A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[markbarendt]

I refuse to believe that an image can't hold the viewers attention if it's not manipulated...

All, let me repeat that, all photos are manipulated.

When you choose HP-5 over Portra 400 or vice-versa you are manipulating the result, a sharp developer versus fine grain, adding artificial lighting outdoors, the background you choose, the time of day you shoot, the weather you prefer to shoot in, the subject matter or models you choose, and as much as you may loathe the implication your digital workflow is manipulated. These are facts, not conjecture.

Photography (outside of science) is a medium people use to express their ideas and feelings and make artifacts that remind them of things. Photography is not about "the" real objective reality, it is about showing your viewers what you found important.

People like to think that photos represent something "real" but at best they only represent what the photographer chose to show them.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, at this point, I'm pretty bummed and completely turned off from the idea of printing, I'm going off like Dan does for a bit, you're all making me depressed, not giving me much hope here.

A dose of reality followed by some reflection is a good thing.

You don't have to print yourself to use film well in your world. People like Henri Cartier-Bresson and Jose Villa are good examples of that thought. I'm quite sure that they listen(ed) to the people doing their printing though so that they could improve their work. I'm quite sure they ask(ed) their printers to do things differently on occasion.

 

[cjbecker]

Your scene is x amouts of stops of light from the highest value to lowest value,

Your film can only capture so many stops of the light (which is many less stops then your scene) and your paper can capure even less then the negative.

Developing techniques are one way to get more of a range of light onto your negative

Dodging and burning are how you can bring some of the values that fall out the range of the paper back onto the paper.

Both are ways to try to make the final image more like the actual scene or what you had in mind.


------------------------

So right as you click the shutter you are minipulating the scene. You have to pick which and how you are going to portray the light values.

 

[removed account4]

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

dektol / d72 does not give golf ball sized grain
ansco 130, doesn't give golfball sized grain either

people who never use print/plate/film developer for
film or plates always suggest this nonsense,

if dektol is dilute 1:7 or 1:10 you will get a beautiful
full tonal scale negative, just like you will with ansco 130 ..
the difference is that ansco 130 will last for over a year
as stock solution in a stoppered bottle, and d72 won't

I refuse to believe that an image can't hold the viewers attention if it's not manipulated...

as soon as you choose a film, or depress the shutter you have manipulated the scene .. then you use a developer and processing type, or make sharp or flat negatives, manipulated the scene ..

there really is no such thing as an unmanipulated image ...

===

if you want a quick and easy way to make contact prints without enlargments / straight prints
look for a contact printer .. the sell for peanuts on fleaboink
and with very little effort and just a stopwatch you can make unmanipulated straight contact prints using your processor instead of
trays &c...
its less effort than processing film or scanning

 

[Truzi]

I refuse to believe that an image can't hold the viewers attention if it's not manipulated...

Edge effects are a manipulation on the film.
Using a different developer than recommended by the manufacturer manipulates the image on the film. (Any choice of developer does this.)
Push processing or using an EI other than box speed is a manipulation (hell, box speed can even be seen as a manipulation in some debates).
Stand, inversion, rotation? Manipulations.
Simply adjusting levels on the computer is a manipulation. It doesn't matter why, it is still a manipulation.
Choosing to print on matte, luster, pearl, glossy is a manipulation.
Wet-prints or ink jets... manipulation either way.
Cropping is manipulation.
Printing to the edges of the paper or leaving a boarder manipulates the perceptual experience.
A picture frame changes (manipulates) the perceptual experience.
The size of the print manipulates the perceptual experience.
Black, white, gray background on a website showing your pictures... manipulation.
An whole host of other things that are not as obvious are still manipulations. They all effect the final impression one gets when viewing the photograph (you can read about this from the view of an "artist" or "scientist" (cognitive neuroscience and/or visual perception) - both views are similar).
All can produce nice photographs, but each manipulation DOES contribute something different to the final product.

It does not matter if the manipulation is on the negative or on the print. What this means is:
1) There is manipulation regardless.
2) Saving most of the manipulation for the printing stage opens up more options for the final product.
3) Manipulating the negative does not save time, it merely shifts where that time is spent.
4) You current process IS manipulating the image to hold the viewers attention or convey a certain tone/feel/idea/etc.

You are already doing this! What you consider "getting it right" on the negative is still a non-standard manipulation of both exposure and development (and a little post-processing on the computer).
It works for you - you like it. Your process conveys a certain feel that you want to convey, a feel that is different than doing it in the "standard" manner. I've seen some of your pictures, they look nice, I really like some of them.

Nonetheless, you ARE manipulating an image in order to hold the viewers' attention and/or communicate something. You are manipulating at a different stage than most, and people have reasons for manipulating in printing instead, but that is beside the point.
Again, you already are manipulating.
This appears to contradict your views. If we can get beyond this point, we can move the discussion forward (to get stuck at another point, lol).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

dektol / d72 does not give golf ball sized grain
ansco 130, doesn't give golfball sized grain either

people who never use print/plate/film developer for
film or plates always suggest this nonsense,

if dektol is dilute 1:7 or 1:10 you will get a beautiful
full tonal scale negative, just like you will with ansco 130 ..
the difference is that ansco 130 will last for over a year
as stock solution in a stoppered bottle, and d72 won't

Interestingly, D72 (which is almost Dektol) and D76 are almost identical formulas, where only the alkali proportions are different. The alkali is the accelerator of the developer, which puts the solution at a particular pH, where alkalinity is needed for most developers to function. The higher the pH, the more alkaline it is, and D72 will develop faster than D76 for that reason. That can be countered by diluting the developer more. The higher activity of D72 will develop the film faster than D76, but also generate slightly coarser grain, but again, if D72 is diluted more, that shouldn't be a problem.
While they are not exactly the same, they are nearly the same.

Source: Michael A. Smith paper on developers.

Just like John, I have developed film in Ansco 130, and it works beautifully for that purpose. My choice was Delta 100 sheet film, and I got prints that looked a lot like my other prints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Thomas. Not correct. The only similarities between D-76 and D-72 are that they are both Metol-HQ. The concentrations, and Metol-HQ ratio are very different, as is the amount of sulfite. The alkali is totally different. D-76 contains a small amount of Borax while D-72 contains a whole lot of Carbonate (which is normally the case for print/universal developers because they have to be not only more active, but need a lot of alkali so that they are buffered and maintain consistent activity with use. D-72 (and virtually all print developers) also contains a significant quantity of restrainer (D-76 has none). Mr. Smith might be a good photographer but I would not rely on his technical stuff.

Dang, I thought I had found a good explanation. Thanks for the correction.

 

[removed account4]

hey thomas

from all reports, dektol IS D72 ( except for sequestering agents (anti caking agents in the sack ? ) )

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

water ( 500cc )
metol 3.1 g
sodium sulfite 45 g
hq 12g
carbonate 67.5g
potss bromide 1.9g

add water to make 1L

press negatives
1:1 develop 5 mins no agitation @ 65ºF
or 4 mins with agitation and general contrast @ 65ºF

but probably 1:7, @7mins, 1:9 9 mins as pe has suggested in the past would be a more desired contrast &c

yadda yadda yadda
( PLI pg 166 1944 )

there used to be a thread called - print developer for film - or something like that
where someone asked questions about dektol / d72 for film
and an apug member posted photographs that he made using it
full gradation of grey, not anymore grainy than anything else out there
just beautiful stuff, but unfortunately the images are vanished now

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

hey thomas

from all reports, dektol IS D72 ( except for sequestering agents (anti caking agents in the sack ? ) )

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Cool. Thanks again for correcting my mistake. I will never use Smith as a reference for chemistry again.

 

[removed account4]

found the threads ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

mas know stuff, like everyone he has his weaknesses and strengths ...

an ancient photo lab index is a wonderful resource ...

 

[PKM-25]

I just got off the phone with Stone, we had a good conversation for over an hour, so I am logging in to weigh in on this then I am out of here…

Then I have no idea why you're using film, or why you even bother with using anything other than JPG on a DSLR.

90% of what I shoot on digi is now on JPEG, I shoot it like I would a chrome in camera and that is for paid work by the way. It’s not a crime and I am that good with it.

You're talking wizardry... I don't dodge and burn my transparencies... Why should I need to do that to my negatives, I don't like they false creationism... I don't do that in any of my work, digital or film, ever... I hate that shit...

It’s often too fine a line and too subjective to make a solid call on but I tend to agree with you, can’t stand computer art either. As you know, I use a strong photojournalistic ethic with all of my work, it either happened in front of me and my camera or it did not, I don’t go re-inventing it and this includes fine art that I sell. IR film is about as manipulated as it gets for me. But you will find you want to or should employ some dodging and burning in some images and then not in others, your call, not the curmudgeons on here.

If that's your attitude, you're going to be a terrible printer. At best, you'll get very average prints, lacking drama and any reason to hold the viewer's attention. You'll never get a print that "sings". If mediocrity is your goal, you're on the right track... Frankly, if your adamant about never burning/dodging, you should forgo wet printing. It would be a shame to waste silver on your results. Leave the paper for someone who cares about creating expressive images.

Wow Eddie, this is a terrible thing to say to someone, total BS and is not exactly an endearing way to get someone into the darkroom. The darkroom is a tool, not a destination. I have several images I love that print perfectly as straight, grade 2, non-dodged or burned prints and they have plenty of impact. Stone should strive to please his sensibilities, not those on APUG. All too often a person asks for a “Stick of butter” on here and gets 1/2 a stick and a beaten over the head with stale loaves of bread…not what they were asking for.

The bottom line is that the amount of post-image making adjustments you will want to make will vary on the image. Striving for as much consistency as you can in making a good negative is not only a smart way to work, it is the way master printers like John Sexton work. But while it is a noble pursuit to always make a straight a print as possible, that too is not an absolute and in time an with experience, you too will find what works for you. Silver printing is one of those things that you can only research so much on and then you just have to get down to printing and doing it. Don't put up walls or lock your mind out of it when it is often no different than the lens you choose, the F-stop or the light you are waiting for. I get where you are coming from though, people are really ramming this crap down your throat and that is no good either.

I’d say you are right to want to make as good of negatives as possible but be maybe a little more open to making adjustments to the final print that speak to what you want and what you believe in.

But my god people…..the constant slamming on this site has gotten terrible in the past few years, enough to drive me away permanently….and sadly enough some of the work by people doing the hardest slamming is mediocre at best…you might want to take a hard look at that.

Good bye and good luck!

 

[StoneNYC]

I just got off the phone with Stone, we had a good conversation for over an hour, so I am logging in to weigh in on this then I am out of here…



90% of what I shoot on digi is now on JPEG, I shoot it like I would a chrome in camera and that is for paid work by the way. It’s not a crime and I am that good with it.



It’s often too fine a line and too subjective to make a solid call on but I tend to agree with you, can’t stand computer art either. As you know, I use a strong photojournalistic ethic with all of my work, it either happened in front of me and my camera or it did not, I don’t go re-inventing it and this includes fine art that I sell. IR film is about as manipulated as it gets for me. But you will find you want to or should employ some dodging and burning in some images and then not in others, your call, not the curmudgeons on here.




Wow Eddie, this is a terrible thing to say to someone, total BS and is not exactly an endearing way to get someone into the darkroom. The darkroom is a tool, not a destination. I have several images I love that print perfectly as straight, grade 2, non-dodged or burned prints and they have plenty of impact. Stone should strive to please his sensibilities, not those on APUG. All too often a person asks for a “Stick of butter” on here and gets 1/2 a stick and a beaten over the head with stale loaves of bread…not what they were asking for.

The bottom line is that the amount of post-image making adjustments you will want to make will vary on the image. Striving for as much consistency as you can in making a good negative is not only a smart way to work, it is the way master printers like John Sexton work. But while it is a noble pursuit to always make a straight a print as possible, that too is not an absolute and in time an with experience, you too will find what works for you. Silver printing is one of those things that you can only research so much on and then you just have to get down to printing and doing it. Don't put up walls or lock your mind out of it when it is often no different than the lens you choose, the F-stop or the light you are waiting for. I get where you are coming from though, people are really ramming this crap down your throat and that is no good either.

I’d say you are right to want to make as good of negatives as possible but be maybe a little more open to making adjustments to the final print that speak to what you want and what you believe in.

But my god people…..the constant slamming on this site has gotten terrible in the past few years, enough to drive me away permanently….and sadly enough some of the work by people doing the hardest slamming is mediocre at best…you might want to take a hard look at that.

Good bye and good luck!

Thanks Dan, I appreciate your insights, and we spoke for a lengthy time on the phone, felt almost like two hours not just one.

I think to everyone else reading, what got me really frustrated was the idea of "oh that woman's face won't match with this sky and so I have to do all sorts of craziness in post in order to make it work" where, the way that I function, I set the scene which also means that I set the person, so if the person isn't in the place that I want them to be to make the right light, I simply move them and just perspective that way I'm working within the limits of the light that is available. Or I bring my own lighting and set that up and I just match that to the scene at hand much like on a movie set, and blend the two light sources the sky and my own personal lighting together to form an image that is exposed the way I want it to be.

I'm off to develop.

 

[cjbecker]

I say its about time to just let this thread die and fall to the bottom of the sea.

Different strokes for different folks.

In the end it is all about the final image and does it does not matter how you get there.

Even though its not the way i would do it, I respect Stone for going against the grain, and trying a different way.

 

[PKM-25]

Thanks Dan, I appreciate your insights, and we spoke for a lengthy time on the phone, felt almost like two hours not just one.

I think to everyone else reading, what got me really frustrated was the idea of "oh that woman's face won't match with this sky and so I have to do all sorts of craziness in post in order to make it work" where, the way that I function, I set the scene which also means that I set the person, so if the person isn't in the place that I want them to be to make the right light, I simply move them and just perspective that way I'm working within the limits of the light that is available. Or I bring my own lighting and set that up and I just match that to the scene at hand much like on a movie set, and blend the two light sources the sky and my own personal lighting together to form an image that is exposed the way I want it to be.

I'm off to develop.

Just remember something, the internet is not photography. And like riding a bike, you can read about the best way to ride a bike only so much and then you have to get on it, fall off of it and get on it again.

Negative film is not slide film. You can hold a good chrome up to a light and show it to someone, you can not do that with a negative and that should tell you that the photograph is not done yet. You have a lot of good info on here, but I would say that over half of it will not reach the "Ah-Hah" level until you start printing.

If I were you, I would take 3-4 good negs you already have and bite the bullet to find a good rental darkroom for a day, just start the journey and you will see where it is supposed to take you. At this point, until you start printing, seeking the perfect paper for the perfect negative is like buying clothing for an unborn child who's gender is not yet known...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just remember something, the internet is not photography. And like riding a bike, you can read about the best way to ride a bike only so much and then you have to get on it, fall off of it and get on it again.

Negative film is not slide film. You can hold a good chrome up to a light and show it to someone, you can not do that with a negative and that should tell you that the photograph is not done yet. You have a lot of good info on here, but I would say that over half of it will not reach the "Ah-Hah" level until you start printing.

If I were you, I would take 3-4 good negs you already have and bite the bullet to find a good rental darkroom for a day, just start the journey and you will see where it is supposed to take you. At this point, until you start printing, seeking the perfect paper for the perfect negative is like buying clothing for an unborn child who's gender is not yet known...

And if you're like me in the darkroom you print everything on the same paper. It's a matter of finding the right balance in exposure and processing to make negatives that reasonably fit on a particular paper (and paper developer).
For me, this approach has alleviated me of many headaches in the darkroom, because once my brain is 'programmed' with what my paper and paper developer can muster, it's easier to use good judgment when exposing and developing the film. Certainly I have a lot less paper in the darkroom trash can now than ten years ago when I started printing in earnest. Saves money, saves time, and saves frustration.

It really is a system we are dealing with, where the negative is just one part, albeit an important one.

 

[eddie]

Wow Eddie, this is a terrible thing to say to someone, total BS and is not exactly an endearing way to get someone into the darkroom. The darkroom is a tool, not a destination. I have several images I love that print perfectly as straight, grade 2, non-dodged or burned prints and they have plenty of impact. Stone should strive to please his sensibilities, not those on APUG. All too often a person asks for a “Stick of butter” on here and gets 1/2 a stick and a beaten over the head with stale loaves of bread…not what they were asking for.

Stone seems to think a good negative will automatically print perfectly. That's the BS. A good negative is the starting point. Papers are different. One needs to tailor their negatives to fit their chosen paper(s). His assumptions are wrong, probably because he's never printed. I wish he lived near me. I'd be glad to have him here, to give it a try.
I, too, have negatives which print easily. But, that's on my chosen paper, using negatives calibrated for the final print. In fact, I'm printing today, and am working with negatives which are extremely easy to print. Every tone is falling where I planned. That's not always the case. To imply that it's always easy is dishonest.

 

[Chris Lange]

Stone seems to think a good negative will automatically print perfectly. That's the BS. A good negative is the starting point. Papers are different. One needs to tailor their negatives to fit their chosen paper(s). His assumptions are wrong, probably because he's never printed. I wish he lived near me. I'd be glad to have him here, to give it a try.
I, too, have negatives which print easily. But, that's on my chosen paper, using negatives calibrated for the final print. In fact, I'm printing today, and am working with negatives which are extremely easy to print. Every tone is falling where I planned. That's not always the case. To imply that it's always easy is dishonest.

What he said, and I would happily make the same offer.

 

[eddie]

What he said, and I would happily make the same offer.

He's not far from you. If I were Stone, I'd jump at the offer.

 

[Roger Cole]

Then I have no idea why you're using film, or why you even bother with using anything other than JPG on a DSLR.

I'm sorry Stone, but you seem to have an enormous misconception of how black and white photography is actually done, both historically, and in the contemporary setting. People that brag about SOOC bullshit, and vilify advanced printing techniques for a perceived lack of authenticity, generally do so because they're not skilled enough to carry out such manipulations effectively.

+1000

I basically read what Stone said as "I hate photography."

This thread exasperates me so much I've long had it on ignore, but Tapatalk doesn't seen to recognize that so I end up reading it on my phone. Like any train wreck I'm pretty sure if I look I'll regret it, but I can't resist looking then, sure enough, I regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

Should have read the rest before replying but anyway...

SOMETIMES things work out and a straight print is fine. But we can't always control the light unless we always shoot studio shots or elaborate manipulated set ups on site and I would argue THAT is even more manipulative than dodging and burning.

Stone likes Acros but wants another medium speed film for times when Acros' spectral response isn't ideal. Nothing wrong with that, but it's manipulative and really pretty much the _same thing_ (altering tones with respect to each other) as dodging and burning, just with less control.

I agree that darkroom manipulation can be overdone, like anything. But that doesn't mean not to do it at all. Further, sometimes I see creative possibilities for a print later that didn't even occur when shooting, or even on first printing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Come on, folks, not a post in several minutes! We muuuuust rrrrrrreach 5 hunnnnnnnnndred...

 

[eddie]

We muuuuust rrrrrrreach 5 hunnnnnnnnndred...

Getting closer...
1 more, anyone?

 

[cliveh]

Getting closer...
1 more, anyone?

I'm not saying anything.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not saying anything.

501

 

[removed account4]

is this thread a sticky yet
its gonna end up like the mythic deleted thread

how to fit a square in a circle