In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.
You are certainly allowed your opinion, and I respect it.
I was merely curious about what exactly it was that you didn't like. I found that FA-1027 was pretty efficient in the shadows, like DD-X, and that it gave me wonderful highlight separation, like Xtol. But grain was a little bit more like D76, which for me is just fine, especially with 4x5.
So, I ended up using my film at box speed, and agitating every minute for 10 seconds, and after adjusting my developing time I got negatives that print really well, and looked a lot like my prints from DD-X negatives, but a little bit more muted in the highlights, but you can compensate for that in the printing by burning with a higher grade filter in the highlights for more 'zing'.
That's what I ended up doing with the film and the developer in order to get what I wanted from it.
I agree that a lot of the threads here on APUG are about film and developer combination, and I also think that a lot of that information is misleading. While films and developers have certain characteristics, like how they see color, or the 'built-in' contrast, but most of those things can be countered by using correction filters and change your technique. Resolution and grain are about the only things you can't change much. The rest is just part of a system that is much bigger than the individual components.
To those who don't believe me, I recommend shooting a roll of film with a normal contrast scene. Develop your film in something like D76 that you can dilute, and develop half of it using standard agitation, say 10s every minute. Then take clip tests and develop those but you agitate every 5 minutes for 10 seconds, and you keep adjusting total developing time until you have highly similar overall contrast. Now print both of these otherwise identical negatives at the same contrast level, and watch what happened to the outcome. You'll find that the 5m agitation will help shadow values come up significantly, while highlights are shouldered off, while mid tones stay largely the same. Just by changing how you develop the film will drastically change your results.
To make it even simpler, you can also do a comparison of developing time only, where you can go from thin under developed negatives to very high contrast over developed negatives that will give you completely different prints, by changing one single variable in your development. Those differences are way more than what changing materials will accomplish.
But, I understand the fun and allure of experimenting. It IS fun to try different films, to shoot in all sorts of lighting conditions with them, to push them to their limits and beyond by intentionally screwing up with exposure and developing, just to see what happens.
Use what you love, have fun, and don't let my curiosity be something that's negative, please. It wasn't intended. I was just trying to figure out what was behind your comment of not liking it.
