every paper, every developer, every film syndrome

cjbecker said:

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)

Click to expand...

its freeing, isn't it ? ... when you just use what you use ...
so you can just concentrate on what's important, not all the other "stuff"
... trying to remember what film it is , what developer it is,
the list can be long ... and easy to forget ..

i already have a mind cluttered with too much useless information
... and it can't really take much more stuff to remember..

My experience is like cjbecker´s: I tried different things but finally settled on certain combinations. Ilford FP4+ was the first B/W film I used (because it was the only one available in the local supermarket) and it´s still one of my favorites. I tried different developers but finally settled on Perceptol. My favorite paper developer is Adolux Adotol just because it has the best shelf life and is the cheapest. I also tried different papers. Luckily, the web does help a lot these days. If I want to try something new, I regularly do some research first. This narrows things down quite a bit. I still have things on my list: Rollei APX25 and TriX 400. Always wanted to try Trix320 but unfortunately it´s not possible anymore :-(

Not intentionally.

When I started photographing I used Agfa APX 100 film and Rodinal. When I started to print I bought Agfa MCC paper, using Ilford Multigrade developer.

Then Agfa went out of business. I started using TMax 100, and I found a paper called Fine Art Photo Supply, and I used 130 developer and later Versa Print II (which the Formulary still sells, but it's painfully expensive).

Then I ran into financial trouble, and was gifted all sorts of film, and I've been lucky to have friends and such to help me out. But that also meant I needed to learn to live with many different films. That didn't work so well, but in retrospect it was better than not doing photography at all.

Here I am today, and I still find my stash to be full of all kinds of films that I have found inexpensively, or have been gifted to me. But when it counts I use Ilford HP5+, and I print on Ilford Multigrade IV (now Classic) fiber matte.

Now I'm sort of at the point where I can get what I want out of each of the films that I have, though. So I'm not too worried about it anymore. I usually print on the same paper, though. That makes a big difference.

AND I WANT IT ALL AND WANT IT RIGHT NOW!
I am familiar with the 'kid in a candy store' syndrome. I live it.
2 years ago I needed to replace my Kodak digital camera due to a broken battery door.
Search: eBAY
I replaced it with a newer, better model then started looking at film cameras, being an ex 35mm shooter of yore (around 30 years of yore).
I could not believe how cheap they were going for.
I replaced my old Nikon EM and a Minolta 110 SLR for sentimental reasons, then went nuts.
Medium format - TLR's, Folders, Rangefinders, box cameras.....
35mm - simple Argus A series, folders, rangefinders, the odd and unusual
Large format - WAIT - STOP - I'm still trying to figure out the ins and outs of medium format and 35mm developing, scanning, and printing. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how to get a good picture. I haven't even started with wet printing and enlarging yet, although alternate processing such as tintypes is getting very close on my horizon.

I am slowly refining what it is that I want to get out of my hobby and what tools I want to play with. Yesterday, I went through my cameras trying to pull out and isolate my 'shooters' to help with my focus. Then I pulled the cameras that I have that are no longer interesting, that I will never use as a shooter (116 film is really hard to find, lol). These I will try to find another home for. (back on eBay).

Learning to live with OCD can be expensive.

I don't shoot or print enough to experiment too much, my last mixed up 5Lts of XTOL had a date almost 2 years old on it... (I used it anyway.. worked fine!) I bought a truckload of J&C 4x5 sheet film, still have most of it. I did use up most of the 120 J&C I bought (still got some 100asa left but usually want 400 in that camera) so I buy Delta 400. For printing I always have Ilford MG RC in Pearl for proofs & prints but have some Foma bought cheap, some old Agfa MCC 111 (keeping for a special project!!!) and an assortment of other bits n pieces I've been given or bought (mostly Ilford in different surfaces or FB). Historically, I've tried different materials/chemicals but not searching for a magic bullit, more just for fun and cause you can.

I've been trying a lot of paper and developer combinations, kind of looking for the "look" that graded Agfa Brovira gave me umpteen years ago, and nothing seems to quite get there, but plenty are good in their own right. Not sure how to characterize that "look" except that most current papers seem warmer in tone than what i remember.

I don't think of it as magic bullet chasing, but it's an interesting and fun journey.

hi bdial

i am sure when you are looking for the "look" you
push your self, push the paper and don't just use
a paper and a developer and say : "next" after 2 or 4 prints ..

over the years i have had conversations with people who use a
different paper or different film or different developer combination
often ... almost like they change combinations like they change their pants
( not flavor of the month, but flavor of the day ) ...

if i did that, i'd be afraid i would say: boy, i like what that negative and print look like"
but i wouldn't have any idea what paper or film or chemistry i was used.

pdeeh said:

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...

That's the quote for today. It's is being printed and going on the fridge door!

Yes, starting out with one film, one paper, one developer is a great way to start out for most people. Others learn in different ways and all the more power to them!

I find that I learn great by making mistakes. I enjoy the detective-type of work needed to figure out what went wrong and how to make it right. I tend to make more mistakes when trying something new, or when trying to tweak a process I already know...so here's to taking chances and making mistakes!!!

Vaughn said:

Yes, starting out with one film, one paper, one developer is a great way to start out for most people. Others learn in different ways and all the more power to them!

I find that I learn great by making mistakes. I enjoy the detective-type of work needed to figure out what went wrong and how to make it right. I tend to make more mistakes when trying something new, or when trying to tweak a process I already know...so here's to taking chances and making mistakes!!!

Click to expand...

yup.. +1

With regards to variables, I spent several years working with a variety of materials when starting out in photography, usually due to what was available in a specific situation/work/education/ etc., but made a decision in my mid 20’s that in order to advance control and consistency I needed to choose a film and developer to try and hone the process part into something that didn’t require variation. I have also tried to hone and simplify this and other process variables ever since. For those mathematicians on APUG just consider the variables in film, process, time, temperature, dilution, chemical constituents, ambient temperature, ad infinitum and the possibilities of control become meaningless.

hi clive

so are you suggesting not to try to limit use of materials ( film paper chems ) because
when you look at things more carefully, it really doesn't matter ...
because there are variants from an armload of other things that
are kind of unpredictable ... like trying to swim against a raging tidal wave ?

or are you saying that limiting the variety of film and paper ( and chemicals ? )
helps?

sorry i am reading this as if i am clueless

john

jnanian said:

hi clive

so are you suggesting not to try to limit use of materials ( film paper chems ) because
when you look at things more carefully, it really doesn't matter ...
because there are variants from an armload of other things that
are kind of unpredictable ... like trying to swim against a raging tidal wave ?

or are you saying that limiting the variety of film and paper ( and chemicals ? )
helps?

sorry i am reading this as if i am clueless

john

Click to expand...

The latter.

Of course, consistency matters only if consistency is what matters to you ...

pdeeh said:

Of course, consistency matters only if consistency is what matters to you ...

Click to expand...

I agree, but the result of consistency means you don't have to worry about the result of process. I can't remember when I last produced a negative that didn't print as I would wish. I probably make up for this by lots of experimentation with alternative processes.

hi clive

i can understand both what pdeeh is saying, and what you are saying ..
but it is just as easy to be inconsistent with materials you
have been using for the better part of a year, as it is with materials you
just picked up for an darkroom rendez vous

i kind of like inconsistent results as a negative because it keeps my printing in queue.
printing terrible negatives, and virtually anything i could stick in an enlarger stage or contact print
is what helped me learn to print. if one has perfect ( or negatives that print well ) all the time
how does one learn to print something that is less than optimal ?

its kind of like a fire drill ... just to be ready for the real fire ..

jnanian said:

hi clive

i can understand both what pdeeh is saying, and what you are saying ..
but it is just as easy to be inconsistent with materials you
have been using for the better part of a year, as it is with materials you
just picked up for an darkroom rendez vous

i kind of like inconsistent results as a negative because it keeps my printing in queue.
printing terrible negatives, and virtually anything i could stick in an enlarger stage or contact print
is what helped me learn to print. if one has perfect ( or negatives that print well ) all the time
how does one learn to print something that is less than optimal ?

its kind of like a fire drill ... just to be ready for the real fire ..

Click to expand...

John, see my edit to previous post, re alternative processes.

Oh I'm not advocating a free-for-all by any means, but it is often a presumption in discussions at apug that one is only ever aiming for consistent results

I'm simply pointing out once again that there are many motivations and goals for different people.

And of course as I said earlier, one can be deadly consistent some of the time and hash around like a gibbon the rest ...

i see what you mean clive ..

and pdeeh, i know exactly what you mean because i
am like to wear both hats as well ( and try to often ) ... i love inconsistencies to be honest
( and sometimes free for alls ! ) that is what makes the difference between a person and a machine ...

pdeeh said:

...
And of course as I said earlier, one can be deadly consistent some of the time and hash around like a gibbon the rest ...

Click to expand...

Absolutely! With 35mm and MF photography, I use 2 films, one developer. And where consistency really matters is in the printing: only two kinds of paper and one paper developer. Eliminate as many variables as I can so that I can learn how to make negatives that will print easily with my enlarger and my paper the way I want. I keep careful notes and am honing in on making prints that I like, but I still have a long way to go. It is amazing how much room there is for differences even when you hold all the materials rigidly consistent. That's "learning to work with your materials". Maybe I'll branch out someday but right now I need to gain a lot more experience as a printer and I don't need to learn on shifting sands.

With pinhole and everything else, I love variation and luck and playing and trying different things. Try anything fun or crazy and it doesn't matter if it doesn't work. I especially like it when some part is out of my control, so the results are a surprise, like opening a gift! I have two completely different hobbies. Flailing around like a gibbon is lots of fun!

BUT there's a problem! The second is playful and fun and carefree, and it makes the first seem rigid and "serious" and stiff and stilted. My film photography suffers because I'm too much a perfectionist and leave all the fun and playing to the other side. So I need to learn the right mix and learn to be fun/carefree/playful with film photography too... at least with where I point the camera.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. I wholeheartedly agree. I just used nothing but Tri-X and D-76, and Polycontrast and Dektol because that's what I first learned with. This went on for years and I saw no reason to change it. The more I learned about photography I realized different products have a different "look" and the Kodak look was definitely not what I was trying to achieve. Try tweaking what I was used to. Never got close enough to what I wanted to achieve. Then one day I tried a roll of HP5 and never looked back. I figured that was as close as it would get. A few years later I picked up some Agfa APX 400 to try and that was my new standard. Then that disappeared. A few years ago I tried a few rolls of Fomapan, and without ever changing anything else, I got the look I had been trying to achieve for 30 years, just by switching film types, period. I still use D76 and Dektol. Kodak Polycontrast bit the dust years ago as we all know, and good ol' Tri-X is perfectly predictable and reliable but I still think the pictures I get out of it suck no matter what I do with the developing and printing. If Foma gives me what I want with the least effort why go back? Because of Foma's QC rep, I still use HP5 if I can't take chances. Anyway, the moral of the story is sometimes one just has to take the blinders off.

Hey, whatever rows your boat. It takes more than one horse to make a race. I don't kick other peoples' dogs or question their methods or aesthetics as a matter of course. Unless I want to learn, of course.

Here's me!

I'm a professional violinist, and have played in 5 large orchestras in my career. I'm now semi-retired, and conduct a large amateur orchestra in BC, where I live in Prince George. I also have 35 violin and piano students. So, to me, sticking with one thing is like saying "I only play or conduct Beethoven. Nothing else." Beethoven is great, perhaps the greatest, but the world of music would be a lot poorer if we couldn't play Bartok, or Brahms, or Bach, or Villa Lobos, or Chopin . . . . "

And thus while I have a specialty, I also include a little variety, in both music and photography. Believe me, we couldn't sell tickets if we played only one composer.

When I worked in a photo lab in the distant past, yes, everything was systemitized and we didn't play with the system. But that's a different story, like a specialist Baroque orchestra. Getting to photography . . .

I use digital in color, but film exclusively in B&W. I don't like the look of conversions, and I love to print. A framed B&W print just does something that digital conversions cannot do.

In 35mm, I'm a half-frame guy. I just got back into film developing and printing after a 15 year hiatus. Things have changed. I'm experimenting to find what out there available creates the "look" I'm after. I use the Olympus Pen FT as my main 35mm camera. I have 5 of them, and a bunch of lenses. I occasionally use my Pentax MX full frame, but if I'm doing more demanding work I usually step up to medium format, where my user is a Mamiya C330. So being a sub-miniature guy, I need the versatility of several emulsions in this small frame world, which is not very forgiving.

I've always had 3 "looks" I liked in half-frame, one for landscapes, one for portraits, and one for "industrial" or street use. My old faves are gone. So experimenting with the new emulsions has been both fun and useful. I usually print 5x7 in this format, but if I need an 8x10 it'll do it with a slower emulsion.

In medium format, I use pretty much only HP5 and HC110, and ditto in large format. It does what I want, and I like the look. If I use something else, I'll have a very specific reason.


So my findings are (after much experimenting), with respect to the "new" stuff:


1) Tri-X is not the same emulsion I remember. Neither is HP5+, but it's very close and I've now adopted it as my #1 B&W film only in full frame, with HC110 at 1:63. This soup seems to be the same old stuff. New Tri-X in Rodinal is a viable foil to HP5, but I've not yet develped my 2 rolls of Fomapan 400 - they're in the tank but I'm waiting for another package of D76 to come in . . . the developer I had mixed up didn't look right and would probably have invalidated my tests.

2) Plus-X is gone. I've adopted FP4 in it's place after trying other medium speed films and not really liking them. I like FP4 in both Rodinal and Xtol. Carefully handled, FP4 makes nice 8x10s in half-frame.

3) I continue to use Ilford XP2 as an all purpose, carry around film. Always liked it's "large format" tonal range in 35mm, and it makes viable 8x10 enlargements if exposed at 200 in my Olympus Pen Fs. In a 5x7 half-frame enlargement, XP2 is versatile. I actually prefer the Kodak equivalent but apparently its gone now, and I can live with XP2 happily.

New films I've adopted I had no knowledge of before:

1) Ilford SFX 200 - without filter in Rodinal and shot on a half-frame Olympus Pen FT, it has a look I like with respect to grain. Red filter and it has other uses. Versatile.

2) Arista 100. Yep. I like it. In Exol it's very classy, not unlike my lost Plus-X. In Rodinal it hits hard and clean on a 5x7 half-frame print.

3) Shanghai in 120. Like it, too. Very much, to my mind, like Arista 100. Use it in my C330 or Minolta Autocord as a slow film.

4) Kodak TMax 100 and 400. Never used these in the past . . . . I personally think they're dazzling. TMax 400 might be my replacement for PlusX, ASA 400 to boot. It makes really beautiful enlargements. TMax 100 might be the finest film I've ever used . . . the 8x10 enlargments I've made from half-frame negs are quite astounding. It's disadvantage is its speed. I'm an available light shooter. Ditto TMax 400 in medium format. Very special quality to the film here.

Still to check out: Delta 3200, Foma 200, Foma 400 (waiting the developer I want to soup it in. It's actually loaded in the tanks! )

I have high hopes for Foma 400 to replace the old Tri-X look I liked when I'm shooting industrial sites or street scenes. I've also wanted to see what the Adox and Rollei films are like.

After films, I'm going to have to test papers. All my old faves (Luminos in X and Gloss, and Kodak Ektalure in G and K) are long gone. I need to have a paper I like to give the Look of my basic unglazed Luminos Gloss. This paper thing is a whole other story!

So, even though I have a standard system, my "enquiring mind wants to know."

moltogordo said:

...to me, sticking with one thing is like saying "I only play or conduct Beethoven. Nothing else." Beethoven is great, perhaps the greatest, but the world of music would be a lot poorer if we couldn't play Bartok, or Brahms, or Bach, or Villa Lobos, or Chopin . . . . "

And thus while I have a specialty, I also include a little variety, in both music and photography. Believe me, we couldn't sell tickets if we played only one composer...

Click to expand...

Great analogy and thanks for speaking up. I'm getting back into things after a working lifetime of sporadic photographic efforts, and I'm loving the the tons of new stuff to experiment with. It's almost like starting over new again in my teens.

Steve

Ah but then the musical analogy can also be used to suggest that no-one would be able to play Beethoven except that they have for years practised their scales ...

However, I like to think of the way I approach photography much as the great Eric Morecombe said of how he was playing Grieg "I'm playing all the right notes. But not necessarily in the right order."

(For those not familiar with the reference, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R7GeKLE0x3s ... from about 10:40 is that to what I am referring, but the whole thing is worth watching)

really sound quite reasonable to me ...