D76 VS HC110 VS Rodinal

Jmal, I'm sure you didn't intend to mean that the Kodak times are the proper ones, but I just wanted to open up the testing issue.

One testing method that I've been using that doesn't take much time, nor is complex to figure out is the following one:

* Let's say you're testing Tri-X

* Pick up a big flat black cardboard, and set it up outside under even light. The reason why you pick a black one is so that you can have a useable range of shutter stops to work with.

* Meter the cardboard at 400 ISO, this would give you a Zone V reading. Reduce you camera exposure by five stops. This will give you a Zone 0.

* Put the lens cap on the lens, and take a shot. This is a blank exposure.

* Remove the cap, focus at infinity so that there is no texture showing in the card, and take a shot. This is Zone 0.

* Repeat the (Open up one stop, take a shot) procedure ten times. To make sure I don't run out of f-stops, I always set the Zone 0 exposure to the smallest f-stop on my lens (e.g. f/22), and keep my shutter speed constant until I run out of f-stops. Then I choose a lower shutter speed and do the remaining exposures.

* You now have on your film the following sequence: Blank, Zone 0, Zone I...X. Finish the rest of the roll taking pictures as you usually do.

* Choose one developer, one temperature, one agitation method, and pick a starting time that is short enough, let's say 6mins. Develop, stop, fix, wash, dry.

* You will now make a contact of your first roll. Setup your enlarger head high enough so that the illuminated rectangle is much bigger than your negatives+paper+glass sandwich. Mark the height. Focus the edges. Make a test strip to get proper exposure on grade 2 (or grade 3 if you like contrastier prints). Proper exposure means minimum time to get full black on the blank exposure. Use RC paper, and develop for a minute and a half in print developer at recommended dilution. Stop, fix, dry, and examine.

* When you have two areas in your test strip that are indistinguishably black, take the first time that gave such black. Make your contact sheet for the entire negative using this time, and process as above.

* Now you can have a first sense of whether your Exposure Index (EI) and your development times are correct for the present paper and grade. First, look at the grey scale, and find the first grey that's clearly distinct from black. It might be difficult to judge, but it's a perceptual judgement, not an objective one. If the Zone II exposure is the one, then your EI and metering method is accurate, and you can use 400 as your EI. If it's Zone III, then you should use 200 as your EI, etc. (That's the "expose for the shadows" part)

* Next, find the last grey that is distinct from pure white. Count the total number of greys that are therefore neither pure black nor pure white. If you have seven of them, your development is correct. If you have less, you need to develop longer; if you have more, you need to develop less. (That's the "develop for the highlights" part). Try a 20% change next time if your time was not appropriate.

* So now you finally have a sense of what your EI should be, and which direction you should go to develop your film next time. Repeat the test as many times as is needed to get your seven grays on paper, and that will give you a procedure that can handle normal tone reproduction of average scenes. By having a look at the other photos you took on that roll, you should immediately see which ones are over/under exposed.

* There's also a projection test procedure, but I don't have it in mind, and it's mostly useful for condenser enlargers, given that an enlarged negative on such an enlarger may be more contrasty than a contact.

* Once you're done with that theoretical work, you know that you will get enough shadow details and highlights that don't blow out in general when you print on your chosen grade. If you have a particularly flat scene (e.g. dark rocks on a misty day), then you should be able to print it using a higher grade of paper. In the odd case that you have a very high contrast scene (e.g. you are photographing both a white dress in sunlight and a dark suit in shadow), then I would advise just use a different light than fussing around with development. But if you really must, then you basically need to expose more (e.g. use an EI of 100) and develop less (e.g. 4 minutes).

"Meters and techniques vary, but nearly all photographers I know who have great results with Tri-X rate it at 200 to 320; most are at 200 or 250."

Yes, I followed most of Ansel Adams advice from his book "The Negative" and benefitted greatly from the experience. I use Tri-x dev. in Hc110 1:50 from stock and found the best rating for me is 300asa. This is something that jmal will probably work up to as he learns.
Well done jmal on your early efforts

John

jmal said:

It's interesting that you mention that changing paper grades is not necessarily the best way to get results. The approach that my instructor takes emphasizes proper exposure first. He claims that if the exposure, development, etc. are correct, filters are not needed--usually.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with this aproach, if you can pull it off. The problem though is that sometimes your exposure will be off. Sometimes you'll have various different contrast situations on the same roll so you can't adjust your development. Or any number of other problems. In those situations, you'll need to adjust the contrast when printing to achieve the print you want. There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it's just a subjective decision that you want a harder contrast for the shot (or maybe flatter).

If you're printing without a filter then you don't neccessarily know what grade you're working with. Yes, you can read the datasheet for the paper and find out that it should be grade 2 when you're not using a filter but that doesn't mean that it will be the same as a grade 2 filter on your enlarger. I'm sure you can test it and establish exactly what contrast grade the paper you're using is when used unfiltered on your enlarger but I find it much easier to just start with a filter like 2, then any changes to your contrast are always relative to that starting filtration. For instance, maybe with your enlarger and paper combination you get a bit flatter contrast with a grade 2 filter, that doesn't matter, you still know that going up to a 2 1/2 filter is still an increase of half a grade.

Also, when you add a filter your exposure times change but if you're just changing from one filter to another you can look up how much the exposure should change. It might not be bang on but sometimes it gets you in the ballpark and can help save you time with making test strips.

Frugal,

I definitely see your point. I don't think my instructor would disagree either. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he seemed to think that given the quality of my prints, the only way to improve them would be the use of filters. In addition to this, I also think the RC paper we were using looks like plastic. Ilford MGIV glossy. Unfortunately, I think the FB prints I've seen look much better, like they have more depth or dimensionality. I say unfortunately because I'm not sure I'm ready to play with FB, but from what I've seen it looks a lot more like what I'm after for the final product. So many levels to consider, which is a good thing.

Jmal

jmal said:

I definitely see your point. I don't think my instructor would disagree either. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he seemed to think that given the quality of my prints, the only way to improve them would be the use of filters. In addition to this, I also think the RC paper we were using looks like plastic. Ilford MGIV glossy. Unfortunately, I think the FB prints I've seen look much better, like they have more depth or dimensionality. I say unfortunately because I'm not sure I'm ready to play with FB, but from what I've seen it looks a lot more like what I'm after for the final product. So many levels to consider, which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more on the plastic look of RC paper, I really don't like it either (especially glossy). FB isn't really any harder to work with. You can get variable contrast fibre, Ilford's MGIV FB is pretty similar to what you're using but has the extra depth that you're talking about. Compared to tray processing RC paper it's a little more time consuming but not too bad. I was spoiled taking continuing education classes at my local art college where they have dry to dry processors for RC paper so it's a huge time savings to print on RC there but I found that my printing improved immensely when I switched to FB. I think some of it was the extra depth but a lot had to do with having a greater respect for the material and taking the extra time to get a really good print. I'd say the big deciding factor is financial, it's more expensive, so if you're still at a point where you use a lot of paper getting 1 print then I'd work on improving your printing and cutting down on the amount of paper you need to use to get to a final print first.

Gerald Koch said:

Before you start criticizing someone's statement you need to read it carefully. What I said was that this combination produces rather pronounced grain not that there was anything wrong with anything else. Many people do not like grain and that was the purpose of my comment. I have tried this combination over the years and have never really liked it for routine use. I stand by my comment.

Click to expand...

Gerald,
I agree with Earl. You made your opinion as if it was a rule. But no hard feeling...
Some people (and you) don't like grain. In that case don't use Rodinal or even Tri-X.
But a lot of people do like grain, especially Tri-X with Rodinal. And this is not limited to just grain !

Jmal,
Don't follow what Kodak writes, this is just a starting point. Same applies for the dev times with Rodinal. Start with a 200 speed for Tri-x, take a higher dilution and longer time for Rodinal, and don't agitate too much !
I overexpoe my film and overdevelop it, it's stunning with me, I love it.
Experiment, it's worth the try.


About printing, you need to forget RC and do fiber to really apprieciate all the subtilities black and white print can do. It's not more difficult, it might be a little more expensive, it just takes more time.
About grades. If you have an underexposed negative, you will get a tiny lattitude to get a good print. Usually very short time exposure because of the thin negative. Not confortable to play with (dodging, burning,etc) and high grades.
With an overexposed negative...you have meat. Everything is in the negative, you just have to reveal it. You work with a normal grade paper (2) and you have plenty of time to dodge and burn, at the optimal aperture of the enlarging lens.

After many years, about 65 of them, playing, studying and occasionally working with photography, I have yet to know exactly what it means to "expose it at " you name it. I know what I would mean, and I have not seen the film with 400 ISO on the box that I would rate at 200 by my way of reckoning. That doesn't help me to figure out what another person means. I would rather set the meter at 1600 and read what some call Zone 1 or 2. Does anyone else do that, or are you all guessing? No, that's an unkind and uncalled for question. You who bend the film speed one way or the other have to know what you're doing or you wouldn't do it. But just as I would never tell someone to set the meter at 1600 for a 400 box speed, I would hope someone would give me a tutorial on the technique and virtues of using half the speed. I could see doing the 200 thing if I were to take the critical reading off a Caucasian face or my own hand.

I, too, have had the luxuryof a print dryer for RC. The only reason I worry about FB is my lack of a good drying area now that I will be working at home. I'm concerned about non-flat prints. Knowing me, I'll be into FB soon. In my limited experience I am getting a good print by the second try, excluding the contact sheet as a starting point. A question for those who shoot Tri X at a lower speed (200ish). Are you basing your developing times on film speed tests as mentioned earlier in the thread or do you just use some basic experimentation. For example, if I were to go out and shoot at 200 tomorrow, how would I adjust my processing time in D76? Underdevelop by how much as a starting point? Lastly, thanks for all the advice and feedback. This forum is truly a great resource and seems to avoid many of the pitfalls of typical forums.

Jmal

In the case I was talking about, it wasn't a print dryer but a dry to dry print processor (made by Ilford), you feed RC paper in one end and about a minute or so later, a dry processed print comes out. Great for learning but it does really spoil you when you go to tray processing. I don't mind doing trays if it's for FB, it's a quality vs. quantity thing.

It's pretty easy to make drying racks for FB prints so that's not much of an issue. Getting flat prints is a bit of a problem, if you search on here though you'll find all kinds of methods for how to keep them flat or for flattening after the fact (the art college has drymount presses so I'd flatten in those).

As for rating at 200 or some other speed, it's about finding the "true" ISO of the film, or more accurately, the "true" ISO for your developer combination and metering technique. Some will tell you that film speeds are generally overrated, your film speed will also change depending on the developer, some just like a bit of a thicker (more exposed negative). So usually the idea is to set your film at a lower ISO but develop it at the box ISO. So for instance, I typically shoot Tri-X 400 at 320 and develop as if it were a 400 speed film, I'm planning on testing this more to see if there's a better rating for the way I work and I'm about to embark on some film and developer combination tests to check this out (as well as some different combinations of developers). It would be a good idea to bracket your exposures and see which frames you like the most on your contact sheet. So maybe start with the film rated at 400 but bracket a full stop over and under in 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments (1/3 would be better if you can do it). Shoot a roll or more in varying conditions and develop them all the same way, make contact sheets and look at which frames give what you feel is the best exposure. This assumes that you're printing your contact sheet so that clear film base just produces a true black. So for instance, you might see that frames that had 1/3 more exposure are consistently your favourite exposures, that would correspond to a film speed of 320. So now you can just set your film speed at 320 and go out and shoot. Maybe it's 2/3 over or even a full stop over that looks best to you. It's all about the combination of your camera, film, developer, and technique (both in metering and developing).

jmal said:

Earl,

It's interesting that you mention that changing paper grades is not necessarily the best way to get results. The approach that my instructor takes emphasizes proper exposure first. He claims that if the exposure, development, etc. are correct, filters are not needed--usually. He also looked at my prints and thought the range of tones, including the blacks that I felt were a little weaker than I like, were very good. He suggested increasing development time on my negatives when shooting on grey days so the photos don't look flat, though he wasn't necessarily saying that mine looked flat. Another consideration is the actual subject matter. If there are not many truly black tones in the subject, then the prints are going to be greyer. You mention that a lack of strong blacks is often due to underexposure. Are you referring to the print or the negative? I can see how a longer exposure on the print would make it darker, but in the negative a longer exposure would lead to a loss of blacks. Correct? Thanks for all the help.

Jmal

Click to expand...

jmal: I was referring to film exposure; sorry I wasn't clearer. If you don't get adequate exposure on the film, then will not get adequate tonal separation. Yes, you might get "darker" shadow values, (but without detail) but midtones and highlights are underexposed and hence greyer, with less contrast/tonal separation.

I agree with your instructor. Proper exposure and development minimizes the need paper grade changes/filtration. With roll film you can't vary processing for shots on the same roll that are made under different lighting conditions, as you can with sheet film.

It's a journey.

Earl

Gerald: Your original statement was:

"If you wish to use Tri-X then Rodinal is a poor choice."

That's an absolute statement, which was my objection.

I stand by my statement.

I have used Tri-X with very diluted Rodinal (1+100 - 1+150) and I like my result very much. Most of the time I do not find the grain objectionable. Here is an example (35mm): http://static.flickr.com/35/70062092_7dc7c09c3f_o.jpg

I should clarify that I don't disagree with Earl's comments that you should be trying to get a proper film exposure. I only disagreed with your instructor's suggestion to not use contrast filters at all (unless you need them). At least that's the impression I got as to what your instructor was suggesting. Proper film exposure will make your printing much easier and is necessary for getting the best results.

From what Jmal has been describing; not a rich enough black without making the highlights too dark, it sounds like he needs more contrast. I was taught to print so that you get both a pure black and a pure white in the print. If you adjust your exposure so that you're just getting a pure black and don't have a pure white then you need to increase the contrast. Now that's not to say you can't (or shouldn't) diverge from that but it should be because you want to achieve a certain look with the print.

frugal said:

It's pretty easy to make drying racks for FB prints so that's not much of an issue. Getting flat prints is a bit of a problem, if you search on here though you'll find all kinds of methods for how to keep them flat or for flattening after the fact (the art college has drymount presses so I'd flatten in those).

Click to expand...

This is the killer for me. I've tried multiple drying techniques and have yet to get an FB print that I consider adequately flat. I know it's possible, since I've seen them, but I've not been able to get FB prints that don't warp or curl comically. Because I don't dislike the look of RC prints, I've not invested money in a print dryer to solve this problem.

For jmal, you might want to consider trying a couple more brands and surfaces before you go to FB prints. Note that I'm not trying to discourage you from trying or even switching completely to FB; it's just that the problems you have with the paper you're using could easily have more to do with the specific brand or surface you're using than with the fact that it's RC paper. Only by trying multiple products will you be able to pin this down. At this point it sounds like you've got enough experience that trying new papers is worthwhile for you. You might want to try one variable at a time -- for instance, another surface of the same brand and type of paper, or a different brand of RC paper in the same surface (or as close as the two manufacturers come).

Frugal,

I don't think my instructor was saying not to use filters, but rather try to get as close as possible through proper exposure and only then spice things up a bit. I also misunderstood the dry to dry process, which I have not heard of before. We have been using a dryer that pulls a wet print through rollers and heats until dry. I thought this was very convenient, but it's obviously different from what you describe.

As far as different RC papers go, I'm open to suggestions. The Ilford MGIV glossy is okay, but I want something not quite so glossy. I also don't want to lose sharpness or contrast, so I'm hesitant to spend my cash on the unknown with other surfaces. I have a pack of Forte matte that was given to me and I'm curious to see how they look. As I said, I'm open to recommendations. If it helps at all, the two primary influences on my eye/feel are the various "street" photographers (HCB, Winogrand, Friedlander, Koudelka etc.) and the album photography from 50s and 60s jazz, though some of this is color (Jimmy Smith's Home Cookin'). Warmtone paper sounds right, but I have also heard it described as having a Sepia look, which I don't want. Anyhow, thanks again. This place is going to get me in trouble.

Jmal

Who knows? It might get you out of trouble.
Many photographers like the look of unferrotyped glossy fiber base paper. It has some gloss without the shine of true glossy. The closest to it in an RC paper is probably Pearl, which I don't care much for.

That's how I like my paper. Best I ever worked with for that was Zone VI Brilliant.

gainer said:

Who knows? It might get you out of trouble.
Many photographers like the look of unferrotyped glossy fiber base paper. It has some gloss without the shine of true glossy. The closest to it in an RC paper is probably Pearl, which I don't care much for.

Click to expand...

That sums it up for me. Glossy RC is too glossy, but when I tried the pearl RC paper I was disappointed in the fine grained surface texture. I would love it if they could make an RC paper that has the texture of unferrotyped glossy FB paper. As it stands, I print two sizes. All my 8x10s are RC and all my 16x20s are FB. I like the FB so much more I've thought of just doing everything in FB, but that can start to get pricey and adds time to the process. Nice flat glossy RC prints scan nicely, too.

I have a dry mount press to make the FB prints flat, but there is still a slight warpage around the edges. If you're looking for it, you can see it along the inside edge of the mat after they're framed. It seems strange that I don't remember having warpage problems when I was a kid in high school (before the days of RC), but we dried our prints in one of those big-ass drum driers at about 3000 degrees....

By the way, I've been reading this thread because I plan to give Rodinal a try. I just thought I'd comment on the paper issue since I can identify with those comments as well.