Getting to know your film - what does that mean to you?

I'm always reading the advice given to people who ask which film to use, to 'pick one and stick to it, until you get to know it'.

What does this 'getting to know your film' mean to you? Is this about technical tests on exposure & developing? Do you have a set of real world scenarios that you run through, or are there particular variables that you mess with to see how it reacts?

I followed the advice, picking TriX and D-76. I've found out how it behaves when using higher EIs for handheld indoor use for instance, but I'm fishing for ideas on what other sorts of things I could 'get to know' about the combo.

Simply put, it means finding your personal preferred film speed, not necessarily what is posted on the box. Also what to expect from it in any given lighting situation, how it will respond and how you need to process and print for that situation. It's best to keep exacting notes while doing this so they may be referred back to. Experimentation is the only way to accomplish this, and many rolls of film.

The main advantage is that it keeps you from some common misconceptions and delusions.

Here is a list of cognitive biases you miss:

#1: Photography is the art of trying new films, developers, lenses, cameras, papers etc., counting resolution lines, using test charts, and that is as important as King Arthur's quest to find the Holy Grail.

#2: If a picture does not look the way you like it it's not your fault but the wrong material or failure of the manufacturer.

#3: The joy of making pictures is less important than trying all possible variations of pre-soaking and stand development or becoming a certified high-resolution photographer and are officially allowed to play with the big boys that spent decades of their lifetime testing every possible combination to produce meaningless photos.

#4: Using the majority of your time with #1 and #2 is not a waste of time because in the long end you will have images with less grain and higher acutance. Somewhen...

#5: That photo of that guy looks great, much better than mine, at least as a photoshopped 72 dpi JPEG on a website. He must have a better film, developer, lens, tripod...

#6: The datasheet of the film manufacturer and his recommendations for chemistry is pointless and must be ignored at all costs.


Apart from that, buying large quantities of the same type of film is much cheaper in most cases

Damn, I switch and swap between film stocks all the time. One roll of fuji here, next an ilford then kodak. But there are 36 exposures on each roll which for me is plenty to test a film's capabilities. When I'm testing films, I take notes of what I'm doing with each shot. I make each shot different and in different circumstances so at the end of the roll I have 36 examples to work with.

I've always thought that sticking with one film was very good advice.

I find it very hard to follow.... but good advice.

So, with many lapses, I've tried to stick to FP4+. I've shots many hundreds of rolls....

So, do I know it? Hmmm.... I don't really think I do.

Sure, I know what film speed to set on some of my cameras. A few of the old collectibles will have inaccurate or sticky shutters, which don't help, but for the reliable ones I have done a few tests and worked out a film speed. In white light. With no filters. I've pushed it a little... I've pulled it a little, tried a few developers and I've made a few mistakes.

But I really don't know how far I can push it, how far I can pull it, how far into the red it extends for really heavy filtration or what filter factor it would require. I don't really know how it behaves under extreme reciprocity failure (obviously there are tables, but they are just starting points...) or lots of other things about it. I know my favourite developer was Acutol - which you can't get any more ^_^

I think there is enough scope to experiment even with one film to fall into all of the traps listed by cmo, above.

Hmmm, I like to stick to the one film I know back to front, as it means 9/10 I'll be pretty certain of the results I'm going to get. No more guess work needed to ensure I have the shot in the bag.

I've tested all the types I like to use, and it has made things much easier for me when I'm shooting. I now understand how type x will respond in this lighting situation compared to type y. I know that if, for example, I expose the scene for 18% gray in the area I want 18% gray, it will be, and I can print on Grade 2 with (often) very little extra work needed on an average scene.

Before I did my film & developer test, I was often printing all over the place: Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, sometimes Grade 1. Since testing and shooting to the correct film-speed for my equipment, printing has got so much easier and it is on a rare occasion I need to print on a much higher or lower grade of paper.

When you become really familiar with a particular film you know just how it is going to behave. Shooting becomes instinctive. This leaves more time for such things as composing the photograph. Ansel Adams was very specific on what happens when you constantly change your process. In fact you should decide on a film/developer combination which best suits your style and stick with it. If you decide on a different film you must begin again to familiarize yourself.

I once followed the advice of the great guru Fred Picker, who advised one film and one developer. I did this for several years before becoming a devotee of Phil Davis and his Beyond the Zone System. Whichever path you choose, it is good to stick with one film and one developer. Learn to meter properly in all conditions and find the limits of your materials and how to adapt them to various situations. It will save you time, money and frustration and allow you to make better negatives and consequently better prints.

Peter Gomena

pgomena said:

Learn to meter properly in all conditions
Peter Gomena

Click to expand...

Does metering differ between films then? How would I learn how to meter properly for my chosen film?

Gerald C Koch said:

you know just how it is going to behave.

Click to expand...

I think this is partly what I'm trying to understand - what would I do to find out how a film will behave? Apart from (for instance) pushing it and adjusting contrast to suit, what am I looking for?

Sorry if I'm being thick but do you have any examples?

hi ITD

the deal with film is that depending on how you expose it and develop it,
your negatives ( and prints ! ) will look different. they might have a smooth tonality
or a sharp contrast, or high grain, or not much grain depending on temperature and development ( and developer ).

what knowing my film means to me is
that i bracket my exposures a little at first and process "normally" and then i make contact prints of my film.
i study the negatives/prints and see how my meter works, and i notice the highlights and shadow details.
then i have a better idea of what to expect in general lighting conditions.
i do something similar in dim light, harsh light, no light, snow, beach &C ... so when it comes time for a print that matters
i know what to do.

For me this term means knowing in advance how the photo will turn out because you've tried various techniques under various lighting conditions and found what looks good, so you repeat what you did the time before when you want a certain look. I suppose it's about repeatability.

cmo said:

The main advantage is that it keeps you from some common misconceptions and delusions.

Here is a list of cognitive biases you miss:

#1: Photography is the art of trying new films, developers, lenses, cameras, papers etc., counting resolution lines, using test charts, and that is as important as King Arthur's quest to find the Holy Grail.

#2: If a picture does not look the way you like it it's not your fault but the wrong material or failure of the manufacturer.
only had better equipment I could tale better pictures"

#3: The joy of making pictures is less important than trying all possible variations of pre-soaking and stand development or becoming a certified high-resolution photographer and are officially allowed to play with the big boys that spent decades of their lifetime testing every possible combination to produce meaningless photos.

#4: Using the majority of your time with #1 and #2 is not a waste of time because in the long end you will have images with less grain and higher acutance. Somewhen...

#5: That photo of that guy looks great, much better than mine, at least as a photoshopped 72 dpi JPEG on a website. He must have a better film, developer, lens, tripod...

#6: The datasheet of the film manufacturer and his recommendations for chemistry is pointless and must be ignored at all costs.


Apart from that, buying large quantities of the same type of film is much cheaper in most cases

Click to expand...

How true, and one I would like to add to the list is," if I
only had better equipment I could tale better pictures"

benjiboy said:

How true, and one I would like to add to the list is," if I
only had better equipment I could tale better pictures"

Click to expand...

That was covered in #2.

Rick A said:

That was covered in #2.

Click to expand...

So it was Rick, my mistake

To me it means knowing what I can expect from a film:
1) in the case of black and white, when I print a negative;
2) in the case of colour print material, when I have a good lab print from a negative; and
3) in the case of colour transparency material, when I project the slide.

My expectations involve things like shadow detail, acutance, grain, highlight detail, contrast, colour saturation, colour fidelity, response to diffused light, response to contrasty light, etc.

If I was more into the hybrid world, I'm sure that expectations of scan-ability would also be on the list. Inevitably in the modern world, I'm sure that is one of the components in my expectations from colour negative materials.

Wile the foregoing list looks (and can be) fairly objective, the actual knowledge is very subjective as well. More often than not I'm really seeking something that yields results from a situation that look good in the print/on the projection screen. I then figure backward as to why that is.

I've always said that one of the very best ways to learn how to print is to obtain a really good print (or lots of them) and try to determine what makes it good. As an extension of that, I'd suggest looking through the prints you have either made or had made for you or the slides you have shot in the interest of looking for ones that are successful in terms of technical factors. Then attempt to determine for yourself what you did (and what you used) in order to get that result. If you can reproduce a similar result in a new shot, you will certainly have learned something useful - you will "know" your film and process in at least that circumstance.

ITD said:

I think this is partly what I'm trying to understand - what would I do to find out how a film will behave? Apart from (for instance) pushing it and adjusting contrast to suit, what am I looking for?

Sorry if I'm being thick but do you have any examples?

Click to expand...

First. select a film/developer combination. Everyone has their own preference but Tri-X/HC-110 would be a good combination. I would not recommend any of the Tmax or Delta films to start as they are a bit fussier to use. At first don't don't worry about such things as pushing fim. Then go out and take pictures. Keep a detailed notebook of what you do, time of day, lighting (is it bright sunlight or shade), position of the sun relative to the subject, exposure index, shutter speed, f-stop, developer, dilution, temperature, time. Always remember to meter carefully. This is when contact sheets are important. Look at your results, which images are good and which are bad. What did you do for the good images and what for the bad. You are going to learn by making mistakes. Soon you will learn what you need to do to take a good photograph.

For me getting to know a film means that after developing I have a negative that's not half clear or too dense. Yes, I've just started.

This film loyalty thing is a two-edged sword.

Every time I settle on a film I like and understand they go and discontinue it on me!

From now on I'm playing the field.

I use one film 90% of the time. I feel like I should be open to trying new film & developer choices, but I use my standard film choice when I'm not looking to gamble or experiment. You can experiment with a standardized film too, it's just fewer variables which is a good thing.

I would say you need to use 20 rolls or 100 sheets to really know how a film will behave. Ten rolls if you're really being analytical. I want to know how a film will work indoors, outdoors, rain/snow, cloudy, in the sun, after sunset. How shadows will end up, how highlights will end up in each of those cases. How freckles will show on faces, how it looks lit with flash, etc... You want to be able to pull or push it perhaps a stop or two without needing to do a test roll to learn first. You might even try some different developers.

I've mostly settled on TMY2 with PMK or PyrocatHD, with developer choice varying with scene contrast. I also play with Fomapan100, xtol, caffenol-c, d76. These aren't ideal choices for everyone, but it suits me well. Tmax is fussy for developing, but rewards with good range of lights and dark, and good material quality.

I want to be able to go shoot something and know I can make nice prints (or scans) with minimal fuss yet high quality and no dependence on luck.

To me it means getting to know the contrast, and how that contrast will interact with things out in the world. Then it is learning how to change that contrast. Then perhaps learning how the film responds to color and to filtration.

I like this thread... it shows that a lot of common sense can be found in apug.org

Standardization has another advantage that was not mentioned yet: less mistakes.

If you have to look up development times every time you process a film you have to be very careful every time. If you get used to one type of material you simply know the time. I have one small digital timer that is always set to the same time, and I don't think I can mess up my standard development time. On one measuring jug I put red marks for the amount of stock solution and how much I have to fill up with tab water, for three sizes of development tanks. So I cant' mess up developer dilution.

It's important to make things foolproof for oneself because everyone is a fool from time to time, and I can prove it with 20 pages from apug:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

cmo said:

Standardization has another advantage that was not mentioned yet: less mistakes.

Click to expand...

I can relate to that having developed too many rolls of HP5+ at Tri-X times...

I think there is a great deal of 'overthinking' going on here.."Over Egging the Pudding",as we say down here in the colonies.
If,for example, you chose to use a short-scale film -Pan-F for example, for high-range exposures in full sunlight on a sunny beach, you better be damn sure you have your compensating developer procedures sorted , or you will be very unhappy with your results.
The same film will probably give you outstanding results if shooting in the shade under the forest canopy. With any developer.
There is a reason many different films are available. Learn the difference -no one film is superb at everything.
To rewrite the 'Rule" : Try them all, and pick three. Pick two developers,ie a good 'all rounder' (Xtol /D76/ID-11) , a good old acutance standby like Rodinal, and test them all,in all possible variants.
Then, about 5 years from now, come back to the forum , and post your findings.
Don't forget to take some real photographs in the meantime.

You make a great point Smudger.

It's hard for me to find a film that I don't like.

Metered at box with an incident meter and processed per the instructions they all seem to work well too. I do view as important knowing what situations I like the results of each film in.

Where I see using one film and highly tested processes as an advantage is in repeatability. That's great for commerce or setting up an assembly line darkroom process or even teaching because the results are measurable.

I'm not so sure that absolute repeatability is an important artistic quality or that that ridgid, one film, style of working is the best. In fact I find it stifling artistically.