Back to Basics

Hi everyone-

OK, admittedly I am not as accomplished as many on here. Maybe not a "newbie," but not an expert either.

Anyhow, I started my photography journey using Ilford Delta 100 and 400, developing it in D-76, ising Ilford MGIV paper (glossy), developed in Dektol. And everything fixed in standard Kodak Fixer. Everything went well.

Then I decided to get fancy. I tried Rodinal, shot Efke film (and Fuji Acros 100), used Foma paper, etc., etc. Not all at the same time, but I tried all sorts of variations.

Nothing was coming out the way I wanted it.

Recently, I was talking to an old mentor, and he said "why did you switch away from what you were using?" It was a good question, and I didn't have an answer. So I went back to my basic formula of Ilford/Kodak (well, I still do use Fuji Acros 100, because I really like that film). And surprise-everything's coming out the way I like it.

Just goes to show you-if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Yup, if it ain't broke... However, the other products you used are also quite good and can give you a product just as good, but different, than you have now. It takes awhile, several rolls of film, time and energy, to learn what a film/dev combo can and cannot do. It's my guess that you didn't sink enough rolls, time, etc. into finding that "sweet spot".

For instance, I hit upon that "sweet spot" with Efke 25 and Rodinal on the first roll. Could I dothat with another film/dev combo? No! It took about 100' of forte 400 to figure out that D-76, 1+1 was the "sweet spot" for me.

Give these other products a go sometime in the future, but always remember what you can fall back on. There is no right/wrong, just what works for you.

It might just be that you've found your favourite combo and the rest are "also rans." I tried Acros recently with DDX and got good negs and prints. Was it better than D100/400 and DDX? Not sure, so I think that probably means NO but it wasn't inferior either. Mind you HP5+ and DDX was fine also - at least at 5x8 prints it was.

Most of the time my temperament says that certainty and reasonable quality beats the prospect of potentially discovering or getting to great quality but with a large element of failure built in. I always think that your attitude to gambling and the odds involved is a good guide to how much you favour risk and chance in photography and other aspects of life.

I buy things in the U.K called Premium Bonds. There are in effect Government Bonds. You can't lose your stake but your winnings are small and can be reasonably frequent if you hold a modest amount. I never buy a lottery ticket where winnings are big but failure is almost guaranteed.

So I need a lot of certainty and know that I am temperamentally unsuited to large elements of uncertainty in most of my life including photography.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

I suppose that you worked with the first group of materials the most. To reach a point of satisfaction with exposing, developing, and printing with a combination of materials takes some trial and error, ideally calibration too.

If you change the variables, you have to do all the same work again to decide if it will work for you. The process is often faster the second or third time around but still necessary.

I tend to stick with a set combination too. I went the try everything route in the beginning, but never could get the results that I wanted. Once I decided to stick to one setup I was able to really do quite a lot more because I learned the nuances of that combination. Now when I try something different I can appreciate that difference and use it later if I find some use for it. I suspect that as long as I had stuck to one combination long enough to learn how to control it well, I would have ended up in a similar situation to where I am now no matter what that combination was. All I can say for certain is that I only really began to learn any form of real control once I stuck with one combo. As long as you pay attention to the differences when you make changes, there's no reason not to try different things - just make one change at a time and be mindful of the details so that you can understand what changed and why.

- Randy

Experimentation can be useful, though. We can find what works for us, or at least find out WHY it works.

I recently found a sweet spot - Tmax100 (35mm) with either the Widelux or Xpan. Developed in Tmax developer, it prints just beautifully for me with my pano work.

I imagine over the years I'll do other types of work, try new things and find new combos that make me happy. That's what it's about. Sometimes you switch, sometimes you don't but hopefully you always grow.

Now, I'm not slamming Efke, or Foma, or Rodinal (well, maybe Rodinal).

I do think Efke's good film, and will use it again. And I am sure Foma's good paper-I just never found its "sweet spot."

As for Rodinal, at the risk of being burned at the stake, I simply don't see why people are so fond of the stuff, except that it has a shelf life measured in decades...

Wmcgowin said:

Now, I'm not slamming Efke, or Foma, or Rodinal (well, maybe Rodinal)
As for Rodinal, at the risk of being burned at the stake, I simply don't see why people are so fond of the stuff, except that it has a shelf life measured in decades...

Click to expand...

It's also REALLY inexpensive to use, especially at 1+100! Plus, it's a low fog, semi-compensating, edge effect producing dev. What more can one ask for?

Is it for all films? IMHO, no, although there are some who use it for everything. Anyway, try it with something slow, Efke 25, Pan-F, APX 25 (if you can find it) or APX 100, FP-4 or PX in med. format. Try a high dilution, 1+50 or 1+100 and do 1 inversion/min.

It's the same with camera equipment: you get more over the years, but you stick with your favourites. In the end, I use a Leica M6 with 35 and 50mm, sometimes a 21mm, sometimes more, a Mamiya TLR with three lenses, and there is some costly EOS and Bronica stuff in the locker that I hardly ever use.... why did I buy a complete Bronica GS-1 equipment? I never use it! Where is the "classifieds" section here?

cmo, Justin's Home for Wayward Cameras is currently accepting new residents. The GS-1 is younger than most of our residents but could bring new energy and learn much from the older cameras. The best part is that I don't charge a penny! I'll even pay shipping to help get that poor, unwanted camera gear out of the dark closet!

Wmcgowin said:

As for Rodinal, at the risk of being burned at the stake, I simply don't see why people are so fond of the stuff, except that it has a shelf life measured in decades...

Click to expand...

You are just as entitled to have your own opinion as any of us , but the effects of Rodinal are like no other developer that I've ever used. I've tried a fair few, and I've never found anything quite like it. I tend to develop at 1:100 (or 1:200 stand) and use FP4+ almost exclusively, so perhaps it's just a good combination for what I do. Or it could be that I've used it for so many years that I really know how to work with it - who knows. At any rate, everyone has their favorites, but for me, Rodinal is the right choice %99 of the time.

- Randy

reellis67 said:

You are just as entitled to have your own opinion as any of us , but the effects of Rodinal are like no other developer that I've ever used. I've tried a fair few, and I've never found anything quite like it. I tend to develop at 1:100 (or 1:200 stand) and use FP4+ almost exclusively, so perhaps it's just a good combination for what I do. Or it could be that I've used it for so many years that I really know how to work with it - who knows. At any rate, everyone has their favorites, but for me, Rodinal is the right choice %99 of the time.

- Randy

Click to expand...

As far as I know you shoot medium and large format only, in that negative size many, many photographers prefer Rodinal because it's the back-to-basics solution for everything.

35mm photographers think differently, especially those who souped a Tri-X @1600 ASA in Rodinal Probably 35mm photographers are the majority in discussions about film/dev combinations.

cmo said:

As far as I know you shoot medium and large format only, in that negative size many, many photographers prefer Rodinal because it's the back-to-basics solution for everything.

35mm photographers think differently, especially those who souped a Tri-X @1600 ASA in Rodinal Probably 35mm photographers are the majority in discussions about film/dev combinations.

Click to expand...

Yep , I'm moving heavily toward 4x5 for much of what I do, but I started with 35mm film and Rodinal. I've never cared for 400 (or higher) speed films, and I'm sure that this has something to do with my preference for developer, even when I was using 35mm films.

- Randy

jim appleyard said:

It's also REALLY inexpensive to use, especially at 1+100! Plus, it's a low fog, semi-compensating, edge effect producing dev. What more can one ask for?

Is it for all films? IMHO, no, although there are some who use it for everything. Anyway, try it with something slow, Efke 25, Pan-F, APX 25 (if you can find it) or APX 100, FP-4 or PX in med. format. Try a high dilution, 1+50 or 1+100 and do 1 inversion/min.

Click to expand...

Jim is right. Acros in Rodinal 1:50 is a perfect marriage, as with Neopan 400.
Same with Efke 25, Efke 100, Rollei Ortho25, Tri-X and anything else you throw at it. Time is 10min with standard gentla agitation.

Rodinal is not that hard to figure out. Once you do, you'll "get it".

My other main developer is HC-110 (also 1:50 for 10min). The difference?
Rodinal has more accutance, while HC-110 is smoother tones.

As for Foma papers, what were you trying? The cheap stuff? Try Fomatone
in Ethol LPD, and you'll forget Ilford ever existed.

Just the advice of over 30 years in the darkroom and film processing.

I think that we are our own worst enemy sometimes. It's a bit like having G.A.S. We see what combinations people are using for all their terrific work and think that it might be a good combo for us, and we try it...and try it...and try it. All to no avail! I think that your experience is a good lesson for each of us.