Film-Dev-Paper-Dev 'Meshing'

OK. We all know what papers and films we like...which devs we like etc. I know that for reasons unknown I have always had better looking prints off Agfa MCC than Ilford MG. Almost always....just as I hate TMax100 most of the time but have on lovely print made on Seagul when almost everything else was dire from this film no matter what I did (and I am sure I did not have over developed or under developed negs!)

I have seen stunning prints off Ilford MG with all of the gradation that mine lack on the same paper and that I (used) to have to go to Agfa or Forte for.

I realise that both film and paper have curves and that how they mesh affects the print profoundly. However, I have used many devs and films and have never really explored why some produce a tonal scale I like on certain papers and others dont. I tend to move on after trial and error.

Are there generally acknowledged 'disaster' and 'generally successful' combinations out there? I know some get busy with densitometers and can explain these things scientifically, but I cannot go there. Maybe there are other reasons MGIV has never really worked that well for me!

I would presume that using Ilford stand bys such as FP4+, ID11/D76, Multigrade Dev and MGIV should be a good place to start, but maybe not? I presume Ilford match the curves of their products so they mesh well....maybe not?

There was a time when I could try any of 4 or 5 papers and use the one that 'looked best' with the given neg if my usual paper did not sem to work naturally, but with the dwindling options I am keen to be a little more precise in matching things if this is possible.

Tips, comments, insights? (other than learning densitometry and testing all film, dev, paper, paper dev combos!)

Or you could just try out combinations and see what appears promising. Work with the combination for awhile and see if you continue to like it. My present combo is Efke PL100 in Pyrocat with Kentmere Kentona in amidol. I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation.
juan

I think you (we, any of us) have to use a combination for awhile to decide about compatibility (or meshing, as you have it). So much depends on lighting, gradation in the subject, developer and amount, and technique of development, choice of paper grade, etc. - even the "feel" of the subject (like dawn vs dusk, both have low sun, but don't always feel the same in the print).
Also, in committing to a combination, at least for awhile, you might be able to refine it beyond the first few trials.

I'm sure Juan has it. I'm reasonably confident that if I tried his combination, I'd not see the magic. Hell, my wife Frances Schultz and I can't agree on Tri-X (her choice) or HP5 (mine) -- though both are processed in Ilford DD-X and printed on MG Warmtone. Her results on Tri-X are better than mine. But my HP5 is better than hers. And we reckon our best shots are about equal in quality...

Go on: tell me it's NOT alchemy.

Cheers,

Roger

I assume you did your film and print tests with your preferred paper. If you switch to another paper then if you want the best possible results, then you should retest film and paper using that paper.
Enlarger filtration plays a large part. For example, if I use Ilfords Y+M figures for my enlarger for a nominal G2 and calibrate my film dev for that, then I actually get quite a contrasty neg because Ilfords Y+M figures for a nominal G2 on my enlarger are quite soft. If I then took that neg and printed using another paper and that papers Y+M figures, I might get a much more contrasty print.

Does that mean Ilfords figures are wrong? Well no because they actually place the contrast in the middle of what my enlarger is capable of and give 3 full grades above to play with (contrary to many peoples belief). And the real bonus is that I get better film speed. If developed that same neg to fit the paper without any filtration, it would be much softer and then using filtration I would only get 2 and and a bit grades up to play with.

So with VC paper the question is: where do you calibrate to. If you want to print to graded papers sometimes, then calibrate with no Y or M otherwise calbrate to the mid point of your enalrgers contrast capability.
So where are your negs calibrated to? I guess to your favourite paper. And was that calibration done with or without filtration? And does that filtration give similar results on Ilford paper? Sounds like not.

The best way to test for this is to print the same image as appears in AA's the negative. The one with zone 0 thru X patches of hardboard (an even coloured wall with a little texture is just as good). Set print time to the time for a zone I patch and print the rest for the same time. You will soon see how well your neg fits the paper and if you are losing shadow detail or highlight detail etc. No need of densitometer to do this.
If shadow detail is lost then you need more exposure time and if zone IX is not correct then you need more or less development time.

Works for me. YMMV

p.s. you may of course use less or more zones than I do normally.

I can only explain the differences may be due to improper filtration. There are so many variables, development, chemicals, timing, enlarger. I have always had great results using an Ilford 500 diffusion light source and fresh chemicals.

I spent a lot of money on magic brews for paper over the years and for normal graded or vc - fb or rc papers I have found that I get great blacks and tonality from home made and inexpensive PC-TEA developer. - I saw no great benefits for $10 a tray soup. The $.05 a tray soup make prints that were exactly the same.

radiantdarkroom said:

I can only explain the differences may be due to improper filtration. There are so many variables, development, chemicals, timing, enlarger. I have always had great results using an Ilford 500 diffusion light source and fresh chemicals.

Click to expand...

Its is acknowledged that the interplay of the natural curve of the film, how this is affected by film dev, how this meshes with the curve of the paper and how this in turn is affected by paper dev is quite seperate to filtration. It is its own constant and varies profoundly from combo to combo. The combo will have a tendency to produce a final curve of X and if you dont like that, you have to fight the curve of teh paper (not just the gradient but shape) in order to get the print you want. If the final curve of the print is what you like (subjective) there is less wrestling.

The reason I wrote this post is that i remember finding a long time ago a post or website on teh thread attempting to explain this interplay. I have less ans less time for 'testing' and while this is perhaps innevitable in one form or another, I would like to avoid doing so excessively. There should be some rationalisation of this process somewhere. Just like everyone knows that HC110 with TriX produces an upswept curve, right? Papers have differing curves too. So presumably any paper with a similar tendecy to accentuate highlights and compress midtones would presumably produce prints with fairly poor midtones and VERY seperated highlights??? This is sort of what I am getting at. not so much a case of 'I like it' or 'I dont' but a basic concept of what these combos do.

Maybe this is not something that has ever really been simplified? I take Rogers point about the subjectivity of the what one likes. however, the point I tried to bring home is that I like the results this photog I know gets one MG4 and his resutls are VERY different to mine. I am trying to comprehend this as I can produce similar prints (or could) on Agfa MCC or forte, but have to fight the paper in the case of MG4 and wrestle it (aparrently against its will) to do so myself with the same paper.


Presumably there are combos tha produce a straight line...those that procude upswept curves, straight line, heavy S curves etc????

How do you go about metering a subject and which type of meter do you use?
Incident, spot or incamera?

Tom
I have chosen two films, TriX and HP5 as standard films,I use PMK Pyro and d76 for film dev, I have been using Dectol 1 1.5 for ever, and my favorite paper to my eyes is Ilford Warmtone. I slight bleach sepia with selenium most of my work.
I am comfortable with these variables and seem to be able to make them work to my advantage.
I am willing to use other variables but I want to know before changing,exactly why I am changing the recipe. Usually a client wants a paticular look that I cannot provide with my standards.
When I photograph I am aware of the lighting and make my dev selections for the printing applications I know I will use.
Clients today that I am working with have drifted to me over the years and they are very consistant with their film dev selections and we have spent a lot of time getting their recipe nailed.
On a separate note I do a lot of split printing that allows me to interpert the film on a selective basis , which helps solve some problems in the taking of the photograph.

Tom Stanworth said:

Maybe this is not something that has ever really been simplified? I take Rogers point about the subjectivity of the what one likes. however, the point I tried to bring home is that I like the results this photog I know gets one MG4 and his resutls are VERY different to mine. I am trying to comprehend this as I can produce similar prints (or could) on Agfa MCC or forte, but have to fight the paper in the case of MG4 and wrestle it (aparrently against its will) to do so myself with the same paper.

Click to expand...

Ilford themselves reckon it can't be simplified: too many variables. Camera body/lens flare? Enlarger lens flare? Meter variation? Metering technique? That's in addition to curve shapes...

They also say that if you don't get on with Ilford materials, try something else: they'd rather you got good pictures with someone else's stuff than bad pics with theirs. A wise attitude!

Mind you, when they said that, Agfa and Kodak and Forte were still making paper.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

Ilford themselves reckon it can't be simplified: too many variables. Camera body/lens flare? Enlarger lens flare? Meter variation? Metering technique? That's in addition to curve shapes...

They also say that if you don't get on with Ilford materials, try something else: they'd rather you got good pictures with someone else's stuff than bad pics with theirs. A wise attitude!

Mind you, when they said that, Agfa and Kodak and Forte were still making paper.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

I also want to use more Ilford materials as they are an investment in the analogue future! Some Forte papers are still obtainable from retailer stock and Kentmere papers are still made, so I have some options while I find a way of making it work. I may of course suddenly find that by changing one variable that I can get things to work. A least I have something to work towards. I will probably start with something dead simple like trying FP4+ with a couple of devs and MG4, maybe trying a couple opf common paper devs to see if it makes any difference. I can go from there. One thing is for sure, FP4+ is going to be the stand by as I cannot think of many alternatives available from 35mm to 10x8!

Tom Stanworth said:

I also want to use more Ilford materials as they are an investment in the analogue future! Some Forte papers are still obtainable from retailer stock and Kentmere papers are still made, so I have some options while I find a way of making it work. I may of course suddenly find that by changing one variable that I can get things to work. A least I have something to work towards. I will probably start with something dead simple like trying FP4+ with a couple of devs and MG4, maybe trying a couple opf common paper devs to see if it makes any difference. I can go from there. One thing is for sure, FP4+ is going to be the stand by as I cannot think of many alternatives available from 35mm to 10x8!

Click to expand...

Funnily enough, although I love FP4 in LF, I find it so-so in MF and don't care for it in 35mm -- depite the fact that a friend of mine produces stunning FP4 35mm images...

Cheers,

R.

I recently ordered some Freestyle EDU FB VC paper. I usually use Forte Fortenza graded paper. I made identical prints with the forte grade 2 and the EDU and the EDU was very muddy. I believe that the stain color changes the contrast of the VC paper and has to be compensated for. The Fortenza really "glowed" - it sees the stain as extra density where the vc paper sees it as a localized contrast downgrade. I am not saying that the EDU is unusable in my process but it will take a little learning to get the filters right - it may be that this paper will be better suited for negs developed in xtol.

There is an article about this subject in the March/April 2007 Photo Techniques magazine. It was written by Fred Newman. Lots of information. Maybe you can pickup an issue or check their website.

Mike Johnson also wrote about this in Black & White Photography magazine some time ago. I believe the same article appeared on the Luminous Landscape website, as a "Sunday Letter".
By the way Tom, what on earth is a "photog" ?

Alan Clark

strangely, I've never really turned down using various papers for any reasons other than undesirable physcal atributes eg too much curl, base too thick, paper finish etc. I tend to pick the paper based upon the effect I want rather than it working especially well with a certain film - I like MGFB for bleach back toning, I like MGFB WT for direct toning, I like Fomatone MG for warm yellowy highlight tones, I like oriental MG warmtone for rich brown tones with that eggshell surface. I am generally happy with the results I get from these papers, and if not, it's because of a failing in my printing skills. I use FP4 and HP5 and sometimes delta 100 and 400. Sometimes developed in Pyrocat and sometimes developed in D23 and sometimes developed in Beutler and sometimes developed in Aculux 3. All of which give similar effects (other than the pyrocat highlight compression).

I spent quite a bit of time searching for magic combinations but eventually decided that, for me, this acitivity distract from stretching my printing skills and darkroom technique.

Leon,

The problem comes when you dont have so many options. I am like you in that I use a variety of papers and get on with most. The issue I have is that the one I have least joy with is likely to prove the most enduring, MGIV!!! I want to be able to improve my printing on this paper particulaly so that when I cannot choose papers so widely, I am getting the most out of it. Yes it stretches you printing to skills to get a good result out of a tricky situation, but I would also like to be able t avoid the sticky situation in the first place. You must surely have had negs that just wont work on a certain paper and then you switch to another 'similar paper' and the print becomes les of a wrestling match and just flows! Its not a case of magic bullet just avoiding the bullets that dont go straight. There is something about me and MGIV. We dont get along and I want to rectify this. I am certain it is a curves thing, but dont know how or where.

Tom Stanworth said:

Its not a case of magic bullet just avoiding the bullets that dont go straight.

Click to expand...

Dear Tom,

A brilliant quote!

Just one thought: we (Frances and I, www.rogerandfrances.com) have standardized on MG WT instead of IV as being easier to use, 'richer' and suiting most of our pics better. Any particular reasin for choosing IV over WT?

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I have found it easier to get 'better' prints which to me are richer on the WT too! I have found that the MGIV prints comparitively lacked perceived depth. This was brought home very quickly when compared to prints on Seagull or Forte Polygrade where the 3D quality was much easier to achieve. I do quite like the WT but wish the base was paler. One has to be careful not to overwash this paper as I too have seen the base go pink if left in too long! As a warm paper I would be happy to use more of this and will do so. Perhaps against conventional wisdom I found I got far better prints off Kentmere Fineprint than MGIV when I know some have felt this paper was not of tier 1 quality. I produced a few prints off Fineprint that surprised me and so I will pursue this option too. As you say, I subjectively feel that the WT is a far better paper than MGIV which reminds me of TMax100 but in paper form (ie has the contrast and tonal scale on the lighbox, but still produces lifeless prints with no depth in MY hands)