Good old D76 and HP5+

[bdial]

Stone,
Your method is pretty similar to what I do most of time. The method works pretty well. An incident reading is the same as placing your mid tones at zone 5, you just need to make sure you're metering the same light that's falling on your designated mid tones in the scene.

A few years ago at a workshop I was trying to get my head around more of the zone system. I borrowed the instructor's spot meter, spent a good bit of time measuring shadows at zone 1, highlights at zone 8, and checking mid tones.
I then compared what the spot meter was telling me for highlight placement to the incident reading from my Luna Pro, and they were the same.

Before you read The Negative, find a copy of Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop book and read it. It covers all this stuff in a much more understandable way than St Ansel's book, but the Adams book takes it much further.

By the way, if you happened to get the Fred Picker video, it shows him working with a Pentax spot meter with a zone scale pasted on it. It's really the same as the numbers that are already on the meter, but it shows the grey tones with the zone scale roman numerals instead of the arabic that are printed on the meter. It's a good visual demonstration of this business of metering high and low tones and figuring out zone placement.

 

[Bill Burk]

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

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

Let me know if you WANT to know this stuff, start a new thread and call it the Stone system or something like that. Like golf it's teaching someone a new grip - it can throw your game for a little bit... And I know how uncomfortable I am playing golf when my buddy tries to help me with my swing.

Truly, honestly I quit golf because of that... (I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm saying that because it is SOOOOO true).

But like pool... you'll learn to call your shots.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Let me know if you WANT to know this stuff, start a new thread and call it the Stone system or something like that. Like golf it's teaching someone a new grip - it can throw your game for a little bit... And I know how uncomfortable I am playing golf when my buddy tries to help me with my swing.

Truly, honestly I quit golf because of that... (I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm saying that because it is SOOOOO true).

But like pool... you'll learn to call your shots.

The golf analogy is good, but to prove your point I will tell you with an example how I have had to change my approach. For as long as I can remember I have used very simple cameras without autofocus and auto exposure. I have used a Gossen Luna Pro for a looong time now, and am used to it. Sometimes I didn't even use a meter, and just went by experience. Leica M2, Pentax KX (has meter, yes I know), pinhole, Hasselblad 500 system, Crown Graphic, 5x7 Century, etc etc etc.
My exposures have been extremely consistent, and I know exactly how to rate the films, and how to adjust for varying lighting conditions.

Enter a new to me Canon EOS-3. Wow. I can't even understand what's in the manual. Four different metering modes, plus entirely manual (which is a pain to use). I have a few rolls stacking up now, of test rolls trying to come to grips with metering. Each subsequent one a little better than the last one, but I'm still not happy. See, the meter is moody and treats flat lighting with underexposure, normal contrast with great exposure, and high contrast with underexposure.
Learning a new way of metering is painful. I have never used a spot meter, for example. Don't need to. Won't either.

I got the EOS-3 because my eyes don't focus well in low light anymore. I need freaking bifocals. The EOS-3 focusing system is amazing, and is what I need for portraits. I HAD to do that in order to continue with portraiture and do it well.

Most of all I'm glad we're having such a good time discussing HP5+ and D76.

 

[mgb74]

(snip) Enter a new to me Canon EOS-3. Wow. I can't even understand what's in the manual. Four different metering modes, plus entirely manual (which is a pain to use). I have a few rolls stacking up now, of test rolls trying to come to grips with metering. Each subsequent one a little better than the last one, but I'm still not happy. See, the meter is moody and treats flat lighting with underexposure, normal contrast with great exposure, and high contrast with underexposure.
Learning a new way of metering is painful. I have never used a spot meter, for example. Don't need to. Won't either.
(snip)

I'm in a similar situation when I use my N90s; and your EOS-3 is even more complex. My approach is to simplify - I use spot metering when I can and matrix metering when I can't. I realize it's a bit lazy given the other options those Nikon engineers worked hard to develop. I haven't noticed the "moody" metering, but that may be a function of my lack of ability.

 

[baachitraka]

Or...may be even simpler one like D-23. Just two chemicals and one film.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Or...may be even simpler one like D-23. Just two chemicals and one film.

D76 is even simpler for me, because I can buy it in a bag from the store. To me there is nothing to gain by mixing D23 on my own as I'd have to purchase a scale, and keep bulk chemicals around.

 

[Jerevan]

Thomas,

what I take away from this is: simple is good. Sometimes one needs to take the whole roundtrip to figure that out. I know I did.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,

what I take away from this is: simple is good. Sometimes one needs to take the whole roundtrip to figure that out. I know I did.

I think you are right about that. Curiosity is definitely something that drives looking around the corner to see what's there.

 

[StoneNYC]

The golf analogy is good, but to prove your point I will tell you with an example how I have had to change my approach. For as long as I can remember I have used very simple cameras without autofocus and auto exposure. I have used a Gossen Luna Pro for a looong time now, and am used to it. Sometimes I didn't even use a meter, and just went by experience. Leica M2, Pentax KX (has meter, yes I know), pinhole, Hasselblad 500 system, Crown Graphic, 5x7 Century, etc etc etc.
My exposures have been extremely consistent, and I know exactly how to rate the films, and how to adjust for varying lighting conditions.

Enter a new to me Canon EOS-3. Wow. I can't even understand what's in the manual. Four different metering modes, plus entirely manual (which is a pain to use). I have a few rolls stacking up now, of test rolls trying to come to grips with metering. Each subsequent one a little better than the last one, but I'm still not happy. See, the meter is moody and treats flat lighting with underexposure, normal contrast with great exposure, and high contrast with underexposure.
Learning a new way of metering is painful. I have never used a spot meter, for example. Don't need to. Won't either.

I got the EOS-3 because my eyes don't focus well in low light anymore. I need freaking bifocals. The EOS-3 focusing system is amazing, and is what I need for portraits. I HAD to do that in order to continue with portraiture and do it well.

Most of all I'm glad we're having such a good time discussing HP5+ and D76.

The EOS system is easy... If you like "spot metering" make the camera metering the "single dot" in the menu window at the top (no brackets or anything just the center dot) and move the focus point to the center dot. Now meter JUST as you would using a spot meter...

That's probably best for you as you are used to spot.

Any more and PM me for assistance, if there's one thing I know pretty well it's EOS cameras...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The EOS system is easy... If you like "spot metering" make the camera metering the "single dot" in the menu window at the top (no brackets or anything just the center dot) and move the focus point to the center dot. Now meter JUST as you would using a spot meter...

That's probably best for you as you are used to spot.

Any more and PM me for assistance, if there's one thing I know pretty well it's EOS cameras...

Ha... You're a funny guy. I have never used a spot meter in my entire life. Always a Gossen Luna Pro with a dome.

I agree the EOS is 'easy', but it doesn't work like what I'm used to. I have to try to figure out how the EOS works, so that I can anticipate how to manually compensate when I shoot into the light, or in low contrast situations.
My test rolls are getting better and better, but if it doesn't get better I might ping you. Thank you for offering.

 

[MattKing]

Stone:

Your "Stone" system is perfectly fine, and very well suited to shooting with transparencies.

It's only weakness, when compared to a full zone system approach, is that instead of objectively evaluating the shadows, mid-tones and highlights of your scene, you are objectively evaluating mid-tones and (somewhat) subjectively evaluating the shadows and highlights.

This is fine if you aren't too concerned with what part of the shadows falls into detail free black (clear on the negative), or what part of the highlights goes totally white (clear on the transparency).

Where it matters, is when you want to avoid those two extremes.

Bill Burk's curve analysis helps you with the clear negative problem, because the "speed" point" is what determines how much light the film needs to make sure there is some detail in those shadows. That is how the "speed" of film is determined. When that is tested under ISO specified conditions, the ISO speed is the result.

People use different settings (Exposure Indices, or "EI") when they meter because:

1) their equipment and procedures vary from the ISO standard; and
2) they have preferences as to how they want the results to appear, and find that using different settings give them a result they like better.

If you have a contrasty subject and want a look with really detailed shadows, where the highlight detail doesn't matter so much, you can most likely achieve that by taking a reading from the shadowed area and (effectively) using an EI that is lower than the "standard". By doing that, you are placing the shadows higher on that curve, but also shoving the mid-tones and highlights up higher as well.

Now, if you want to avoid the mid-tones and highlights going too far up the curve, so as to avoid squishing them together, you can reduce the development a bit, and they will be better behaved.

If you do all that, you will have done something like a N-1 zone system pull. You will have flattened the curve.

Conversely, if you start with a low contrast scene and photograph it straight, you will end up with a curve that is too flat - the shadows and mid-tones and highlights will be all squeezed together. To stretch them out, you need the curve to get steeper. You meter the shadows, set your exposure for them, and then increase the development in order to make the mid-tones and highlights more dense on the film. In the print, the contrast will be greater, and everything will look better.

If you do all that, you will have done something like a N+1 zone system push. You will have steepened the curve.

Try to get past the fact that the curves come from numbers. Instead, think of the curves as pictures of how the film is responding to light and development. When you get the pictures the right shape, your negatives will be doing what you want from them.

And the "right" curve shape is the one that appeals to you, or matches what you want to do with that particular photograph.

My sense from what I have seen from your uploads is that you tend to prefer slightly short, fairly steep curves. Whereas I tend to prefer a longer, less steep curve.

As an example, the card I sent you came from a negative that is slightly "steeper" than I generally prefer, so I printed it a bit darker than I would print something more typical for me.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Your "Stone" system is perfectly fine, and very well suited to shooting with transparencies.

It's only weakness, when compared to a full zone system approach, is that instead of objectively evaluating the shadows, mid-tones and highlights of your scene, you are objectively evaluating mid-tones and (somewhat) subjectively evaluating the shadows and highlights.

This is fine if you aren't too concerned with what part of the shadows falls into detail free black (clear on the negative), or what part of the highlights goes totally white (clear on the transparency).

Where it matters, is when you want to avoid those two extremes.

Bill Burk's curve analysis helps you with the clear negative problem, because the "speed" point" is what determines how much light the film needs to make sure there is some detail in those shadows. That is how the "speed" of film is determined. When that is tested under ISO specified conditions, the ISO speed is the result.

People use different settings (Exposure Indices, or "EI") when they meter because:

1) their equipment and procedures vary from the ISO standard; and
2) they have preferences as to how they want the results to appear, and find that using different settings give them a result they like better.

If you have a contrasty subject and want a look with really detailed shadows, where the highlight detail doesn't matter so much, you can most likely achieve that by taking a reading from the shadowed area and (effectively) using an EI that is lower than the "standard". By doing that, you are placing the shadows higher on that curve, but also shoving the mid-tones and highlights up higher as well.

Now, if you want to avoid the mid-tones and highlights going too far up the curve, so as to avoid squishing them together, you can reduce the development a bit, and they will be better behaved.

If you do all that, you will have done something like a N-1 zone system pull. You will have flattened the curve.

Conversely, if you start with a low contrast scene and photograph it straight, you will end up with a curve that is too flat - the shadows and mid-tones and highlights will be all squeezed together. To stretch them out, you need the curve to get steeper. You meter the shadows, set your exposure for them, and then increase the development in order to make the mid-tones and highlights more dense on the film. In the print, the contrast will be greater, and everything will look better.

If you do all that, you will have done something like a N+1 zone system push. You will have steepened the curve.

Try to get past the fact that the curves come from numbers. Instead, think of the curves as pictures of how the film is responding to light and development. When you get the pictures the right shape, your negatives will be doing what you want from them.

And the "right" curve shape is the one that appeals to you, or matches what you want to do with that particular photograph.

My sense from what I have seen from your uploads is that you tend to prefer slightly short, fairly steep curves. Whereas I tend to prefer a longer, less steep curve.

As an example, the card I sent you came from a negative that is slightly "steeper" than I generally prefer, so I printed it a bit darker than I would print something more typical for me.

I do measure the other tones in the scene if it's really contrasty if I want to control what if anything is blown out etc.

I think I pretty much use the zone system style but I don't do it as exacting as it's supposed to be.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ha... You're a funny guy. I have never used a spot meter in my entire life. Always a Gossen Luna Pro with a dome.

I agree the EOS is 'easy', but it doesn't work like what I'm used to. I have to try to figure out how the EOS works, so that I can anticipate how to manually compensate when I shoot into the light, or in low contrast situations.
My test rolls are getting better and better, but if it doesn't get better I might ping you. Thank you for offering.

I use the "center weighted average" setting as that's what the AE-1 camera I started with had... So I'm used to that, it's the one with a dot AND the brackets on the sides of the dot.

With the exception of night time scenes, normal daylight I meter about 2/3 lower than what it suggests as the "perfect" exposure and in dim scenes 2/3 higher than it's suggestion. And then switch to spot for night time stuff and follow the same method I mentioned earlier.

Canon seems to over expose in bright sun and under expose in dim light which is why I adjust, this is after... 19 years of using the "center weighted average" option...

Best of luck!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That center weighted option is called 'evaluative metering' in the EOS-3 manual.

I'm learning. Slowly. I really know how film works with rudimentary tools, but when the camera decides for me I'm kind of helpless... hahaha I'll get it figured out.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I read the Film Developing Cookbook and followed forum discussions. I avoided chasing film and developers into dead ends. Nothing wrong with using a general purpose developer, D-76/XTOL, and one special purpose developer for a different look. D-76/XTOL gives consistent results. For most photography a general purpose developer matched with just two films is all you need. However, I can see using pyro with MF and LF in special light situations. I picked Rodinal for my second developer for limited situations. Keep it simple.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I read the Film Developing Cookbook and followed forums discussions. I avoided chasing film and developers into dead ends. Nothing wrong with using a general purpose developer, D-76/XTOL, and one special purpose developer for a different look. D-76/XTOL gives consistent results. For most photography a general purpose developer matched with just two films is all you need. However, I can see using pyro with MF and LF in special light situations. I picked Rodinal for my second developer for limited situations. Keep it simple.

I can see using more than one film is appealing. In addition to HP5+ I need something slower for pinhole, so I do use Pan-F+ too. But I don't need more than D76 developer wise. I find I get much more variation by changing how I use that one developer than I get from switching to another product.

As you say, there's nothing wrong with using more than one developer, nothing at all. For me, though, keeping it at the very simplest and most rudimentary level of basically not changing materials at all. Then I can actually remember what happens when I shoot in high contrast, and how I need to adjust to make good prints at the end of the process. To each their own, I guess. It's more important than anything to find something that works for us, than to listen to what others preach, for sure.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I can see using more than one film is appealing. In addition to HP5+ I need something slower for pinhole, so I do use Pan-F+ too. But I don't need more than D76 developer wise. I find I get much more variation by changing how I use that one developer than I get from switching to another product..

Thomas, you make a lot of sense.

As you probably know Kodak Tech Pubs indicate XTOL is a tad better than D-76. Dilute XTOL at 1:3 is close to Rodinal. However, D-76 is very close in neg characteristics to XTOL. If shooting MF you have even less difference. Teaching, I always recommended to keep it simple and master a film/developer/paper combo. I'm too old to chase after magic bullets. The time I have I want to make good prints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, Kodak Tech Pubs indicate XTOL is a tad better than D-76. Plus, dilute XTOL at 1:3 is close to Rodinal. D-76 is very close in quality to XTOL and if using MF will see even less difference. Bottom line is keep it simple and though
Y know what you can do with a film/developer/paper combo. Not enough time to chase after magic bullets.

I agree with all of what you say, except 'better' is totally subjective. I actually like D76 better than Xtol, for no reason I can technically quantify.

Yeah, both D76 and Xtol get really sharp at 1:3. Especially Xtol.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree with all of what you say, except 'better' is totally subjective. I actually like D76 better than Xtol, for no reason I can technically quantify.

Yeah, both D76 and Xtol get really sharp at 1:3. Especially Xtol.

Somehow I liked D76 midtones better than Xtol. But I confess it has been a LONG time since I used Xtol, long enough to have been burned by the 1 liter packages (and also got some that apparently worked right.) I've thought of giving Xtol another go, but I'm pretty happy with the developers I use now and don't feel like I'm lacking anything, so why? I know the packaging issue was fixed (though 5L packs are awfully inconvenient) and it works well now. I just don't think it would be different enough to bother tuning in another developer.

 

[markbarendt]

...I'm pretty happy with the developers I use now and don't feel like I'm lacking anything, so why?

That is the right question.

There are real reasons to consider other developers and films (ones that we aren't using now), but without understanding "where you are" and "some dissatisfaction about that place", what's the point?

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Better is defined by Kodak as XTOL having 10% more enlargibility v D-76. XTOL is more environmentally friendly with the elimination of Metol. I read in Photo Techniques and experience confirms XTOL's shelf life is longer. The elimination of the XTOL 1L packs over a decade ago eliminated occasional sudden failure issues. D-76/ID-11 is a great developer I use when out of XTOL. Can't go wrong with either. Keep things simple.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used Xtol for five years and about 1,000 rolls. It's fine developer.

 

[traveler_101]

I am new here and new to film developing--so please excuse over-simplifications. It's taken me almost two years to push through 75 rolls.

About developers: you do have to make decisions from the get go. I decided for D-76 over XTOL--even though I bought XTOL first. I didn't like the lab results for Tri-X in XTOL and was horrified to read stories of sudden death syndrome . . . so I never used it when I started developing on my own. I went right to D-76.

What I got out of that first experience through exchanges at another forum, was that the choice of developer does hinge a lot on the film you use: thus Tri-X and D-76; Fomapan 100/APX 100 and Rodinal, etc. You get different "looks"--to which different lenses also contribute. For example, a lower contrast lens with T-MAX 100: now what would be the best developer for that combo? I used D-76 1:1 and am pretty satisfied, but I think I would have been better off with Rodinal, which unfortunately has been difficult to get here in Norway the last year. (By the way, another reason for D-76, and XTOL for that matter, is that you can travel with powders in checked baggage, which means that they can be purchased in the states very inexpensively and brought back over here).

Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I am new here and new to film developing--so please excuse over-simplifications. It's taken me almost two years to push through 75 rolls.

About developers: you do have to make decisions from the get go. I decided for D-76 over XTOL--even though I bought XTOL first. I didn't like the lab results for Tri-X in XTOL and was horrified to read stories of sudden death syndrome . . . so I never used it when I started developing on my own. I went right to D-76.

What I got out of that first experience through exchanges at another forum, was that the choice of developer does hinge a lot on the film you use: thus Tri-X and D-76; Fomapan 100/APX 100 and Rodinal, etc. You get different "looks"--to which different lenses also contribute. For example, a lower contrast lens with T-MAX 100: now what would be the best developer for that combo? I used D-76 1:1 and am pretty satisfied, but I think I would have been better off with Rodinal, which unfortunately has been difficult to get here in Norway the last year. (By the way, another reason for D-76, and XTOL for that matter, is that you can travel with powders in checked baggage, which means that they can be purchased in the states very inexpensively and brought back over here).

Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

I will answer a bit later. Out eating dinner.

 

[StoneNYC]

I am new here and new to film developing--so please excuse over-simplifications. It's taken me almost two years to push through 75 rolls.

About developers: you do have to make decisions from the get go. I decided for D-76 over XTOL--even though I bought XTOL first. I didn't like the lab results for Tri-X in XTOL and was horrified to read stories of sudden death syndrome . . . so I never used it when I started developing on my own. I went right to D-76.

What I got out of that first experience through exchanges at another forum, was that the choice of developer does hinge a lot on the film you use: thus Tri-X and D-76; Fomapan 100/APX 100 and Rodinal, etc. You get different "looks"--to which different lenses also contribute. For example, a lower contrast lens with T-MAX 100: now what would be the best developer for that combo? I used D-76 1:1 and am pretty satisfied, but I think I would have been better off with Rodinal, which unfortunately has been difficult to get here in Norway the last year. (By the way, another reason for D-76, and XTOL for that matter, is that you can travel with powders in checked baggage, which means that they can be purchased in the states very inexpensively and brought back over here).

Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

This is a very complicated answer, but the simple answer is that every person has their own taste in what they are looking for in the look of an image, and so it's very difficult to say that one film or one developer works the best because the best is very subjective to what the person likes in terms of the look of the film, the contrast, the grain structure, any number of things.

What works for some is great but it does not work for everyone, personally I have whittled it down my developers and films to essentially two different films and two different developers. But that's just me. And it took me 3 years just to figure out that simple combo.

It also very much depends on what kind of exposure indexes you used to shoot your film, the way you Meter your film, etc. the way you handle film in general whether you're using the zone system or some other kind of system etc. Weather you're scanning or printing and what kind of paper grade etc you are using, it's all very subjective.

So in short you just have to kind of try and see what you like personally and follow that path because anyone on here that's going to tell you this works better or that works better sure you can give it a try and see if it works for you, but nothing can be taken as the official word because film is an art and art is very personal.

As an example, I'm now using Rodinal for my 100 speed film, and DD-X for anything 400 or faster up to pushing to 3200...

You may not like that or may not have access to Rodinal, but that is what I like, you will have to find your own way. Again it took me 3 years to figure that one out...