finding the right film/developer/toner combination for life

[bonk]

I just started my own little darkroom and now I am a bit daunted. I heared that it is best if I'd always stick with the same film and developer. But how do I find the right combination for my needs. The possibilities seem to be endless. There are so many b&w films and so many chemicals out there. How am I to find the the optimal combination that give me what I want? I can't possibly try them all.

Are there any "usual suspects" that work especially well?

I suppose the film and chemicals to choose depend a lot on what kind of "look and feel" I am after in my photos. Maybe I can benefit from your experience and if I'd tell what I am after you can tell me one or the other shortcut on the way to my perfect combination. Maybe there is something that I really should try and maybe there is something that I shouldn't bother trying.

I mainly shoot b&w using my Pentax 67. I like photos with great details/sharpness and great tonality (wide/details range of graytones). Recent photos of APUG memebers that sort of represents (from a technical point of view) what I am after and that imressed me are for example the following:

"Tuscan Trees" by Early Riser:

"Contry Road" by John Simmons:

"shammy is happy" by Bertus:

"Copenhagen Central" by dlridings:

I am not sure what exactly it is that makes those images look good They all apear to me with great sharpness/contrast and detailes gray shades. Sorry if that sounds noobish. But I am sure I have taken similar pictures but when enlarged they are missing something. Look for example this one I did:

"At the elbe" by me:

I find it somehow misses what the others have. Maybe its sharpness maybe it's something else. I am not sure. But I think the right darkroom techniques have a big impact.

Any tips on where to go from here are very welcome. Now that you might have an idea of what I desire maybe you have a suggestion for me what developer / film I should start out with?

 

[jim appleyard]

Yes, you are correct about finding one film and dev combo to start with, but not necessarily for life! It's ok to branch out! For starters it is good to buy 20 (or more) rolls of Tri-X or HP-5 and use D-76. After you've mastered that combo, then move on to see what else is out there.

 

[fschifano]

You really can't go wrong with either Tri-X or HP5+ in D-76. I won't dispute that. I'm also of the opinion that if you can use a slower film, then you should give it a try. Both also do very well in D-76, are sharper, and yield more contrast, than their faster cousins, yet are easy to handle films.

 

[Alan9940]

The idea of sticking with one film/developer combo is to allow you the opportunity to really get to know a particular combination and how it responds or, more appropriately, how you should make it respond in all types of lighting. In general, the more you know about how your film will respond in the field the better your prints will be. Sticking with one combination also enables you to gain complete consistency; well...until the manufacturer ups and changes the product which has happened to me! But, that's another story....

As others have suggested I'd recommend starting with good 'ole Tri-X or HP-5+ in one of the standard developers such as D-76 or ID-11; personally, I've used both typically at 1:1 dilution. After awhile, when you feel that you're really comfortable with one of these combinations start to experiment a little. Always use your current combo as a control so you know what's changing. You may find that you like your original combo just fine and may settle on this for quite some time. I remember when I first started out in LF photography I used nothing but Tri-X/HC-110 for about 15 years! In recent years I've had to "play" with other combos because availability and cost of LF B&W film from father Kodak is getting pretty tough these days.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your search........

 

[Discpad]

You didn't say if you'll be printing in an enlarger, or scanning the film for digital output.

Although it's a Good Idea to keep your darkroom chemistry on the small-ish side, so you don't have a lot of waste from low utilization, D-76 is a good all-around developer. I replenish it with D-76R when I use it fuill strength; but if I dilute it 1+1 to 1+3 I use it single-shot.

On the film side of the equation, though, I don't agree with the one film/one developer mantra: Some shots will be indoors, some outdoors, each requiring different E.I's. You don't shove a square peg into a round hole, do you?

Also, a major flaw with the "one film for all" argument is that although it's OK for sheet film, it falls apart for roll film. In my book, one of the worst sins is "missing the shot" because you have the wrong film in the camera -- Usually, this happens in low light when you have a slow film loaded or the flash fails to fire. If you have exposures all over the map on a single roll of film -- as often happens in photojournalism, for example -- then you have a problem that doesn't exist with sheet film: To what point do you develop the film?

If you feel you "must" keep your film choices to a minimum, then I would use Plus-X (&/or FP-4) for outdoors in the EI 100 range; and Tri-X (&/or HP-5) for indoors in the EI 400 range.

Your mileage may vary...

 

[bonk]

Why Tri-X and D-76

Could you elaborate a little bit on what's so special/good about this combination. What are its characteristics? Should I use it because it is a standard or does it especially work well for what I am after?

A lot of pictures I have seen that I liked used X-Tol developer, while I am not sure if this is just coincidence I am still a little tempted to try that one. What do you think about this developer? Is it easy to handle? What are its characteristics? I have read that is produces less grain than the D-76 and that the Tri-X D-76 combination is not such a good choice for smaller negative formats.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes definitely go for one main film/developer/paper combination and once mastered stick to it.

It would be nice to think you could stick to the same combination for life but films & papers change or disappear.

The actual combination is personal preferance.

Ian

 

[jim appleyard]

Tri-X & D-76 have been around for decades. They are a proven thing; easy to use, flexible.

X-Tol is fine, it's ok to use that, just stick to one combo until you master it, then try something else if you're still curious.

 

[Ian Grant]

Modern Tri-X is quite different to the original Tri-X, it's a bit like saying HP3, HP4, HP5 and HP5+ are the same - products evolve.

The Tri-X name is similar to the HP name used by Ilford, it indicates the high speed nature of the film.

But then of course you are also right because essentially these films are just impovements of the original product rather tah entirely different product.

So someone using Selo pan in the 1940's who stuck with the film as it improved would now be using FP4+. (My father use Selo pan)

Ian

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Instead of giving you darkroom advice, I suggest you compare the light in your photo and in the other ones, direction and quality.

Plainly said, the light in your photography is direct sun, whereas in all other ones the sun is diffused, or partially masked, creating a non-uniform light. Take the example of the lady in the station: she's lit from the side, and she's pretty much the only bright object, contrasting strongly against the dark hall, and balanced delicately with the small touches of light in the background.

The Tuscan Trees photo has nice tonality because of the parallelism between the dappled ground and the dappled sky. Country Road works because the clouds break the light, and the areas of dark/light are well composed against each other.

Notice also that the graphic elements are big in the other pictures, and in yours they are very small (the people) or devoid of texture (the sand). You can't start bothering about sharpness if you don't have any details to bite into. Light reveals details.

Start with light before you waste too much time in the darkroom. Yes, you'll need to find a proper technique and tools, and other people have given you lots to think about already, but for now I urge you to think about light as a composition tool. Stick with a decent combo like Tri-X & XTOL, or FP4 and XTOL for starter, work on your eye, and then go back to your combo and think about what can be better.

 

[thefizz]

I would take the following into consideration:

Do I prefer liquid or powder developers?
Availability of your chosen film and developer?

Peter

 

[Snapshot]

I've decided to mix my own chemistry so that I can control what I get and, more importantly, to ensure I will have availability. Manufacturers are free to experiment and modify (as well as discontinue) their products. Of course you can run into QC issues if you mix your own as well. There are a number of formulas you can obtain of the internet that will yield very good results. Personally, I feel technique and process, not just chemistry, play as big a role in getting the desired results.

As for film, you are at the mercy of manufacturers as there isn't a feasible way for most people to make their own film. Currently, my film of choice is APX 100, which has been discontinued. I have stocked up on APX and have large supply of bulk rolls that should keep me happy for years to come. However, I at some point will have to move on to another film, so it's best to get a feel for a couple brands.

You have a significant task in front of you but half the fun is in experimenting. You'll eventually get the hang of it.

 

[w35773]

Well said, Michael. I was coming here to say that very thing. I am also a "noob", but I am coming to realize there is no developer/film combination that can overcome bad decisions on my part when I release the shutter. Keep looking at those photographs which look like you want yours to look and ask yourself how your composition, lighting and focus choices need to be modified to reach the desired outcome.

Also, I have started keeping very detailed records about every photograph I take. Which box of film it came from, which film holder it was loaded into, exposure settings, light levels, time of day, how it was metered, which developing tube was used, which developer, how long it was developed for, which VC filter makes it look best, etc.

The reason I have started doing this is so I can learn and adjust my workflow to make my photos consistent. At the same time, I am working on my "Artist" eyes and trying to see the real world in terms of how it would look on photo paper: contrast, light and dark, highlight and shadow, subjects and how to frame them, etc.

I am confident that once I have worked hard and smart enough to become a great technician and develop my eye for the significant, unusual or beautiful, that my photographs will be everything I desire.

BTW, I use Pyrocat-HD and think it's super.

Respectfully,
Russell

 

[bonk]

I would take the following into consideration:
Do I prefer liquid or powder developers?
Peter

Does it have any impact on the result or just on the workflow? I know powder is much more durable than liquid and on the other side I have to consider the extra time I need to spend making the developer from the powder. But beyond that what, other differences are there?

 

[Snapshot]

Powders are not as convenient as a liquid developer. With powders, you have to mix up stock solutions and then dilute appropriately. Liquid developers, like HC-110, are ready to use and are simply added to your solution. Powders, however, are generally cheaper than the liquid concentrates but may not always the case.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In my experience, there's chemistry to learn from, and chemistry to grow into. Start with something basic and well-documented, so that if you run into issues, you can easily find assistance with solving your issues. Once you have moved past your basic issues, and have established a consistent working method, then branch out and experiment, but do yourself a giant favor and don't change more than one variable at a time or you'll never know why your newly different results are the way they are. If you take the Tri-X/D-76 route, which is well-trod, and print on Ilford Multigrade (another popular choice) and develop your prints in Dektol, once you have a comfortable understanding of what they do for you, just change the paper. Or just the developer. After you understand that change, then change the film. Or the film developer, and so on. But, as mentioned before, pay more attention to what you SEE when taking a photograph than what you're going to record it on. Learn how to see the different qualities of light. Look at it at high noon, at sunrise, late afternoon, summer, winter, in the fading glow between sundown and dark, and the artificial light of night. Every season and every hour of the day has its own quality. Once you can see that, you can begin to understand how to use it and take a successful photo in that light.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What Michael is talking about, and Scott mentioned too, is far more important than your materials.
I can tell you from experience that I wasted almost two years farting around with different films and developers, and in the meantime produced about two years worth of boring, dull, completely uninteresting photographs. I have a binder full of them. A waste of time.

Do yourself that favor, study the light, learn from it, while you put a few rolls through. Tri-X, HP5, FP4, Neopan, whatever... Just go out there and shoot it, and shoot it at different hours of the day.
Let the elements be the variance, and your materials your constant. Then you will truly know how to use it. Truthfully, this has far more impact on your outcome than does the film/developer combination, which is like fine tuning by comparison.
I'll bet you Picasso could create a masterpiece using a stick while painting with mud.
- Thomas

Instead of giving you darkroom advice, I suggest you compare the light in your photo and in the other ones, direction and quality.

Plainly said, the light in your photography is direct sun, whereas in all other ones the sun is diffused, or partially masked, creating a non-uniform light. Take the example of the lady in the station: she's lit from the side, and she's pretty much the only bright object, contrasting strongly against the dark hall, and balanced delicately with the small touches of light in the background.

The Tuscan Trees photo has nice tonality because of the parallelism between the dappled ground and the dappled sky. Country Road works because the clouds break the light, and the areas of dark/light are well composed against each other.

Notice also that the graphic elements are big in the other pictures, and in yours they are very small (the people) or devoid of texture (the sand). You can't start bothering about sharpness if you don't have any details to bite into. Light reveals details.

Start with light before you waste too much time in the darkroom. Yes, you'll need to find a proper technique and tools, and other people have given you lots to think about already, but for now I urge you to think about light as a composition tool. Stick with a decent combo like Tri-X & XTOL, or FP4 and XTOL for starter, work on your eye, and then go back to your combo and think about what can be better.

 

[walter23]

FP4+ if you want 100 speed.
HP5+ if you want 400 speed.

Ilford ID-11 or Kodak D76 (I hear they are similar) because they work and are readily available.

This is what I started using, quite arbitrarily (and also because of the good availability of ilford stuff at the local store).

I haven't mastered these films at all, though I am experimenting occasionally with others. I'm checking out ilfosol S right now to see if it gives satisfactory results, just because it's cheaper than the ID-11.

 

[eric]

I know I read this somewhere (not on the innernet so it may be actually true) that manufacturers have to have d76 as the de facto developer to compare theirs with.

But for life?! Man, thats like eating the same thing for breakfast, lunch, and dinner! How boring is that?!

 

[wilsonneal]

As has been said elsewhere (everywhere?), and bears repeating, the equipment, the film and paper, and the chemistry are all less important than the light and the vision. Getting the light and vision thing is what we're all here for, in the end.

The nice thing about the films and chemicals that have been recommended in this thread is that they're readily available to most of us, they're relatively inexpensive, and they're fairly benign (like, no one has ever died from exposure to D76 as far as I know).

Good luck.
Neal

 

[Alan9940]

Could you elaborate a little bit on what's so special/good about this combination. What are its characteristics? Should I use it because it is a standard or does it especially work well for what I am after?

A lot of pictures I have seen that I liked used X-Tol developer, while I am not sure if this is just coincidence I am still a little tempted to try that one. What do you think about this developer? Is it easy to handle? What are its characteristics? I have read that is produces less grain than the D-76 and that the Tri-X D-76 combination is not such a good choice for smaller negative formats.

Hello bonk,

Not sure if this was directed toward my reply, but I'll toss in my 2 cents anyway... IMO there is nothing special about any film/developer combo; I think FlyingCamera said it best...pick one of the "standard" combos like Tri-X and D-76 (or HC-110), then when you're REALLY comfortable with what that particular combo does or doesn't do for you start to change things up. But, only change one variable at a time so you know what affect that change is having overall.

For me, personally, many, many years ago when I started shooting LF and attended one of Fred Picker's Zone VI workshops Fred told me that Ansel and Brett were using Tri-X/HC-110, printing on Ilfobrom developed in Dektol; Amidol for Brett. Fred and all the workshop instructors used all these combinations, too. My thought was: Heck, Ansel and Brett can certainly "hang 'em on the wall" so who am I to pick something different? I bought a bunch of Tri-X and several bottles of HC-110...filled 1/2 my freezer with Ilfobrom and never touched anything else for the better part of 15 years! Even today, when I go back and look at some of those prints I'm amazed at the tonality and feeling of light/air that I was able to command from those materials.

My advice: just pick a combo that's universally accepted and shoot a LOT!! Then, when you think you've shot just about everything shoot a bunch more...then, start to wander.

Hope this provides some fodder for thought.

 

[bonk]

Is the combo X-Tol/Tri-X on of those "universally accepted " ones?

I understand that you are saying that what combination I actually choose initially doesn't matter that much. But still I feel that chances are high that I might be happier with a specifc "universally accepted" developer for the Tri-X film. Is it possible to describe the characterisitcs/differences of the three mentioned developers X-Tol, HC-110 and D-76 when applied to Tri-X film?

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day Bonk

why 'for life'?

what about artistic growth? or just wanting to experiment or try something new or different

what about product availabilty in the future?

 

[Ian Grant]

Maybe, but so is FP4 in ID-11, TriX in D76, Agfa APX100 in Rodinal, HP5 in Microphen the list is endless.

Ian

Ian

Is the combo X-Tol/Tri-X on of those "UNIVERSALLY" accepted" ones?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Universally accepted does not mean "right for you". It just means that a lot of people have had successful, repeatable results with it. Because of this, you'll be able to temporarily eliminate one set of variables in your process. Once you've done enough with that default set to know what you do and don't like about it, then you can and should start changing variables to yield a result set more to your liking.