Good old D76 and HP5+

[markbarendt]

It always amazes me how people keep making the argument that if so and so used a particular film and developer so successfully, why look
elsewhere. I gave up on 76 for HP5 a long time ago. Call me lazy, but I don't like doing things the hard way, and for some strange reason,
just don't like throwing out more test prints than I need to, or having to constantly attach a sheet film mask to bring the shadows and highlights
within reasonable reach. I know how to do all these things. You betcha. But once I started using pyro developers, it all became sooooo much
easier.

And I gave up on pyro developers because I very much dislike the print quality I could muster. To me the developers didn't offer anything that improved my photographs. They did not speak louder to the observer, were more difficult to print, and the tonality was something I was not happy with.

It's far easier for me to obtain a good print with D76 or Xtol than PMK or Pyrocat. Go figure, you betcha.

Wow, you two actually agree: you both make great cases for looking around at different developers, then once you find what you like, settling down on it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Wow, you two actually agree: you both make great cases for looking around at different developers, then once you find what you like, settling down on it.

Exactly. Find something that works. And make good art.

 

[Roger Cole]

Exactly. Find something that works. And make good art.

And seems to me you both manage to do just that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So I purchased two rolls of Delta 3200 in 120 format to try with D76. I have not exposed any film yet, but am going to process it in D76 stock. I'll start by shooting it at 1600, sacrifice one roll to testing, and then do a proper roll at 1600.
If I like the results I may try to shoot another couple of rolls at 3200, but I like the film at 1600 so much and it's more than enough speed.

 

[cliveh]

So I purchased two rolls of Delta 3200 in 120 format to try with D76. I have not exposed any film yet, but am going to process it in D76 stock. I'll start by shooting it at 1600, sacrifice one roll to testing, and then do a proper roll at 1600.
If I like the results I may try to shoot another couple of rolls at 3200, but I like the film at 1600 so much and it's more than enough speed.

Thomas, in your original thread you mention standardising the use of D76 at 1:1. Is there a reason you now wish to use stock?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, in your original thread you mention standardising the use of D76 at 1:1. Is there a reason you now wish to use stock?

Delta 3200 is something I'm trying out just to benefit those who doubt D76 can be used successfully with it.

I chose D76 stock because I know from experience D3200 needs to be kicked down the road and developed much longer than other films to give its best. 1+1 would just take longer, and since it's a short term test, that's what I'm going to do.

My standard film is HP5+, and that is processed 1+1 as usual.

 

[RattyMouse]

So I purchased two rolls of Delta 3200 in 120 format to try with D76. I have not exposed any film yet, but am going to process it in D76 stock. I'll start by shooting it at 1600, sacrifice one roll to testing, and then do a proper roll at 1600.
If I like the results I may try to shoot another couple of rolls at 3200, but I like the film at 1600 so much and it's more than enough speed.

Looking forward to your results!

 

[Pioneer]

If Tom comes up with good, printable results I could end up with one developer for everything. This is great stuff!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It reminded me of some older shots from 2008 that I used with Delta 3200 and HC-110. These are scans of prints.

The woman looking at her engagement ring is on Fotokemika Emaks Grade 2 in Weston's Amidol, toned in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner. Printed down to make her top look a little darker than it was, trying to bring focus to her face and hands.
The figure study is a year old print on very expired Kodak Polycontrast in Ethol LPD, toned in Moersch Carbon. It probably doesn't show the negative qualities very well, but at the same time - who gives a rip?!

I think both gave interesting results, and might hold your interest for a little while, while I work on the D76 negatives. The HC-110 and D76 negatives I've processed so far have not shown any significant differences, but I haven't gotten around to comparing in D76.

 

[jerrybro]

We spend too much time and energy on the materials and hardware and not enough on making good photographs. I know why I do it, I'm a geek and a control freak. I need understand the variables and be able to manipulate them to get reliable results. It took me a few years to get to the point that I could get the image I saw onto paper easily. Once I reached that point, I stopped taking pictures, for almost a decade. I'm just now getting my mojo back and I'm sticking to one developer and 2 films in 3 formats. I now know that if my photos suck, it's not the camera, film, chemicals, paper or enlarger. It's me.

 

[jerrybro]

And BTW Thomas, I find the pictures you post an inspiration.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thomas, forgive me if I'm missing part of this because I haven't read the whole thread, or rather I may have read it in the ass but I don't recall, but how come if HP5+ is your standard film, that you just don't shoot that at 1600? Believe it or not it pushes beautifully of two 3200 with no issues at all in DD-X so I would think it would easily be pushed to 1600 in D-76 with no issues.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, forgive me if I'm missing part of this because I haven't read the whole thread, or rather I may have read it in the ass but I don't recall, but how come if HP5+ is your standard film, that you just don't shoot that at 1600? Believe it or not it pushes beautifully of two 3200 with no issues at all in DD-X so I would think it would easily be pushed to 1600 in D-76 with no issues.

Stone,

I don't like pushing film, that's all. It's a compromise at best, and I like having a full range negative to work with. Once you get to printing in a darkroom you will understand, I think.

When I print I can easily get more contrast than I need with a normal negative, and then that also gives me the opportunity to print with normal contrast. You can add contrast at the time of printing, and thus increase highlight intensity and decrease shadow detail = more contrast.
But you can't take a pushed negative with shadow details that the photo paper can't see and magically add it back. That's the problem with pushing in general; it's a compromise.

HP5+ gives me good prints exposed normally at about EI 500 and processed in D76 1+1 for 12 minutes, agitating 5s every 30s. In higher contrast I shoot at EI 250 and develop for 9 minutes, and in low contrast I shoot it at EI 800 and process for 14 minutes. That gives me a fairly normal negative for each scenario. No need to push. I certainly don't need the extra speed.

I hope that helps explaining my choices.

Delta 3200 is just an experiment in trying to prove that you don't need DD-X or some other developer like TMax or Xtol to get good results. It is, in my opinion, a trap to get stuck thinking a developer is going to add something magical to the work flow, when changes in technique gives a thousand times more variability than the choice of developer.

Thanks for the comment.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

I don't like pushing film, that's all. It's a compromise at best, and I like having a full range negative to work with. Once you get to printing in a darkroom you will understand, I think.

When I print I can easily get more contrast than I need with a normal negative, and then that also gives me the opportunity to print with normal contrast. You can add contrast at the time of printing, and thus increase highlight intensity and decrease shadow detail = more contrast.
But you can't take a pushed negative with shadow details that the photo paper can't see and magically add it back. That's the problem with pushing in general; it's a compromise.

HP5+ gives me good prints exposed normally at about EI 500 and processed in D76 1+1 for 12 minutes, agitating 5s every 30s. In higher contrast I shoot at EI 250 and develop for 9 minutes, and in low contrast I shoot it at EI 800 and process for 14 minutes. That gives me a fairly normal negative for each scenario. No need to push. I certainly don't need the extra speed.

I hope that helps explaining my choices.

Delta 3200 is just an experiment in trying to prove that you don't need DD-X or some other developer like TMax or Xtol to get good results. It is, in my opinion, a trap to get stuck thinking a developer is going to add something magical to the work flow, when changes in technique gives a thousand times more variability than the choice of developer.

Thanks for the comment.

Understood, I wonder, I would love to send you one of my scanned negatives and see if you can tell me if it's hard to produce the same result with optical printing, one I like a lot that was HP5+ @3200 is this image.



It's not fancy or sellable, but when taking it, it came out EXACTLY as I had envisioned.

This was of course a VERY high contrast scene, so, I'm sure that's not YOUR style, just wonder how horrible this kind of neg would be to print and how it might come out vs my scan.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Understood, I wonder, I would love to send you one of my scanned negatives and see if you can tell me if it's hard to produce the same result with optical printing, one I like a lot that was HP5+ @3200 is this image.

View attachment 83645

It's not fancy or sellable, but when taking it, it came out EXACTLY as I had envisioned.

This was of course a VERY high contrast scene, so, I'm sure that's not YOUR style, just wonder how horrible this kind of neg would be to print and how it might come out vs my scan.

I think exposure is something we determine to gauge how much shadow detail we want in our prints. I often leave shadows completely empty at the time of printing, just because I think it looks better. It appears you chose to expose this scene in a way that suits your vision, and that's cool. You have about the upper two thirds of the tonal scale in your picture, and if you don't care about shadows, then the exposure was perfect for you! Nobody can tell you that that's wrong.

I don't think your picture is excessive in contrast at all. It's quite normal for the type of photograph it is.

Go ahead and send the neg over, I'll happily try to print it and do something interesting with it. PM me with your address information and I'll let you know where to send it. It might take me a while to get it done since I have a pretty heavy backlog of about 300 negatives of my own that I want to print.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here's a quick and dirty neg scan from the first roll of Delta 3200 in 120, processed in D76 stock for 11 minutes at 68*F, agitating 5s every 30s. Judging by the negatives I need to give more developing time, so I'll add 15% next roll. Exposed at 1600.

 

[StoneNYC]

Here's a quick and dirty neg scan from the first roll of Delta 3200 in 120, processed in D76 stock for 11 minutes at 68*F, agitating 5s every 30s. Judging by the negatives I need to give more developing time, so I'll add 15% next roll. Exposed at 1600.

Looks great!! The grain is very low, nice job!

 

[Bill Burk]

Nice Thomas,

You show a photograph from a 3200 speed film shot at 1600 and there is no question the exposure is sufficient to give you full range detail.

The scenarios you describe in post No. 94 ago make a lot of sense to me.

Stone,

You've probably seen film family of curves. There is no escaping those lines. Any spot in your original scene will fall upon the characteristic curve line (the line associated to the development time you gave that roll). Even if you don't test for the curve, it's there. The curve hits 0.10 density at the speed point. Where the toe hits 0.10 moves left (faster) with more development and right (slower) with less development. While you could easily underdevelop a 400 speed film so badly that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 100 or less... You cannot develop it so long that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 3200. The real speed from pushing is more like 640

You get away with a 3200 meter setting because of how you meter.

If you were to push your film and take my word for it, set your meter to 640. Spotmeter to establish shadows. You might spot the closet door slats in the shadow to the left of the lamp, or the right side of the vase. Somewhere you want to see a little detail. "Place" that reading as a shadow.

Now compare that exposure calculation with what you shot your original scene at... If my guess is right, you got the same f/stop and shutter speed combination using 640 and metering appropriately - versus setting the averaging meter to 3200 and shooting away.

(All this depends on your metering technique - are you using averaging in-camera meters?)

 

[Roger Cole]

Well that's true of course for a strict definition of speed. But getting by with pushing film is more than an effect of how you meter. You can't move the density of the toe up much (you can a bit, as Bill, says, but just a bit) by pushing, but the densities of higher zones - areas above the toe - do increase, and the higher the density without the push (brighter the area) the more increased development moves them up. This is another way of saying that contrast increases, but it also increases density of midtones, and highlights even more. You get away with pushing because in many scenarios calling for it, it's perfectly ok if the shadows go dark or even empty black. The important subject matter usually resides (in zone system terms) in zones IV-VII or so anyway and you can effectively make film record what would have fallen on zone III (but not down on the toe) without the push as a zone IV or maybe even V density.

IOW pushing improves "speed" in midtones and highlights, and you just sacrifice the shadows, or mostly so.

 

[StoneNYC]

Nice Thomas,

You show a photograph from a 3200 speed film shot at 1600 and there is no question the exposure is sufficient to give you full range detail.

The scenarios you describe in post No. 94 ago make a lot of sense to me.

Stone,

You've probably seen film family of curves. There is no escaping those lines. Any spot in your original scene will fall upon the characteristic curve line (the line associated to the development time you gave that roll). Even if you don't test for the curve, it's there. The curve hits 0.10 density at the speed point. Where the toe hits 0.10 moves left (faster) with more development and right (slower) with less development. While you could easily underdevelop a 400 speed film so badly that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 100 or less... You cannot develop it so long that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 3200. The real speed from pushing is more like 640

You get away with a 3200 meter setting because of how you meter.

If you were to push your film and take my word for it, set your meter to 640. Spotmeter to establish shadows. You might spot the closet door slats in the shadow to the left of the lamp, or the right side of the vase. Somewhere you want to see a little detail. "Place" that reading as a shadow.

Now compare that exposure calculation with what you shot your original scene at... If my guess is right, you got the same f/stop and shutter speed combination using 640 and metering appropriately - versus setting the averaging meter to 3200 and shooting away.

(All this depends on your metering technique - are you using averaging in-camera meters?)

Truly, honestly... I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I don't at all understand curves etc etc...

I used a spot meter, I don't remember now which exact area I metered for what, I don't use the zone system, I use the stone system, which consists of looking at the full tonal range with my eyeballs and then deciding which portion of the scene I want to be relatively exposed to the proper average gray. Then I meter that spot... Based on experience I'm decent at knowing what will be black and what might be blown out, and unlike most, I don't at all mind blowing something completely out, it's just how I like to present my scene that's most important. But if I do, I usually know it's going to happen, it's not an accident.

Anyway I set the meter to 3200 and meter that chosen spot, then shoot with my camera, which is a yashica44LM and though it has a "light meter" it's not really something I use and isn't accurate or useful except in broad sun, and then I just would use sunny 16 anyway if I didn't have my spot meter.

Anyway this was shot when I was shooting a model at her house so I can't go back to re-meter, but I'm still not sure what the EI 640 is about...

 

[Roger Cole]

Basic zone system is actually very simple. Even if you don't use the whole system, being somewhat conversant with it gives you a common language. When you decided a given area is to be rendered as "medium gray" and meter that area and set the exposure based on the meter reading at your exposure index, you have "placed it on zone V." Zone V = medium gray. Each zone lower is one stop - one stop darker is Zone IV, another stop darker is Zone III etc. and one stop more is Zone VI, one stop more than that is Zone VII etc.

I apologize though as I was the one who started talking in Zone-ese. Bill is talking about the definition of film speed being pegged to a densitometer reading of the negative of 0.1 over film base + fog. You can approximate this close enough without a densitometer easily enough too (if you optically print) by calibrated contact printing using the least exposure for maximum black through unexposed film base, then finding the film exposure that just starts to render a lighter black with that contact exposure.

But anyway, you're kind of doing what I said above. Extra development will certainly raise the film speed at medium gray, more so than in the shadows anyway. Your shadows will go darker or black/empty, and your highlights may blow out, but none of that may matter in typical indoor contrasty light where film is often pushed so it "works" well enough much of the time.

 

[StoneNYC]

Basic zone system is actually very simple. Even if you don't use the whole system, being somewhat conversant with it gives you a common language. When you decided a given area is to be rendered as "medium gray" and meter that area and set the exposure based on the meter reading at your exposure index, you have "placed it on zone V." Zone V = medium gray. Each zone lower is one stop - one stop darker is Zone IV, another stop darker is Zone III etc. and one stop more is Zone VI, one stop more than that is Zone VII etc.

I apologize though as I was the one who started talking in Zone-ese. Bill is talking about the definition of film speed being pegged to a densitometer reading of the negative of 0.1 over film base + fog. You can approximate this close enough without a densitometer easily enough too (if you optically print) by calibrated contact printing using the least exposure for maximum black through unexposed film base, then finding the film exposure that just starts to render a lighter black with that contact exposure.

But anyway, you're kind of doing what I said above. Extra development will certainly raise the film speed at medium gray, more so than in the shadows anyway. Your shadows will go darker or black/empty, and your highlights may blow out, but none of that may matter in typical indoor contrasty light where film is often pushed so it "works" well enough much of the time.

Thanks, Zone V I'll try and remember, so all spot meters give you a spot reading for what would get that spot to Zone V ?

But incident metering often is different from spot, and so I extrapolate the readings differently, so I'm not sure which is Zone V?

BTW your explanation made a lot more sense than what Bill said, I know that's my own limited knowledge but still, it's helpful to note I'm thankful for the additional explanation.

 

[Xmas]

HiStone

That is the zone system to all intents.
Normally I don't use grey but shadow with some detail, when I meter a small area, but the principle is the same.
Reading a book about the zone system won't damage you and you can forget it afterwards.
When you get to wetprinting you may find zone 1 difficult but that is subjective some like it black.

Noel

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks, Zone V I'll try and remember, so all spot meters give you a spot reading for what would get that spot to Zone V ?

But incident metering often is different from spot, and so I extrapolate the readings differently, so I'm not sure which is Zone V?

BTW your explanation made a lot more sense than what Bill said, I know that's my own limited knowledge but still, it's helpful to note I'm thankful for the additional explanation.

Reflected light meters SHOULD in theory be calibrated for Zone V. They often aren't, unless carefully recalibrated, but that's the theory.

And a reflected light reading of a standard gray card should always give the same reading as an incident reading with the meter placed and lit the same as the gray card. Again, sometimes gray cards aren't perfect either. You'll hear them called 18% gray but that's not right - they are 100% gray, all over. What people mean by that is 18% reflectance - a card that reflects 18% of the light striking it.

See Ansel Adams The Negative.

 

[Xmas]

Reflected light meters SHOULD in theory be calibrated for Zone V. They often aren't, unless carefully recalibrated, but that's the theory.

And a reflected light reading of a standard gray card should always give the same reading as an incident reading with the meter placed and lit the same as the gray card. Again, sometimes gray cards aren't perfect either. You'll hear them called 18% gray but that's not right - they are 100% gray, all over. What people mean by that is 18% reflectance - a card that reflects 18% of the light striking it.

See Ansel Adams The Negative.

yes reflected light and incident light calibration can be out and the pro incident meters have dome style receivers... unlike grey cards

But Stones method would be hard for me and id nor ask him to change it 'if it works don't break it'