every paper, every developer, every film syndrome

when i learned how to use a camera and eventually process film and print
the instructor i had gave us rolls of tri x, we processed with 1 developer
we made prints with 1 paper and 1 developer too. later on when i became
the person buying and supplying my paper and film for classes i continued
with 1 film and pretty much 1 paper ( they used the same developers ).
we presented our work for critique sessions and the work that was all done on
similar materials ( the same paper ) had a continuity to it, later
when schlepping work to potential employers / clients / galleries ... they too
looked for continuity, not only in the portfolio ( not being all over the map )
but the paper the images were presented on was pretty much the same ...

i never was bitten by the bug to make me want to use every film paper and developer under the sun ..
and i don't understand why people do this sort of thing. it usually throws a wrench in the works ..
changes how one works to get the kinks out of negatives matching papers &c ...
but i read posts here ( and other photography websites ) where people talk about using nearly every paper available
and every film available and a whole host of developers ...

do you do this? did you do this?
can you tell me why you did ?

was it just to try something new and have fun or was there another reason ?

I've been using a fair amount of combinations of film, but I have only used two developers in a few dilutions each: D76, HC110.

Paper is whatever is cheap generally, close to outdated or recently outdated.

I don't see there being a great return on the time/energy/money chasing down what dev/film/paper combo is perfect as I've got it good enough for me.

don't know

I adore redheadded ladies but married two brunettes. Let me suggest that with some people photography is a hobby and their fun comes from trying something new. As a news photog in the olde days my choice was Tri-X for B&W but I used Panatomic-X once in a while. I rarely strayed from those two.

snapguy said:

I adore redheadded ladies but married two brunettes. Let me suggest that with some people photography is a hobby and their fun comes from trying something new. As a news photog in the olde days my choice was Tri-X for B&W but I used Panatomic-X once in a while. I rarely strayed from those two.

Click to expand...

Redheads are like Technical Pan... can be quite fine but very temperamental.

If I were doing it for money, I would use the exact same thing using the exact same methods for efficiency purposes. But I do this for fun so I play around.

I like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but I don't eat them every day.

Some people would enjoy the discovery process.
Some may be looking for a silver bullet.
Some are just curious to see if another film/developer/paper works better for them.
All sorts of reasons.

I tend not to be too adventurous in that area.
HP5 or Tri-X for film. HC-110 and Rodinol, ilford multigrade

I put my exploration efforts into trying different cameras and lenses. That's where the fun is (besides the primary purpose of creating images) for me.

John,

Are you still processing your Tri-X film in the same developer you learned on, and printing on the same paper?

Like you, I was taught to process in Tri-X in a very standard form (7 min developer (D-76), 1 min stop, 5 min fix, 2 min HCA, 10 changes of water) which I learned to question later, but for the most part I'm still shooting the same the same film and using the same developer, although my sequencing is now a little different. That being said, I understand the appeal of trying different films/developers/papers -- I've experimented with my fair share of all, but the reality for me is that it is easier to stick with regular materials that I know. This is especially true in Japan, where it is still quite easy to buy materials to shoot and process film and paper, but those materials are limited in different ways than in the west (for example, Provia slide film is still readily available, and there is a fair share of darkroom papers to be had, but chemicals are fairly basic (Kodak- D-76, Xtol, and Tmax developers, Ilford - ID-11 and Microphen, plus the Fuji equivalents). Toners are impossible to come by, as are alternative materials or kits (for example, cyanotypes, salt prints, gum, etc.)

I used to worry about these limitations, but seeing a Michael Kenna exhibition in France really impacted me in two ways. First, most of his prints are quite small by modern standards, but seeing that reinforced my confidence in not having to produce large prints (11x14 and above) to have an impact. Second, he tends to use very run-of-the-mill products - Tri-X, D-76, Ilford Multigrade...that was also a revelation. That was the first time that it became clear to me that it wasn't so much the materials that a photographer used, but his/her vision and how he/she expressed it was the most important thing. Since then, even though I'm interested in trying different things, the urge to try everything has virtually disappeared.

It's a face-off between those who want to try stuff just because they can and don't mind failures lots of the time but simply enjoy the whole process in a childlike (or perhaps Dionysian/Menippean) way ... and those for whom orthodoxy, the results and having evidence are all that matter and who have a rigorous approach (Magistral/Appollonian).

The former will never understand why anyone can be so impossibly anal as the latter and the latter will abhor the scattergun approach of the former.

However what both ends of the scale often seem to fail to appreciate is that you can play like an idiot some of the time and have a tightly-puckered arse the rest of the time ...

very well stated pdeeh.

Couldn't agree more with OP.

Hatchetman said:

very well stated pdeeh.

Click to expand...

+1

pdeeh said:

It's a face-off between those who want to try stuff just because they can and don't mind failures lots of the time but simply enjoy the whole process in a childlike (or perhaps Dionysian/Menippean) way ... and those for whom orthodoxy, the results and having evidence are all that matter and who have a rigorous approach (Magistral/Appollonian).

The former will never understand why anyone can be so impossibly anal as the latter and the latter will abhor the scattergun approach of the former.

However what both ends of the scale often seem to fail to appreciate is that you can play like an idiot some of the time and have a tightly-puckered arse the rest of the time ...

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I'm still pretty new to film (3 years or so) but I enjoy trying different developers, films & papers simply for fun. If something is important I use Tri-X in one of two developers depending on the scene. That way I can have my fun and still get the results I want.

Well, some people like myself become known locally as a reliable repository of orphaned papers and chemicals. Give me your tired, your weary, your half-full boxes and jars with crusty lids . . .

So, I can either play around with them, or unceremoniously discard them.

If you do it to learn, or for the fun of experimentation, or to be more knowledgeable and therefor better able to respond to product changes or shortages, it is all to the good.

If you do it because you want to find a "magic bullet", disappointment will be your companion.

It works way better if you have someone in real life (as compared to the internet) available to help you review the results.

Unless you experiment how do you know what you will like the best. I like the idea of learning new things.

Your OP is essentially what Ansel Adams says in the Preface to one of his books. That is to become completely familiar with one film before you consider adding a second one. I consider this to be excellent advice.

It's fun to try lots of different papers for lith printing. I know that is a slightly special case but the variety of different colours you get from different papers is remarkable.

I love the fact that plain old black and white papers will produce every shade from reds and orange through yellows, pinks, greens and browns.

Simonh82 said:

I love the fact that plain old black and white papers will produce every shade from reds and orange through yellows, pinks, greens and browns.

Click to expand...

What are you on?

Simonh82 said:

It's fun to try lots of different papers for lith printing. I know that is a slightly special case but the variety of different colours you get from different papers is remarkable.

I love the fact that plain old black and white papers will produce every shade from reds and orange through yellows, pinks, greens and browns.

Click to expand...

lith printing is one of the things on my to-do list ...

cliveh said:

What are you on?

Click to expand...

Mostly LD20 with a hit of Easylith every now and then. ;-)

"Bet you can't pick (eat) just one"

Greg Davis said:

When I was in grad school, I was given an assignment to print one negative on three different papers using four different developers followed by 12 different toners. This gave me a visual catalogue of what they look like from which I could choose my print aesthetic. I have since done it again with different combinations. I have settled on one from that exercise.

Click to expand...

Like Lays Potato chips, I wouldn't be able to pick just one.

Gerald C Koch said:

Your OP is essentially what Ansel Adams says in the Preface to one of his books. That is to become completely familiar with one film before you consider adding a second one. I consider this to be excellent advice.

Click to expand...

It is good advice. However, if I live another 62 years heeding that advice I still wouldn't be able to try all the things I want to try.

mooseontheloose said:

John,

Are you still processing your Tri-X film in the same developer you learned on, and printing on the same paper?

Click to expand...

hi rachelle:

i have pretty much been using the same film and paper for around 15-20 years
and the same chemistry for between 8-15 years ... ( maybe more ? )

i experiment / play a little bit but mostly with the materials i have on hand that are old and
probably ready for the trash heap.

my problem isn't that i dabble in every film and paper and developer i can find,
but i am a sucker for a freebee or a cheap-deal so i accept people's give aways &c

I tend to buy in batches. 50 rolls of one kind, then finish a project.
Then I switch.
Same for papers.
I ho fairly deep into knowing what I use (no, I don't care for sensiometry. I hit grade 3 on paper and let the image sing from there with proper dodgong and burning, etc.).

In the end, I end up having used a lot of what's on the market and I couldn't be happier.

I'm finishing a huge stash of forte 20x24 fb papers. I'm extremely sad since that paper is history.
Ilford Warm tone fb is very, very inconsistent. Some batches are simply not warm tone.
Ilford Mgiv fb curls and doesn't tone well.
Oriental fb is extremely stable, consistent and dries incredibly flat.

So on...

It's all so fun.

I've been through the rollercoaster of finding the silver bullet, no only with materials but with cameras and lens. It might not be entirely the silver bullet but also ease of use.

In the early stages, I just simply shot with a 500cm/80 2.8, acros and developed in rodinal. Results were good and I was happy. Life was simple.

I then decided I wanted to try a different developer. I liked the liquid concentrate so I started using hc110 b.

I then got the bug to try a non T grain film. Liked the idea of traditional grain film, so I tried hp5 while still developing in hc110.

I start printing and try a slew of different developers but quickly decided on ac130, and lucky me after only trying a few different papers I ended up only using ilford MGFB Warmtone

Never could get the image where I liked so I tried d76 and xtol replenished, along with the hc110.

At some point along the line I get into 4x5 and try tri-x 320. I find this film to be the silver bullet, with almost any developer. The most amazing tonality I have ever come across. But it's not available in 120.

Now I start learning about characteristics curves of film and how the developer affects it.

End up running some tests with tmax 100/400, delta 100/400, hp5 tri-x, fp4.

I find fp4 to be a good film for the look I like and use it with hc110 for a while and finally settled on ac130 for both my print and film developer.

I am now only using a rolliecord or a hasselblad, fp4, ac130, ilford MGFB, ac130. Printing mainly 4x4 and 8x8 prints, full frame.

I matured through the process and am content with my materials, and understand it not what in front of the eye but what's behind it.

(I did just try to get into 35mm again but that lasted all of 3 days)