Differences between films and/or developer

[eskimo]

Hello,
i'll soon experience with a new developer (HC-110) after three years of D76/ID11. Generally i buy professional films but watching more at price than at type of film, for example i'm always finding trix400 at better economic condition that HP5, so normally i go with trix.
So introducing myself into new developing experiments and developed negatives, i'm asking whether there'is more difference between a change in a developer than in a change of similars films...like HP5 and tri-x or FP4 and plusx 125 for example.
I'm asking this to try to put in order my future developing experiments in a sea of tonal possibilities, and try to understand what i'm doing: i don't want to test everything.
thanks.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You might want to look at this site which has information about HC-110. According to Kodak you will not see much difference in negatives produced by HC-110 and D-76.

www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110

 

[keithwms]

Within one format size, you likely won't perceive huge differences between the films and developers that you mention.

Do you want to see huge differences? If so, what are you looking for?

 

[BradS]

It seems that Kodak formulated HC-110 to give results that compare favorably to that of D-76 so you will not see any difference between these two....I have to ask, if you've been using D76 for three years, why change?

 

[eskimo]

i'm not asking about which differences produces developing with those developers. I'm asking if are more visibles tonal differences in changing a developer or a film...

 

[Ian Grant]

Films will show greater variations some have extended red sensitivity others reduduce, sonme give a longer tonal ranges but all can be varied as well by choice of developer, and then exposure and development times.

Two ways of controlling this are the Zone system and BTZS (Beyong the Zone System).

Ian

 

[BradS]

i'm not asking about which differences produces developing with those developers. I'm asking if are more visibles tonal differences in changing a developer or a film...

Well, it really is a bit more complex than just film vs developer. You really have to consider several process parameters as well. I'm thinking of camera exposure, development time, developer temperature, agitation pattern...just to name a few off the top of my head.

For an obvious example, you can get quite different results from Tri-X in D-76 just by changing development time & temp.

As another example, I have found HC-110 to be very sensitive to agitation. HC-110 in small tanks with periodic inversion agitation produces very different results from HC-110 with continuous rotary agitation.

However, the vastly over simplified answer to you question is that changing film will have a larger effect than nominal differences between D76 and HC-110B. For example, Tri-X and HP5+ are vastly different in terms of their characteristics. That said, an experienced practitioner can get one to look like the other.

 

[bernard_L]

Beware! I've read on several occasions "go for HC110 Dilution H". According to a limited A/B/C test I did, HC-110 Dil B is indeed fairly close to D76 1+1. BUT... HC-110 dil H has a distinct compensating effect that (in my eyes) kills the life in the highlights.

 

[Sundowner]

I've found Tri-X to be somewhat tonally reliant on actual film speed as rated in any given camera, incidentally. I also get richer results with HC-110 than I did with D76, but that may be more due to my longer use of it, and the refinement of my personal technique.

Tones, however, are a product of a very complicated relationship between film, paper and chemicals. Each variable can either be significant or insignificant, depending on the formulas that are used. There are so many ways to alter tones that I think it would be hard to tell which would make more difference in the final print.

Bottom line, test things out and see what you like.

 

[eskimo]

Thanks to all folks...this was the answer i didn't want to read, but...that's it. Condamned to lifwtime testing! could be funny...

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks to all folks...this was the answer i didn't want to read, but...that's it. Condamned to lifwtime testing! could be funny...

Not necessarily.

While films are malleable in look there are several rules of thumb.

Moving too a slower film, say from Tri-X to FP4, will get you more fine detail and less grain, and vice-versa.

Sure development and exposure changes/choices can make Tri-X (actually any film) look different but switching films will normally make a bigger difference.

Slower films do require more exposure and that means that the camera settings you are used to with Tri-X will have to be adjusted. This is a style thing and a practical thing. Either the shutter has to be slower or the aperture more open or a bit of both.

If you opt for slower shutter time, you may want to use camera support more. If you opt for more open apertures that will affect your depth of field.

These changes aren't intrinsically good or bad, the real question is "what fits your style?"

Thankfully, even just one test roll with prints done "normally" can give you a reasonable feel for a film.

 

[keithwms]

Condamned to lifwtime testing!

Not at all! You certainly shouldn't have that impression. You could pick one film and one developer and have a very successful photographic career from that.

My question is what you are hoping to improve, i.e. what is it that you are dissatisfied with. If you are specific then you will get good, specific suggestions from people who've been there. If you ask what is "better" or "best" with no more specific qualifiers, then you'll just get pages of scattershot.

 

[eskimo]

why i have to be unsatisfied or be scared to have not a succesful photographic career to ask which element has more weight in a tonal change, whether a dev or a film?? I'm not searching something i don't have, nor i asked "which is better or best", or did i?
Maybe i wasn't clear in my question, or maybe i already red the answer: one change it's not so evident, it's a particular mix of changes (temp, film, agitation, dev, etc) that makes big differences; i think.

 

[keithwms]

My response wasn't as much aimed at you Sorry.

But really, there are so many variables in the workflow with any of the films and develoeprs you mention. If you don't know what you are aiming for then you'll have to explore a very large parameter space. When you say sensitive, the question is with respect to what? "Tonality" is a very hard thing to define, there have been many threads. Try to think of specific things you want to address... grain, range, shadow detail etc. "Tonality" encompassess all these things and all of them suggest a lot of different avenues.

 

[Sundowner]

one change it's not so evident, it's a particular mix of changes (temp, film, agitation, dev, etc) that makes big differences; i think.

Sort of, but you can't change all of them at once, unless you just want to confuse yourself. You have to go step by step, methodically changing ONE thing at a time...or you won't know what you did that made the difference. My process for figuring out Tri-X in my Nikon F took 13 rolls, and all I was doing was increasing my development time...I didn't change temperature, agitation rate, or anything else. Just the time. And that was only in ONE of my cameras.

Also, I saw HUGE changes just from that development time being altered. So, sometimes a big difference can be made by altering one variable. Although you pretty much have to stick to proper scientific procedure when you're playing with darkroom chemicals, photography isn't an exact science, and there aren't many universal answers. It's an art, and you have to ask questions about the look and feel that you want.

 

[Oren Grad]

...i'm asking whether there'is more difference between a change in a developer than in a change of similars films...like HP5 and tri-x or FP4 and plusx 125 for example.

It depends on the film. TMX in particular is quite sensitive to choice of developer - you can get a wide range of characteristic curve shapes out of it. Phil Davis had a nice article on this in Photo Techniques magazine some years back. Other popular films, such as the ones you mention, tend to deliver a more consistent rendering across different developers, so that you need to change films (or papers) if you want a substantially different tonal scale.