This is a lovely thread, with so much information. Some of it even accurate, or close to. I couldn't resist another post.
As usual Ian Grant (#13) has the right ideas, I think. He is one of a handful of APUG posters who speak with knowledge born of experience and much testing.
Like Ian, over the years I've collected a nice small collection of old photo books. At times,usually in the winter when I tend to hibernate and venture less out of doors to shoot my outdated films, I sort negatives, archive, keyword and file, print, and I enjoy mixing and using old developers. Many (okay, some) developers from the 1950s and 1960s still suit the modern emulsions.
As Ian wrote, developer formulas by Windisch, Beutler etc were advanced for their time, and still work well with some of the thinner emulsion (now called T grain, I believe) films available today. As with anything to do with everything worth doing, testing and keeping careful notes are important.
I still use Kodak D76, which is as "retro" as you get. Also Thornton's two bath, in the Ansel Adams variation for the slightly higher contrast I prefer. The results suit me (and my clients, whenever I sell a print or two) even with Jobo rotary processing. With Xtol, I run hot and cold. A few photographers I know use it and say they like it, but to my eye the results lack the "sparkle" I consider vital to the visual quality of a fine print.
A comment by Ian in his post really resonated with me and reflects much wisdom. (Quote) "A lot is down to the talents of the printer, I'd say (...) In the case of the Kertesz work the papers really needed just weren't available to modern printers, and who ever printed from his negatives had no clue how to emulate them. The difference is AA only used Bromide papers while Kertesz's early prints were on long gone Warm tome papers and look stark and unnatural on Bromide (if you've seen earlier versions)"
I agree. A few years ago I saw a Kertesz exhibition in Melbourne, which was printed on modern ("gicle", the loathsome yuppie term for inkjet) paper. The work was crap. Lacking in tonality, without the sparkle of images on traditional papers, not even sharp. It was so bad, I was left with the suspicion that the exhibitors (a private gallery, which will remain unnamed) had copied the images from a book. No sales were made, I believe. The gallery is now closed.
And yes, bromide. A few years ago I got 30 boxes of outdated ('70s or '980s) single weight square cut Ilfobrom paper at an estate sale. I've used about a quarter of it, with interesting if inconsistent results. Some fog, varying from a little to a lot, from sheet to sheet. Gallons of bendotriazole in my home brew D72 helps. Making a new print is an adventure. Some just glow, and are now framed on the walls of my den. There is great fun to be had in using old papers, but not consistency.
mattking (#21), have you tried Rollei films with D76 1+1 with -say -10%-15%) processing times? I use this, and it works for me. FWIW, I tame the high contrast of Australian light with yellow and occasionally orange filters. Four or five years ago I used Rollei infrared filtered with orange and red, but I no longer shoot it, largely as I used up my stocks. The effects were... again, interesting if inconsistent. Shooting two of everything worked for me, but in the end getting only eight images from one 120 roll in my Rolleiflex T, was too expensive.
In the end we should agree that as there are different roads to Rome, there will always be different ways to produce new (and different) results from many varied photographic techniques, films or darkroom. The pleasure for me, is in the doing. No chimping when you print with an enlarger, you see what you did when the print lands in the fixing tray. It can be an expensive education, but corners can be cut, and costs reduced. Use printing paper with care. Print small. Make many test strips. Ilford makes a good test printer for 4x5 paper, I use it with 2.5x5" strips for greater economy. Nitpicking maybe, but hey honeys, it's my pension money!
It's so much more creative (and more fun) than just pushing the view button on the back of a Nikon D-whatever and wondering if the auto-everything did it right for you or not - or like so many do, machine-gunning 13,429 images in nonstop and then posting the lot on Sh***er or Facef**k).
My two hundred rupiahs' worth...