Good old D76 and HP5+

I just printed some HP5+/D76 negatives, and it just reinforced my beliefs that I really don't need any other film or developer. I have everything in the array from soft and smooth prints to really edgy and high contrast stuff. So happy.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Printing negs with orange base sucks. .

Click to expand...

XP2 however does not have an orange base, and is not at all sucky to print even if developed in other than C-41

I am not recommending , by the way, that one develops XP2 in black&white chemistry

pdeeh said:

XP2 however does not have an orange base, and is not at all sucky to print if developed in other than C-41

Click to expand...

That's maybe true. I thought of the Kodak C41 stuff..
XP2 is awesome film in C41, though.

pdeeh said:

XP2 however does not have an orange base, and is not at all sucky to print even if developed in other than C-41

I am not recommending , by the way, that one develops XP2 in black&white chemistry

Click to expand...

Oh really? hmmm interesting, makes sense I guess, cool to know.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

That's maybe true. I thought of the Kodak C41 stuff..
XP2 is awesome film in C41, though.

Click to expand...

I really like XP2 also, in C-41.

I do though have some 120 Kodak BW400CN I bought from a pro that switched to digital. Just shot a roll today, printed one frame so far on Adorama VC paper.

The toughest part of printing it was focusing, tough to see grain; had to find a sharp light/dark subject line to focus on. The second issue was really long print times because of the filters needed to cancel the base color and get to grade 3.

Black Dog said:

....I've always shot a lot of XP2 and love the combination of 1930s toneality with present day grain.

Click to expand...

The most accurate description ever! Harman should use it themselves.

http://darkroomuser.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/ilford-id-11-developer/

Good advice

"The good news is that almost every developer will work with nearly every film. The bad news is that it will take a lifetime in the darkroom to try every combination. Sooner or later one realizes that manufacturers know what they are talking about and writing down on those small pieces of paper that come free with their products. They know what works best… if your results do not come up to scratch, there must be something wrong with your technique rather than the manufacturer’s researches, descriptions and recommended instructions."

Eliminate the variables

"Because there are so many variables in photography it’s best to eliminate as many of them as possible. By constantly changing films and developers more variables are introduced. But finding the right combination and refining it through practice does at least enable you to produce predictable results."



ID11/D-76 same same.

Cool for black and white cats

miha said:

The most accurate description ever! Harman should use it themselves.

Click to expand...

Thanks-also a big HP5 + fan, especially for LF.

There are exceptions to the "manufacturers know what they are talking about and you can trust it" though. The best known of these is probably Kodak's nutty times for Tri-X and HC-110 dil B.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Richard Jepsen said:

"The good news is that almost every developer will work with nearly every film. The bad news is that it will take a lifetime in the darkroom to try every combination. Sooner or later one realizes that manufacturers know what they are talking about and writing down on those small pieces of paper that come free with their products. They know what works best… if your results do not come up to scratch, there must be something wrong with your technique rather than the manufacturer’s researches, descriptions and recommended instructions."

Click to expand...

This is a good place to start. But I have to tell you that a lot of the prints I make today I wouldn't be able to make unless I deviated from the manufacturers' instructions. To blindly just do 'as they tell you' is, to me, ignoring all of the potential outside of the norms.

No great thinking was ever created by those who stuck to rules that others before them made up.

You sometimes have to think outside the box as though there wasn't even a box. How did I learn that I like my prints much better when I print from negatives that are both over-exposed and over-developed? Not by reading the Kodak or Ilford data sheets, for sure, but by testing and experimenting.

The manufacturers know what works best - to obtain results that are within the frame work they test it. Film and film developers are tested to ISO and ANSI standards, with perfect gray scale from black to white, in certain standardized lighting conditions, using methods of measurement as accepted by the standards. That may work really well for some, but for curious minds such as my own it is BORING! By working with under-exposure, for example, I have been able to duplicate the tonality of Tri-X 320 using TMax 400. Can you find that in a Kodak publication somewhere? No, that is one example of just how malleable film and film developing is, the broad range of results that can be had by stepping outside what the manufacturer recommends.

Richard Jepsen said:

"Because there are so many variables in photography it’s best to eliminate as many of them as possible. By constantly changing films and developers more variables are introduced. But finding the right combination and refining it through practice does at least enable you to produce predictable results.

Click to expand...

Now this I agree with. But you have to understand which variable to eliminate. There are some variables that you want to be able to control, and those should most definitely not be eliminated. Constantly changing films, film developer, paper, or paper developer - those are variables that you will want to eliminate if you really want to learn the system of silver halide photography. But creative variables such as how to expose the film, and how to subsequently process it are not variables you will want to remove, you want to be able to control them. When you can learn this, your darkroom printing will be THAT much less frustrating, and you will also find that the level of darkroom waste goes down significantly.

Largely I agree it's best to make things as uncomplicated as possible. But other things you really want to dig deeeep into and learn from the ground up, or you will simply not enjoy the same potential from your materials as someone who is able to manipulate their materials masterfully.

I think the manufacturers really do know their products and how they reacted to developers in their tests. I don't think we know what they are talking about half the time. If you take the time to calibrate your process you may end up with a developer at the dilution, temp and time the film manufacturer specified for your development technique. Great! If you don't, so what? The bottom line is to find want works for you, using your paper in your darkroom.

I agree with Thomas - very well said.

Another prime example - ISO speeds. They work well enough for "normal" results with "normal" metering and lighting, but most B&W photographers who use the Zone System, for example, end up with a personally calibrated EI lower than the ISO. In fact Bruce Barnbaum has said that if you really don't want to test you can simply shoot most B&W films at half the ISO speed (one stop over) and be close enough, especially in larger formats where minimizing grain isn't a big concern. While this may infuriate purists I've found it to be pretty much true.

For the most part (Kodak's insane times for Tri-X in HC-110 aside) the manufacturers do know what they are doing but they can't know what YOU are doing or want to do.

They are absolutely the place to start though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Michael R 1974 said:

Except the reason ZS testers find an EI lower than ISO is essentially because they expose too low for the "0.1" speed point, using an older safety factor. By ISO standards if you did a Zone Zystem type EI test you should be looking for the speed point 3 1/3 stops below metered, not 4 stops.

Just to be clear I'm not disagreeing with Thomas or anyone. I think we're all saying essentially the same thing Kodak and Ilford say, which is that the manufacturer recommendations are to be taken as starting points. But I think it is also relevant to point out things like ISO speeds are not simply useless lab measurements either. They are intended to be useful, and are based on research that started with the subjective evaluation of prints. The quality of the end product, after all, is the point.

Perhaps Kodak says it best in its publication on tips and techniques for darkroom enthusiasts: "Have fun".

Click to expand...

Oh it's fun, Michael. It's a lot of fun. Especially when you photograph in difficult conditions and then you are able to make something interesting with it. When I feel like I'm in control of the work flow it's the very best, but I also enjoy when I'm not in control because that's when I learn the most.

I honestly don't know what's behind all of the ISO tests, but I figured out a long time ago that my camera shutter, metering technique, developing technique, etc would never be quite the same as when they did those tests, so I had to come up with what works for me. That is something I encourage everybody and anybody to do. Start with the manufacturers' recommendations, and if those work well for you - great! That was not the case for me, so I ran some quick film speed tests, and now I'm working on perfecting low and high contrast scenarios with HP5+ and D76 1+1. My normal exposure index for HP5+ is 200, and I process in D76 1+1 for 13 minutes. That gives me a good print at Grade 2 to 2.5 in normal contrast lighting. I've had to revise this. High contrast seems to work at EI 200 as well, but dial back development to about 11 minutes, and in low contrast I shoot at box speed and develop for 15 minutes, but that one is yet to be confirmed by subsequent rolls.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Oh it's fun, Michael. It's a lot of fun. Especially when you photograph in difficult conditions and then you are able to make something interesting with it. When I feel like I'm in control of the work flow it's the very best, but I also enjoy when I'm not in control because that's when I learn the most.

I honestly don't know what's behind all of the ISO tests, but I figured out a long time ago that my camera shutter, metering technique, developing technique, etc would never be quite the same as when they did those tests, so I had to come up with what works for me. That is something I encourage everybody and anybody to do. Start with the manufacturers' recommendations, and if those work well for you - great! That was not the case for me, so I ran some quick film speed tests, and now I'm working on perfecting low and high contrast scenarios with HP5+ and D76 1+1. My normal exposure index for HP5+ is 200, and I process in D76 1+1 for 13 minutes. That gives me a good print at Grade 2 to 2.5 in normal contrast lighting. I've had to revise this. High contrast seems to work at EI 200 as well, but dial back development to about 11 minutes, and in low contrast I shoot at box speed and develop for 15 minutes, but that one is yet to be confirmed by subsequent rolls.

Click to expand...

It is fun how we each find our own ways.

For me the solution to the EI question was simply using box speed, incident metering, and normal development. This has worked so well for me over so many films that I actually find little incentive to settle down onto one film.

I do understand the advantage of settling down though, one of the big frustrations I have with B&W films is the array of possible variations in developing. I think this frustration is partly a holdover from me using and liking C-41.

Yes, Kodak should have corrected it

Roger Cole said:

I agree with Thomas - very well said.

Another prime example - ISO speeds. They work well enough for "normal" results with "normal" metering and lighting, but most B&W photographers who use the Zone System, for example, end up with a personally calibrated EI lower than the ISO. In fact Bruce Barnbaum has said that if you really don't want to test you can simply shoot most B&W films at half the ISO speed (one stop over) and be close enough, especially in larger formats where minimizing grain isn't a big concern. While this may infuriate purists I've found it to be pretty much true.

For the most part (Kodak's insane times for Tri-X in HC-110 aside) the manufacturers do know what they are doing but they can't know what YOU are doing or want to do.

They are absolutely the place to start though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes, Kodak's infamously wacky bad development times should have been corrected in the official PDF, with the original PDF removed from their site. I don't know why that was never done. They're usually so good about their data sheets.

The suggestions from the manufacture are the place to start. Each person has variables to work through. Also the film's manufacturer inform what developers work best to achieve best quality or finest grain. The two films I shoot always look better with a lower EI of about 2/3 or 1 stop.

D-76 seems to work well with most films.

Richard Jepsen said:

The suggestions from the manufacture are the place to start. Each person has variables to work through. Also the film manufacture inform what developers work best to achieve best quality or finest grain. The two films I shoot always look better with a lower EI of about 2/3 or 1 stop.

D-76 seems to work well with most films.

Click to expand...

How are you metering and are you doing following ZS protocols?

markbarendt said:

How are you metering and are you doing following ZS protocols?

Click to expand...

Not sure where the question is leading to. I use an incident meter with a Rollei TLR and normally, but not always, the Leica or RF-645 in-camera meter. Camera meter set for EI 80 for FP-4 and EI 200 for Tri-X in sunny light conditions. Primary developer XTOL 1:1.

Each photographer has variables in development, cameras and light conditions. I pay attention to shadow values but don't +1 or -1 develop per zone system. In flat light shoot closer to box speed and increase development. I increase development slightly when using a 1956 Summicron used only with FP-4. I shoot 120 Tri-X when summer light gets too bright in Oklahoma. I adjust development slightly when using Galerie G3. So many variables even when materials are kept to a minimum.

Richard Jepsen said:

Not sure where the question is leading to.

Click to expand...

Just trying to help people see the whole picture, so to speak.

Greetings!

I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes - Reading through this excellent thread I can see - and agree with much said here. I'm rather new to posting here, but have been lurking in the shadows for some time. Prior to an auto accident in the 90's that fairly ended my career as a commercial photographer - and photo lab manager ( I could no longer do the "pack mule" part of the job that so few mention. ) I have done enough of it ( as in, I was sick of it already! ) and feel I may be able to offer a useful viewpoint.

I agree that much can be done with one film and one developer. And the development times, dilutions and development techniques - and don't forget paper choices and developers. All can add up to a wide variety of possible effects in the final print.

However, I feel one can gain more by knowing the differences that various changes in film or developer types can make. As an example, to compare similar developers consider D-76 and HC-110. Although they are very similar in many regards, HC-110 has (had? it seems to be different today than years ago) somewhat straighter slope and less shoulder than D-76 with some emulsions and in my experience they are somewhat different in final result from each other. You would be hard pressed to duplicate the effect of one with the other in certain circumstances. And that is with two very similar developers. Add xtol, pyro, or microdol to the mix, and you have an entirely new range to work with. Same with a different emulsion like fp4+, pan f, acros, XP2, Tri-x, etc.

I have run both HC-110 and D76 in 3 1/2 gallon tanks when running photo labs many years ago, Of course we replenished and ran control strips. ( We also ran C41, E6, EP2. ) The differences are measurable on a densitometer, and visible in the prints. If you make your own tests using a Kodak or Stouffer step tablet, you can easily see the differences by printing the resulting negatives. If you expose the final print for Dmax and similar low values on these tests, you will see how they each handle the mid-tones and highlights differently.

One is not "better" than the other, they just differ a bit. For most well exposed negatives, both will produce excellent and similar - but slightly different resulting prints. Its knowing what the differences are, and knowing when to pick one over the other with a specific emulsion. If you have not properly exposed several sheets or rolls of film of the exact same scene and developed in a controlled manner in each of the developer choices - you just get what you get.... and since there is nothing to compare it against you don't know that when you print you may have to work much harder with negative A than negative B, to get a print that goes from "good" to "great". At times, the a choice just results in "blah" - technically perfectly exposed composed and printed -- and yet somehow lifeless. Changing emulsions or developers could sometimes make it sing for you. But you don't know what you don't know. For me, due to the long gap in time since I was in the darkroom every day, the materials have changed enough over the years that the only thing valid I can bring forward from the past is technique, consistency, and the knowledge of how to test and make use of the information in a meaningful way. So I get to "start over" with fresh testing and have to work out the details as well.
Alas, all of the papers have also changed - so there is a lot of work to do to get back up to speed.

I have also seen what happens when people jump from one emulsion developer combo to another without establishing any standards, procedures, or good darkroom habits. Their light meters, thermometers, shutters, and developing technique -- all of it all over the place and no testing or calibration of any kind. That's always a crap shoot for getting good results, as only their vision and broad range of latitude of the materials - along with a dose of good fortune allows them to produce the occasional good image. But that is a problem that can be addressed with one word. "consistency".

As a mechanic you don't use the same wrench ( or a pair of vise grips ) on every nut, or as a painter the same brush -- so why use only one emulsion or developer when the different tool can be a better fit for the task at hand?

It's easy to see when a wrench fits correctly - or doesn't. Not so much so with film - developer combinations. Unless you have a consistent technique and have done testing - and get a good handle on how each renders somewhat differently, what you visualize may have a harder time making it to final print than if you could make your selection of emulsion - developer combo - then have to get it onto our selection of paper and make it all "fit". Controlled choices and happy accidents can both produce wonderful results. The former is quite a bit more repeatable however.

There is much is to be said for picking an emulsion and developer, and learning how it behaves. Then, pick another and build on your knowledge. With some time, testing, and practice, you will find a variety of tools at your disposal to handle the different situations, and be better able to think in terms of - oh man, that scene cries out for 4X5 fp4+ and D76. Of course in my experience, that usually mean that the only camera I have with me is the Super Ikonta loaded with HP5+.

I agree that being proficient with one combo is far better than being haphazard with many. But I believe that have good understanding of several beats knowing well only one.

Cheers,

Blaine

I find myself, most of the time, being a "Jack of all trades and master of none", which makes a lot of what I do "Not worth a tinkers dam"! I'm getting better, but still have a long way to go. JW:confused:

Blaine,

Excellent post. I want respect between photographers and different approaches, which is why I think it's important to emphasize that we are all different personalities and our minds work in different ways. That's fundamental to everything.

Your viewpoint above is very well received. What I do wonder, however, how long did it take you to amass all that knowledge? And why? Even though you can see differences between two emulsions and two developers, does it make the actual photographs any better? It's a mine field, because all of this is subjective.
I argue that just because you were able to achieve a straighter tone curve with HC-110 than D76 your actual photograph will not be any better.

What I allude to in the one film / one developer approach is that it is often touted as being a 'beginner approach'. That always irks me, because that's not necessarily so. It can very well be applied to highly seasoned photographers. I am not going to drop names in fear of dragging them into this discussion unwillingly, but I do know quite a few photographers that are recognized names who use only one film and one developer, and won't change unless something in the market place forces them to. That bears consideration, in my opinion.

There is also the viewpoint that just because you can use another film and developer doesn't mean you should. The differences can be substantial. For example Ilford Delta 3200 and Pan-F+ are not exactly going to look the same, either tonality wise, color reproduction wise, or grain/resolution wise.
The important thing is to consider what you want to achieve. That could be across an entire career, or it could be project by project, and for all sorts of reasons. Some people don't care about the film and developer and just want something that works. Others will find differences that one emulsion gives over another essential. Some people don't care too much about the pictures and just want to see what the film is all about. It's all good in my book. But I'm in the first camp. I shoot portraits with 35mm HP5+. When I walk around with a camera and just shoot casually, I shoot 35mm HP5+. When I go on a trip to photograph landscape I shoot 120 HP5+. And when I against all instinct shoot sheet film I use 5x7 HP5+. Why? Because it's simple. And I know exactly how I must develop the film in order to get what I want.
I used to do the same with Tri-X 400 and TMax 400, which I used for a few years each. I would have continued with Tri-X if it wasn't for having more confidence in Ilford's future.

And finally, if I develop film in D76 I can use it stock, 1+1, or even 1+3 for different results. By changing developing time and agitation I can also change contrast almost indefinitely, but I can also change the shape of the tone curve quite successfully without much problem.
I guess my point here is that I feel I get more than enough print quality from HP5+ within the variety of ways I use it. I usually overexpose and overdevelop, because that's how I like my negatives. I change what I do based on lighting conditions, and what I want in the print. I'm just not interested in the differences the use of a different film or developer would give me, because it doesn't help my photography as a whole in any meaningful way.

To others that will not be true.

Don't take my post as an argument against what you say. Just a different view from where I stand, and an explanation to why I take that stance. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your very well argued viewpoint, and agree with a lot of what you say, particularly regarding not creating any personal standards before switching materials. Thanks for participating!

- Thomas

I am all for consistency but I also remember an Interview with Michael Kenna where he said he uses any film he can get at the location he works.
Yet his images look very similar. Developing a distinctive style is more important than all the chemical film combo tryouts in the world.

I use three different developers one of them is a pyro developer (LF) the reason for that is that I need dual purpose negatives classic silver and alt. processes. The two others are Rodinal and D-23. In regards to film I use pretty much everything I can get my hands on but mostly T-Max 100 and Hp5 with some Fomapan 100 thrown into the mix. Why do I not us a single film very simple the best film for the classic 1930's glamour look and up to a point general 1930's era look is T-Max 100 no other film has the curve and malleability of that film unfortunately it's an Iso 100 film. For more speed I use HP5 which has a very different look but is also a bit flatter than say tri-x this makes the film a bit more malleable than Tri-X. Now the reason for using Fomapan 100 is very simple it's called Summar, I love that lens but it does require a film with a bit more bite than say T-max 100 with bite I mean grain that seems to enhance acutance.

Overall I totally agree with Thomas get to know your film and dev combo and keep it simple. Even though I use different films I know what I will get the moment I frame the scene simple because I know my film and dev combo even if I introduce the variable of different film and developers and why do I know it because I shot thousands of pictures with each of the combos I use. If I were to start out again I would use one film probably HP5 with one developer D-23 and one paper Efke Varycon Matt developed in the same developer Agfa/Ansco 135. Actually that's what I did when I started BW photography except for the film which was Neopan 400. Not to forget one camera a Rolleiflex Automat.

A new title for this thread could be KISS

Howdy JW, Thomas!

How long did it take? Several years to get a good grasp. But 5 years from now, we will all be 5 years older anyway. May as well have learned something new, eh?

Why? I did it for a living. Technical excellence is required when running a photo lab - and also as a photographer. (well it should be, I processed enough -- other stuff -- to know that's not always the case. )

Does it make a difference? Absolutely, positively maybe! Is one better than the other. YES! sometimes. When it is it is and when it's not it's not. really.

Subjective?? Many times I would give a big no on that one. Highlight AND shadow details either there or they are not. Able to reproduce within the limitations of the end product - it's a go or a fail most of the time. Very narrow margins of error for really good reproduction. Depending on what your trying to achieve, what is difficult with combination film developer A is a piece of cake with combo B.

With final products being ART however, its up to you - are you happy with it? Then its perfect. And also subjective to each viewers discretion. But the artist makes the call in the final product.

Does the developer choice make a difference? One may render the highlights as needed or envisioned, and one may not - when the mids and shadows are where you want them.

If you learn to "see" like hp5+ and D76 with such and such a paper - then everything is already couched in those terms before you make the image. So one combo will care of you if your inner vision is already tuned to those results

If however you see the image as you would like it, and then have to figure out how to get from what you visualize to what you want on the paper, you may find yourself thinking of the paper first, and then working backwards to the film, developer combo - and then to the final shutter speed and aperture and camera movements to get it from your brain to paper.

Both methods are valid, but one has more variables and can produce a wider range of effects. The only limiting factor is not so much the availability of materials, but the knowledge of applying them to be able to create a desired effect. I had to be able to take an art directors ideas, and turn them into what they wanted. They were not coming to me for "my style" They already had the ideas. They brought them to me, showed me examples of work they liked, and I had to duplicate or pull off the request to match THEIR vision. Which can be quite a challenge some times. To have only one set of materials would have resulted in a failure to deliver much of the time.

An example would a scene with fog or mist may feel wet, fluid, moist, or it may just be a dead resolution cutting flat grey. The highlights can be subtle and feel real, or devoid if texture. If you wanted one of those traits and got the other, then maybe it could have been done better by using a different developer or film type. The developer can make that much of a difference, on some subjects. But that does not mean you cannot get that effect with X vs. Y. it just means that when You print for the highlights, the shadows and mids may not be where you really wish them. And you may have to resort to dodging, burning, masking, etc. to get that print to "feel" a certain way when processed with developer A, that may have been a straight easy print with developer B. I spent a lot of time "fixing" peoples prints that would have been easier to have simply shot and processed differently. ( not to mention cheaper! ) HP5+ and D76 wont give the same results as pan f and D76, or fp4 and <insert name of developer here>.

Sure certain artists / photographers only shoot one film / developer. It's OK. They may use if for their "trademark look" or whatever. But nothing wrong with learning several tools either. Some images just don't fit into a "trademark look mold", imo.

-- Imagine Classic Radio Announcer voice, subbing for a DJ on a classic rock station. "That was Motley Crue and his Orchestra performing "Shout at the Devil" opus 14 in G minor... " -- Or-- maybe it's better to just forget that image..


One film and developer is certainly not a "beginner approach". In my experience, beginners tend to hack around at everything for while, and master little or nothing, getting a taste of everything, and trying to emulate the work they admire. They tend to purchase the same equipment as the artists they wish to emulate, hoping to find that magic lens or camera, or film -- ( Hey, If I have the same kind of Pen or typewriter used by Hemmingway, I will then be able to write like Hemmingway! ) ... then they get tired, ask for advice or read great advice on places like APUG - and learn good shooting and darkroom practices, and rapidly improve.

JW - the idea that much of what you do is "not worth a tinkers dam" is likey far from reality. Not ONE of us came from our momma's womb knowing squat about any of this. There is a learning curve for every endeavor, and everyone has to go through it. Where anyone is on the curve, has no bearing on its value - or the value of photography for them. Are you having fun? Lovin it? Then it serves you well. And is not in any way invalid.

I remember well when I first started out. I had more fun during those years than the more disciplined years after I was doing this for a living. Matter of fact, I got burnt out as hell doin this for a living. So just enjoy it and have a ball. Take photos - make prints. It will come. It will come faster and easier if you get consistent.

Thomas, It sounds like you are set - you know what you want and how to achieve it, which is a great accomplishment in and of itself. Many would benefit to do it just as simply and consistently as you.

But as long as you use one film and developer - your limitations are are set by the manufacturer and based on the emulsion and developer - that much beyond the imposed design specifications - do not function as well as some other combination may be designed to work perfectly at.

So if one wants to use one developer - D76 and Tri-X for example, that's a superb choice. I am just saying that having a bit more in your tool chest that you know how to use opens even more possibilities, it does not take away anything from the artist that he or she already possess.

Having a tool chest chock full of every film and developer ever made, and not knowing ANY of them well -- is not going be be better than knowing one well.

Poorly chosen or used, they are all equally capable of delivering poor results. ( I had a "silver recovery pile" that proved that point. ) Well used, most can do what is required, in most circumstances, but there will be places that they will come up short. Pan F is not a good sub for Tri-X and visa versa.

As an extreme example, don't use tri-x as a lith film, and anyone who ever used tech pan as a continuous tone film knows what a PITA that was to get a low enough contrast that worked as expected. Superb when done correctly - but it took the correct developer and a bit of work to do right. D76 just was not going to cut it. Does that make D76 a bad developer? No. Its great. One of my favorites. Consistent, long lasting, good grain - a real gem for sure. If I had to settle on only one, it would be a top contender for sure.

Film speeds? Meh. Its just a number. It matters not one bit. What matters is the amount of light reaching the emulsion, creating a latent image that the developer converts into an image that has the correct contrast, density and curve to print in the selected paper in the desired fashion. What numbers one uses are just a reference for THEM. It may or may not match what others use. If someone uses my numbers, they may get great results, or be under or over exposed for their developer, agitation, water, temp, ( and what their thermometer tells them so they THINK they are at such an such a temp ) etc. Just use what WORKS, the rest if fluff. Substance and results over flash.

As I said, superb thread. I like the simplicity of using one film dev for certain things. But know that there are times that an image just really demands something different, to be able to get it on paper in the manner I see it.

Warmest regards,

Blaine

blaine.minazzi said:

As I said, superb thread. I like the simplicity of using one film dev for certain things. But know that there are times that an image just really demands something different, to be able to get it on paper in the manner I see it.

Warmest regards,

Blaine

Click to expand...

Blaine,

Nice post again. Took me a long time to read, so I can only imagine how long it took to write.

With subjectivity I mean that the results that one can obtain is something you either like or you don't. I'm easy when it comes to film, and really would be just as happy shooting TMax 400 as I am shooting HP5+. Where I want to focus is lighting, composition, timing, patience (big one), and focusing on finishing portfolios.
If I had to spend the time to learn another film I'd be seriously detracting from what is, to me, infinitely more important - substance in the photographs.

Can I see differences between HP5+ and FP4+? Sure! Does it matter to me? Nope. Not a bit. My photographs are not lacking in technical ability. But my ability to get to the bottom of subject matter, to really get to the soul of things, is what is needing the real work.

But you and I work in different worlds. You are a professional doing this for a living. I have a day job that is nothing like photography, and then I am passionate about photography whenever I can fit it in. The only person I have to satisfy is myself, and to have fun. My idea of fun is not to figure out another film or developer, but it is all about being in the dark, making prints.
I print everything on the same paper too, by the way, using only one print developer. The negatives are tuned to that paper.
I have done the multiple film thing, multiple developer, multiple paper, and multiple paper developer thing in the past, for about eight years. It was exciting at the time, but in retrospect it had no positive effect at all, since it resulted in a lot of unfinished portfolios, half made project, awful consistency, and a focus that was much too heavily geared towards the materials I used, rather than the actual photographs. That was a huge epiphany for me, and a few years into the simple approach I am generating much better output, and may just have my first portfolio finished in a couple of months. That excites me.

I guess that the moral of everything discussed here is to find something that works, whatever that is, but leave no stone unturned in actually learning something fully before branching out with materials too much. And that it also largely depends on what we want out of it. The minute differences that are so important for you is something I don't even want to learn, because it would be way too distracting.

Anyway, it's fascinating to see how everybody works. Thanks again for chiming in with your vast experience.

- Thomas