange]

Maybe we're getting closer to the crux of the matter. It would seem you are the type who is concerned with the picture, and that it stops there (ie not interested in the "expressive print" etc.). Nothing wrong with that, but then this seems a little inconsistent with the process-related rat holes you're always going down regarding different developers, "sharpness", weirdo films/formats etc. If you aren't interested in the printing part, and are on a quest to find film/developer combinations that essentially create the prints for you, I'm telling you this ain't gonna happen. Actually I'd have to honestly say given everything I've read you post over the past year or so, I can't figure out why you bother with film at all. Why not just shoot digital?

This is such a push-pull (no pun intended) dynamic, I find. If you are working quickly, and need to get a photograph without the ability to triple check all your settings, such as when shooting from the hip, or quickly reacquiring a subject in your framelines, you need to be a good printer in order to get the photograph you imagined onto the paper...

 

[cliveh]

No comment

My printing skills are far below some of the EW/AA wannabees on APUG and probably Michael included, but I think I have a reasonable grasp of producing a decent print with a sufficient continuous tone curve and required highlight and shadow detail where required for the specific picture I have in mind.

 

[cliveh]

I haven't seen your prints so I can't say one way or the other. The context of my remark was just forum posts and the gigantic chasm between our respective photographic interests.

That's quite OK Michael and likewise I haven't seen your prints and in the wider context I'm sure we beg to differ, but also have a mutual respect of opinion. I am also surprised that our posts have not yet been deleted by the over zealous moderator for not complying with Stone's original question.

 

[StoneNYC]

That's quite OK Michael and likewise I haven't seen your prints and in the wider context I'm sure we beg to differ, but also have a mutual respect of opinion. I am also surprised that our posts have not yet been deleted by the over zealous moderator for not complying with Stone's original question.

Hah! I think the moderator should know that I don't mind some deviation, I prefer posts to flow like a good conversation over a cup of coffee, I'm not so strict as some threads can be

Just prefer no name calling

 

[gone]

432 replies!!! And still counting? Wow.

 

[CatLABS]

HP5+ for an example (or any film it doesn't matter) it's a 400 speed film

Actually HP5+ is closer to 250ISO in reality, perhaps that is the core of the problem...

 

[StoneNYC]

Actually HP5+ is closer to 250ISO in reality, perhaps that is the core of the problem...

That's again incorrect... That's based on YOUR testing. Not mine.

It exposes just fine at 400 for me, and as far as I recall, Simon said the tested speeds are correct, it's just how many tend to use them that they adjust the EI for their style of printing.

 

[CatLABS]

That's again incorrect... That's based on YOUR testing. Not mine.

It exposes just fine at 400 for me, and as far as I recall, Simon said the tested speeds are correct, it's just how many tend to use them that they adjust the EI for their style of printing.

You mean to say its based on YOUR testing, not mine.
The fact you expose something "just fine" (which is on it's own a subjective term) does not mean anything, and it again, does not necessarily mean it is universally true, just because you believe something to be some way.

In the real world, no films are actually what the box says, hence it is called "box speed", except for films made in Japan, where the word exact actually means something.

 

[StoneNYC]

You mean to say its based on YOUR testing, not mine.
The fact you expose something "just fine" (which is on it's own a subjective term) does not mean anything, and it again, does not necessarily mean it is universally true, just because you believe something to be some way.

In the real world, no films are actually what the box says, hence it is called "box speed", except for films made in Japan, where the word exact actually means something.

So then why do so many people shoot Velvia100 at EI 80, Velvia50 at EI 32, and Acros100 at EI 50?....

Because we all meter differently... I'm sure most films are rated relatively correctly, people just have their own way of exposing and metering....

 

[MattKing]

This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.

Stone:

This makes sense - if you shoot for projection.

But if you shoot for prints, it is a two step process.

And when you expose the film, you are thinking about what you intend to do at the printing stage, to get the results you want.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone is correct !!!!!!!!!

What CatLABS should have said in post #435 is his personal preference is to shoot it at an exposure index of 250. ISO is a speed determined based on a specific set of criteria. HP5+ is a 400 ISO film. Whatever E.I. you choose to shoot it at is your own business.

I never thought you would say I was right about anything.... Am I dreaming? Haha

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

This makes sense - if you shoot for projection.

But if you shoot for prints, it is a two step process.

And when you expose the film, you are thinking about what you intend to do at the printing stage, to get the results you want.

Well seems like they could have designed it better years ago, but it was better for making money to make it complicated.

Anyway we shall see, I'll start with the VC paper someone suggested.

 

[MattKing]

Well seems like they could have designed it better years ago, but it was better for making money to make it complicated.

Anyway we shall see, I'll start with the VC paper someone suggested.

Ah, but modern technology does a fine job of producing average prints of average scenes.

Unfortunately, average scenes and average results make for boring photography. Nothing about what you post gives me the impression that your goal is to make boring photographs.

You should use your knowledge and skill and vision to get the information on to the negative in a form that can be extracted on to the paper in a way that creates magic.

You have probably seen the AA quote about the print being the music while the negative is the score.

The technology can get you to a print that is like the music from a bored but competent house band, while the skilled printer can produce a print that is like the music from a top level orchestra.

And by the way - printing is truly fun!

As an aside, 4x5 contacts on to 5x7 paper are quite nice, and very easy to handle.

And there is one environment where you can tailor your film to allow for invariably excellent, straight prints. That environment is the studio, provided that you spend some serious time and effort customizing the lighting to get the results exactly the way you need them. This is what the volume portrait photographers used to do - think graduation photos.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ah, but modern technology does a fine job of producing average prints of average scenes.

Unfortunately, average scenes and average results make for boring photography. Nothing about what you post gives me the impression that your goal is to make boring photographs.

You should use your knowledge and skill and vision to get the information on to the negative in a form that can be extracted on to the paper in a way that creates magic.

You have probably seen the AA quote about the print being the music while the negative is the score.

The technology can get you to a print that is like the music from a bored but competent house band, while the skilled printer can produce a print that is like the music from a top level orchestra.

And by the way - printing is truly fun!

As an aside, 4x5 contacts on to 5x7 paper are quite nice, and very easy to handle.

And there is one environment where you can tailor your film to allow for invariably excellent, straight prints. That environment is the studio, provided that you spend some serious time and effort customizing the lighting to get the results exactly the way you need them. This is what the volume portrait photographers used to do - think graduation photos.

I don't see why you can't do the same thing in the world that you do in the studio... I dunno maybe I'm a fool, or maybe I haven't been corrupted by the scholastic ideas that limit imagination

 

[MattKing]

I don't see why you can't do the same thing in the world that you do in the studio... I dunno maybe I'm a fool, or maybe I haven't been corrupted by the scholastic ideas that limit imagination

You can do it in the field - provided that you have the same exacting control over light that can be had in the studio, or on some film sets.

Otherwise, there are no controls on your camera or in your procedure that will create the necessary results at the negative stage to permit perfect results on a straight print every time. It is just the result of reality - it offers way more than can "automatically" be represented in a medium that uses reflected light.

 

[Chris Lange]

I don't see why you can't do the same thing in the world that you do in the studio... I dunno maybe I'm a fool, or maybe I haven't been corrupted by the scholastic ideas that limit imagination

Because I might want my sky to be dark and moody but I may also have a person as the main subject of the photograph, therefore making a red filter a bit of a no-go since I don't want the skin to look weird, so I just figure I'll burn it in hard at the printing stage...Just like I might want that row of storefronts in the background to be a bit more subdued, without losing the effect of placing my subject in a certain locale...and maybe I want the text on the cover of the book they're reading to pop so I might hold it back during my soft-contrast exposure, and really hit it in the hard-contrast exposure...

Maybe photography is hard.

I keep seeing you say "they should" "it should", in reference to film/paper materials. That's like saying that phthalo blue oil paint is just not doing it for you, so you write a complaint to Windsor & Newton saying they need to make their phthalo blue "better" for you, instead of learning how to properly mix the tint you want from a combination of other paints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Stone, it is true what many are alluding to here. At the printing stage is where the magic happens. If you look at many of Ansel Adams' negatives as straight prints, you'll be disappointed with their quality.

Too much emphasis is put on the film developer. You have to start thinking in terms of the finished product, particularly with black and white. A negative is a means to an end, and every photographer I know have different ends. That's why the product wasn't designed 'better' years ago, because how does a paper manufacturer account for personal taste?
The answer is that they don't! Instead you make a product that is as versatile and malleable as possible, so that many different results can be had, and therein lies the magic of being a printer - you get to choose when you print what your final result should look like.

The negative is where you record all of the necessary tones that you need when you print, and when you print you use what you have in the negative to make the print look the way you want it to, the way you saw it. There is nothing standardized about printing at all, and there never will be. Give two printers, digital or darkroom, the same negative, and let them work it over until they are happy with the results. I guarantee you they will not look the same.

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing standardized about printing at all, and there never will be. Give two printers, digital or darkroom, the same negative, and let them work it over until they are happy with the results. I guarantee you they will not look the same.

Mostly I'll agree with Thomas, although I would point out that there are standards for volume printing that result in competent results for the majority of negatives - think one-hour photos.

If you don't believe that, you may be surprised to look through the "Lets All Print One Negative" Gallery: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Truzi]

Stone, I think your experiences with transparency may be preventing some clarity, so to speak, in understanding the some things about negatives and printing.

Hypothetical situation...
Can you conceive of a situation where transparencies (which you seem to prefer) of different brands or "models" would not, by design, be projected the same? Being different enough from each other to require different exposure based on the projector that would be used, or perhaps projectors with different settings to accommodate different types of transparencies?

Or perhaps look at automatic versus manual transmissions. Some swear by one, some the other. However, there are situations where one may be more versatile - certainly not out of the box for mindless operation, but for other intents. Ever use a line-lock? Why doesn't every car have one? Why does any car have one? Front or rear wheel drive? Skinny or wide tires (or tyres if some prefer).

Bridge those ideas into what we're trying to say about printing negatives.