Doesn't apply. A commonly parroted myth in photography is that there is a lot involved in "mastering" a film/developer. It's ridiculous.
For every awesome photographer who has used only [ ] for 200 years, there is an awesome photographer who uses several films depending on what is available. There simply is not all that much involved in mastering a film. In addition, film/development really isn't where most of the control is. The control is under the enlarger (or in whatever digital editor). That is where most of the craft is.
I am starting to experiment with Double-X as a replacement for TMY2 in 35mm
Adrian Bacon might not like it for the acetate base. It wasn’t engineered to be wound tightly so I expect it will curl.
But I do expect picturesque grain
My AA Sponsor and all the text says the same thing. That still doesn't make it easy to do!
I once had a client who was charged with and eventually pled guilty to a serious criminal conspiracy offence. He was standing and facing the BC Supreme Court Justice who had his fate in her hands, knowing that the case law suggested that the normal sentence for his offence, even for a first time offender, would involve substantial jail time.My AA Sponsor and all the text says the same thing. That still doesn't make it easy to do!
I wish he had a few books I could buy
Probably matters much less than what would information on internet would make you believe.
After reading all of the information and hearsay on internet, I decided to do test on number of films developed in D76, DD-X, TMAX, Ilfosol and Rodinal.
Exposed in controlled environment with maximum dynamic range for comparison.
When done properly and developed in same conditions, differences were extremely small. Even Rodinal's grain didn't differ much from the rest.
Rodinal and Ilfosol gave fraction of a grade more contrast. Ilfosol was overall slightly better.
Everything was developed in Jobo Autolab processor controlling temperature and timing for all baths, including washing.
Negatives printed optically slightly above 10x magnification and compared.
In the end, I decided on films that were easily available and to use DD-X and TMAX for everything.
Ilfosol short developing times would make it tough to use predictably with my processor. Rodinal would be good but slightly better grain and more even contrast/tonality of DD-X and TMAX looked bit more appropriate for my use.
With tiny bit of tweaking any of the films I used worked for my use and could be made to look virtually the same. Delta 100, Delta 400, FP4, HP5, TMAX 100, TMAX 400, Rollei 80, Foma 100 are the ones I remember.
It does make things much easier if you use one film and than changing development or exposure makes meaningful difference.
The whole point of the "shoot one film with one developer until you 'master' it" is not some mindless exercise, but rather for a newcomer who is wont to go rushing from film to film and developer to developer, chasing some magic bullet. Pick a film, doesn't really matter which, and one developer, and stick to it until you understand the mechanics of how they interact and what effect changing exposure or development parameters has. And for god's sake don't go running out to start learning on expired film because it's an unknown quantity! The whole point is to keep the number of parameters that vary to a minimum, so you understand what changing those parameters does. Once you have a hang of that, THEN by all means try a different film with the same developer, or a different developer with the same film. Just approach the change of parameters with some degree of scientific rigor so you can in fact tell that the effect you got was because of the developer, the film, or your exposure technique.
I also suggest one camera and one lens if it is a new camera to the photographer.
I mean... yes, in the grand scheme of things, the differences are small. All monochrome, all have grain. Yes, developers generally make less difference than films. However your premise is flawed if you attribute differences in contrast to different developers - contrast is a function of developing time/temperature, and developers may take different times to reach the same contrast, so your comparison just didn't happen under ideal conditions. And your vision or printing technique must be flawed if you don't see a big difference between HP5+ and TMX at 10x magnification. It does get more obvious at higher enlargement of course
Probably matters much less than what would information on internet would make you believe.
After reading all of the information and hearsay on internet, I decided to do test on number of films developed in D76, DD-X, TMAX, Ilfosol and Rodinal.
Exposed in controlled environment with maximum dynamic range for comparison.
When done properly and developed in same conditions, differences were extremely small. Even Rodinal's grain didn't differ much from the rest.
Rodinal and Ilfosol gave fraction of a grade more contrast. Ilfosol was overall slightly better.
Everything was developed in Jobo Autolab processor controlling temperature and timing for all baths, including washing.
Negatives printed optically slightly above 10x magnification and compared.
In the end, I decided on films that were easily available and to use DD-X and TMAX for everything.
Ilfosol short developing times would make it tough to use predictably with my processor. Rodinal would be good but slightly better grain and more even contrast/tonality of DD-X and TMAX looked bit more appropriate for my use.
With tiny bit of tweaking any of the films I used worked for my use and could be made to look virtually the same. Delta 100, Delta 400, FP4, HP5, TMAX 100, TMAX 400, Rollei 80, Foma 100 are the ones I remember.
It does make things much easier if you use one film and than changing development or exposure makes meaningful difference.
And I have a roll of 3200 with some of my favorite pictures that I only ever printed on postcards for the same reason.
If one sticks to one film and one developer...don't forget to print!
When I started B&W photography in the early 80s, I'd already done some colour photography using Kodacolor and "Prinz Color" (likely Ferrania).
Or scanning, or whatever the end result the photographer wants. But if you are going to run a race, it is kinda nice to know at least which direction is the finishing line.This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?
This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?
My negatives are much smaller than Vaughn's, but I can identify with this. I think we have to agree though that we are a bit unusual about this.I just developed two 11x14 negatives last night that I am more than happy to put on the light table and look at them for a few hours.
This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?
Light Capture,
I agree that any film can be developed to the same contrast and scenes exposed appropriately for the speed can give a consistent look.
And you may be right that there really isn't much difference between black and white 35mm films between 400 and 80.
I was going to argue that I can tell the difference between films. But then I looked for examples in my gallery and see there's not much difference.
For example TMAX-100 I can see spider webs on the print in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/hook-and-cables-in-live-oak.40933/
And APX-25 I can see veins on the leaves of the aspen in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/aspen-view.43570/
And TMY-2 I can't ask for more fine detail on the cracks in the paint https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/garage-door-lakewood-california.57808/
I have a Tri-X shot which I only ever printed to 8x10 because I thought it wouldn't hold up above that.
And I have a roll of 3200 with some of my favorite pictures that I only ever printed on postcards for the same reason.
I might print those up on 11x14 to see if my old criticism is fair or overblown. I think I will still feel the same, but maybe the prints will make me happy anyway.
Of course when I step up to 6x9 and 4x5 there's a difference worth checking out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?