Controlling contrast in B&W film

[chuckroast]

I would like to add another response to no one in particular.

My initial question was about whether "film contrast" is arbitrary.

The thread initially is about contrast, but later moves to film stocks.

I respond to one of the comments about film stock and say I have Fomapan 400 and plan to develop it with D76.

The response I get is that D76 is fine but I might want to try D23. Then another member agrees that Foma 400 can indeed look great in D23. I reason that these people know far more than I do, so I take the advice seriously. I look into D23 and decide to give it a try.

Then another member says that, with the stuff I have at home, I could make this thing called POTA and says some interesting things about it.

Then another member recommends that I buy what I need to make D-76 and MyTol at home.

Eventually I catch up with the POTA comment. I reason that this person knows far more than I do. I look into POTA. Decide it's too specialized. I politely reply that I looked into it, made some notes, but will not explore it at this time.

Then the guy who recommended that I make MyTol at home urges me to stop getting seduced by exotic developers and at-home photo chemistry.



Looking back, it's actually kinda funny.

Yes, this not uncommon on the Internet where everyone is an expert. I found that asking people show show their work as examples of the opinions they were offering usually muted the ... overly enthusiastic types.

 

[MattKing]

I agree whole heartedly with Jonathan's most recent post #97.
One significant difference between our experiences and the experiences of @dcy is that the early learning for many/most of us was mostly hands on, often aided by in person contact with experienced mentors and teachers. It really helped to be able to get one-to-one feedback.
Learning purely through books or the internet would have been a very different experience for me. Having someone to guide me to the right books and then answer my questions arising from reading them was really important to me.

 

[Craig]

One significant difference between our experiences and the experiences of @dcy is that the early learning for many/most of us was mostly hands on, often aided by in person contact with experienced mentors and teachers. It really helped to be able to get one-to-one feedback.

Yes, I think that is a big difference between those of use who learned before the internet and before digital. I learned in highschool yearbook club, we took a lot of photos and developed a lot of film with an experienced teacher to guide us.

Back then, there was also local Kodak (and Ilford) reps who would occasionally take new photographers "under their wing", so to speak and provide tips and guidance. Kodak also published a lot of guidebooks for all skill levels, these contained much useful information and unfortunately seem mostly forgotten now.

Back then, Kodak was interested in providing accurate information to help people use their products successfully and build lifelong relationships with their customers. Unfortunately, that seems to have been replaced by youtube "content creators" who are only interested in clicks.

 

[pentaxuser]

I respond to one of the comments about film stock and say I have Fomapan 400 and plan to develop it with D76.




Looking back, it's actually kinda funny.

If I were you and had settled on D76 and Fomapan 400 I'd simply ignore any posts that do not address this combination and if the respondents to Foma 400 and D76 had not fully answered your questions on that, return with more questions on that

That is not a rude thing to do

On a forum respondents will provide replies that can range far and wide. When I gave my advice on D23 I had not noticed that sometime before you were actually seeking info specifically on D76 and Foma 400. Had I done so I hope I'd have refrained from changing or contributing to changing the subject

You are in control and to exercise that control is not rude in any way

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

This is the

I would like to add another response to no one in particular.

My initial question was about whether "film contrast" is arbitrary.

The thread initially is about contrast, but later moves to film stocks.

I respond to one of the comments about film stock and say I have Fomapan 400 and plan to develop it with D76.

The response I get is that D76 is fine but I might want to try D23. Then another member agrees that Foma 400 can indeed look great in D23. I reason that these people know far more than I do, so I take the advice seriously. I look into D23 and decide to give it a try.

Then another member says that, with the stuff I have at home, I could make this thing called POTA and says some interesting things about it.

Then another member recommends that I buy what I need to make D-76 and MyTol at home.

Eventually I catch up with the POTA comment. I reason that this person knows far more than I do. I look into POTA. Decide it's too specialized. I politely reply that I looked into it, made some notes, but will not explore it at this time.

Then the guy who recommended that I make MyTol at home urges me to stop getting seduced by exotic developers and at-home photo chemistry.



Looking back, it's actually kinda funny.

This is the famous rabbit hole. there are hundred of developers, all have uses, all have disburses, and the final result is like you said is subjective. At this point stick with D76 as a developer to which all others you can judge against. Balance of grain, contrast, film speed and shelf life. D23 as your fine grain developer, Rodinal as your edge effect developer. Rodnal for low speed films such as Pan F, D76 for general propose such as Foma 100, D 23 for high speed film like Foma 400 or Trix. Then if you shoot a T grain film add a T grain developer such as DDX or Tmax developer. Once you have feet wet and can compare use what you like.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes, I think that is a big difference between those of use who learned before the internet and before digital. I learned in highschool yearbook club, we took a lot of photos and developed a lot of film with an experienced teacher to guide us.

Back then, there was also local Kodak (and Ilford) reps who would occasionally take new photographers "under their wing", so to speak and provide tips and guidance. Kodak also published a lot of guidebooks for all skill levels, these contained much useful information and unfortunately seem mostly forgotten now.

Back then, Kodak was interested in providing accurate information to help people use their products successfully and build lifelong relationships with their customers. Unfortunately, that seems to have been replaced by youtube "content creators" who are only interested in clicks.

I grew up in an extremely remote and isolated part of the world. One of the local shops carried a small amount of B&W chemistry, film, and paper, but most things had to be mail ordered. There was almost no one to learn from. Those Kodak guide books were a lifeline for a beginner - in fact, I still have all of mine five decades later.

I think blaming content creators is a bit of a broad brush. Some are really instructive, some are bozos. Sturgeon's Law applies. But there is gold to be mined there if you do your homework. Also, in the years I tracked APUG and then signed up for Photrio, I've seen some really silly and flat wrong headed stuff here as well. The difference, of course, is that this medium fosters a conversation and others can jump in to right the ship when things go off the rails (how's that for a mixed metaphor). But on balance I find useful information on both YouTube and web sites like Photrio.

I also think the moderators here deserve the Metal Of Sanity 1st Class with/Skunk Leaf Clusters for pulling conversations out of the ditch, tamping down nasty actors, and neutring high conflict subjects. So let's go back to politics, POP, stand development, prewashing vs. prewetting, and why <fill in the blank> is the best film/dev convo ever...

 

[GregY]

This is the


This is the famous rabbit hole. there are hundred of developers, all have uses, all have disburses, and the final result is like you said is subjective. At this point stick with D76 as a developer to which all others you can judge against. Balance of grain, contrast, film speed and shelf life. D23 as your fine grain developer, Rodinal as your edge effect developer. Rodnal for low speed films such as Pan F, D76 for general propose such as Foma 100, D 23 for high speed film like Foma 400 or Trix. Then if you shoot a T grain film add a T grain developer such as DDX or Tmax developer. Once you have feet wet and can compare use what you like.

Paul, that's one approach...working w 4 developers. But many pro labs as an example doing top notch work for hardworking professionals successfully use one developer....so do many photographers. Be that as it may..... is the OP going down the rabbit hole of comparing developers? How's he going to do that? Or is he simply trying to arrive at acceptable print quality? ....then we arrive at the next rabbit hole... how is he metering, then programmes & scanners or enlargers and variable contrast papers....

 

[Craig]

I think blaming content creators is a bit of a broad brush. Some are really instructive, some are bozos.

What I meant was that all the Kodak information was good; it was tried and tested and vetted by their scientists and engineers who knew what they were talking about.

There was no need to separate out the good, bad or simply ludicrous (and try and determine what falls into each category), it was all good information.

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul, that's one approach...working w 4 developers. But many pro labs as an example doing top notch work for hardworking professionals successfully use one developer....so do many photographers. Be that as it may..... is the OP going down the rabbit hole of comparing developers? How's he going to do that? Or is he simply trying to arrive at acceptable print quality? ....then we arrive at the next rabbit hole... how is he metering, then programmes & scanners or enlargers and variable contrast papers....

The advantage of developing our own film is the choices that are open to us depending on our individual needs. I agree that large labs do excellent work, and most use just one developer, but given a choice and what is acceptable to one is not acceptable to others. I shoot several films, ultra fast, fast, medium and slow and use a couple of different developers that meet my needs. Others shoot just film, use just one developer and get the results that she/he desires. Only by comparing can OP figure out is best for him. But once he finds what he likes he should stick with it.

 

[GregY]

The advantage of developing our own film is the choices that are open to us depending on our individual needs. I agree that large labs do excellent work, and most use just one developer, but given a choice and what is acceptable to one is not acceptable to others. I shoot several films, ultra fast, fast, medium and slow and use a couple of different developers that meet my needs. Others shoot just film, use just one developer and get the results that she/he desires. Only by comparing can OP figure out is best for him. But once he finds what he likes he should stick with it.

PH.. I agree. I have my standard favourite & the specialty one like Adotech for CMS20.... but the OP is at the beginning of his journey and hasn't seen an analog print in the flesh (apart from his early efforts).... so it seems that comparisons are somewhat premature. How about starting by producing some good negatives from one developer?

 

[dcy]

I shoot several films, ultra fast, fast, medium and slow and use a couple of different developers that meet my needs. Others shoot just film, use just one developer and get the results that she/he desires. Only by comparing can OP figure out is best for him. But once he finds what he likes he should stick with it.

I could never settle on one film + developer. Just don't have the personality for that. For me, experimentation will probably always be at least as important as the final result. I will have to find a balance where I have enough variety to stay engaged, but few enough variables that I can actually learn and improve.

 

[Bill Burk]

The spec sheet shows a Pan F+ curve that looks to me like it was developed to a contrast of about 0.83, which is contrasty. ASA contrast is about 0.62 (the big triangle on my graph) and most people develop around 0.55 (about the curve I got on that graph).

I almost always use D-76 1:1 one shot and many films need 13:30 to reach ASA contrast (at 68-degrees F with agitation every 30 seconds and a hard rap to dislodge bubbles. Fix can be agitated once a minute.)

Since FOMA 400 shows similar time on massive dev chart, it’s a good bet that you could go for 13:30. Same with TMY2 TMAX100, Tri-X.

If you shoot it at 250 but use the times for 400 you get a bit greater exposure that can also act as insurance against mistakes like underdevelopment (like thermometer error I had).

If you pick up a Stouffer T2115 transparent scale, it’s a great learning tool. You can see density examples for rough density comparison.

Good luck

 

[Milpool]

I could never settle on one film + developer. Just don't have the personality for that. For me, experimentation will probably always be at least as important as the final result. I will have to find a balance where I have enough variety to stay engaged, but few enough variables that I can actually learn and improve.

This seems reasonable. Unless a developer or processing method is badly formulated it doesn’t take very long to “master” negatives. Making great prints, scans, whatever, and having fun trying different things are compatible goals as long as you’re not continually bouncing all over the place,

 

[khh]

When I first got started I bought a galleon bag of D76, which I mixed up and stored in several full glass flasks. That must be almost 6 years ago now, I think, but I still have some of those glass flasks left as I quickly got sidetracked and started experimenting with different developers (at this point it's mainly of interest to see how well D76 stock solution stores). For most of us, analog photography is a hobby, and we all get different things out of it. Getting out and taking pictures, making prints, sensitometry, experimenting with different parts of the process, alt processes, photography gadgets or even just hanging out with other people interested in the same stuff. We all find different parts of the hobby that suit us best. You'll have to find out what you're most interested in.

 

[Bill Burk]

@khh the D-76 you mixed is probably still good.