How important is choice in your B&W work?

[Vonder]

I've been pondering today. Seems like more and more films are going by the wayside, although no B&W films have disappeared recently, people here on APUG often express devotion to a certain film, paper, or developer. They are also free to try whatever other film is out there. But what if that weren't the case? With so many choices it's easy to dabble here with this film, or test this developer, of see how a print looks on this paper...

And that, in and of itself, is enormously fun. I love having those choices. It's impossible for it to get old, because when it does, I can simply try something new.

How about you? Are you happy making B&W prints on any old thing, or is choice and flexibility what attracts you to film-based B&W film and developing? Would you continue to toil in the darkroom if the only materials you could use were Kodak Tri-X, D-76, and Ilford's RC Multigrade paper?

 

[Ian Grant]

It isn't that important as long as I can use a first rate B&W film. I prefer to work with 1 or 2 films one slow the other fast.

For years I used FP4 & XP1/2, then APX100 or Tmax100 & 400, now Delta 100 & 400 unfortunately I have to use HP5 for large format. As I can get superb quality from any of those films choice is nice but not super critical that I'd be devasted by say the loss of Tmax.

Ian

 

[keithwms]

Choice may become less important once someone settles into a comfortable process. But I think it sucks enormously that newcomers won't be able to try many of the most respected materials and will instead be pigeonholed into processes that the majority have selected through market forces. To the student, I think choice is absolutely paramount.

As for me, I am a perpetual student / experimentalist, I go through papers and films almost randomly and get excited every time I try something new. When something goes away, like scala or HIE or LF polaroid, I take it personally!

 

[MFP]

Personally, I would be content if I could only use tri-x, d76, and ilford mgiv in the darkroom, because it reflects my m.o. in photography. While I do love the billions of choices in b&w photography, I find myself spending so much time doing flickr searches for film/dev combos trying to find just the right look. If instead I was bound to one film/dev combo that made a very "normal" negative that is very workable, I would be much happier and more efficient. I've always been afraid of focusing too much on aesthetics(color saturation or contrast and sharpness) and thus emphasizing them in my photos rather than composition. I basically only want people who view my photos to see that they are good in color/contrast, and then stop thinking about the aesthetics there, so that they can see the composition for what it is. Thus, if every one of my photos in my portfolio was taken on the same film developed by the same developer, and this combo looks pleasing(rather than possessing in-your-face sharpness, contrast, or colors) then the viewer could forget completely about the aesthetics of my photos and only focus on the composition whilst being sub-consciously pleased by the aesthetics.

Then again, darkroom work could become much less exciting with only one film/dev/paper combo, but I wouldn't mind this because, unfortunately, the processes of the black and white darkroom aren't as fun to me as they are some APUGers(whom I envy). To me, darkroom work is exactly that, work, that I perform because I want to get a final image that I believe is only obtainable through the b&w film process.

 

[ntenny]

I'm an exception, I guess, in that I'm really attached to the choice and variety, especially of films. (I haven't done enough wet printing to have a clear position on papers, and I use hand-mixed developers most of the time.) I suppose I could live with, say, Ilford films only---except in 9x12, where Foma and Efke are the only options that don't involve custom-order prices or cutting in the dark---but the list of things I'd really miss, even though they aren't "normal" tools for everyday use, would get really, really long.

So I guess I agree with the OP; the process aspect of photography is fun to play with, and part of that fun is having lots of variables to tinker with. But that's how I approach photography generally; I'm not good enough, and I doubt I ever *will* be good enough, to make the final print be the entire point, even if I were inclined to try.

-NT

 

[Q.G.]

I too value choice.
That is, i do not need a large choice, as long as my choice is still available.
I have been lucky so far (though i would love TMY in 220 format now and again).

But if the stuff of my choice would no longer be available, i'd of course make do with what still would be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not like this game! I will not play it! I am taking my equipment and going home!

Steve

 

[jovo]

Like marriage, settling on a film, developer, paper, toner continuum changes one's focus from dabbling/dating with lots of choices, to learning to get the best from the choice you've settled on. OTOH, and unlike marriage, no one is going to get upset with you if your head gets turned by something different.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's a bit profound John, so I dated and got engaged to Ilford films, before running off and marrying Agfa, then had an affair with Kodak, got divorced andthen finally settling down and marrying Ilford

Ian

 

[Leighgion]

I'd be annoyed, as I do like some options, but in general I find that while some choices are good, more choices is not always better. To date, I've only used D76 and about four films (but more Tri-X than anything else by far) because trying everything out really isn't what it's about for me.

Also, I'm like MFP in that the process itself is not what appeals to me. While I can have fun with the chemicals on the right day, it's not what I'm in this for. Ultimately, I want pictures, and the whole developing thing is just something I need to put up with to get them.

 

[lns]

I like choice in photography and find it fun. But I personally do better without too much of it. That's because I tend to try everything. So I can get caught up in the process instead of the results. With fewer variables I get much better results. So I'd be fine with one developer, one paper and one or two films. I'm nearly there anyway.

That said, I wouldn't want to limit myself to one camera and one lens.

-Laura

 

[bill spears]

What worries me about having a very limited range of films/materials is that if they disappear, then there's nothing left !!
To me, having a vast array of choices (even if I don't use them all) indicates a healthy market. It really scares me when things keep disappearing and I'm particularly upset about the loss of quality FB papers. The ones that are still around seem to be going up in price all the time aswell.

Another thing I find a bit puzzling is why we only have a selected supply of film but more developers than we could ever use to process it in ?

 

[darkosaric]

As long I have rodinal, efke films, TriX, delta 100, and FB paper double weight - it is ok

 

[Vaughn]

I make my own print material, so my material is fairly consistant and not going to disappear. I am willing to work with a variety of films, as long as it comes in 8x10. Who know, perhaps some day I will pour my own wet and/or dry plates!

Vaughn

 

[Tim Gray]

That's a bit profound John, so I dated and got engaged to Ilford films, before running off and marrying Agfa, then had an affair with Kodak, got divorced andthen finally settling down and marrying Ilford

Ian

I had an affair with digital and it gave me herpes.

I like the films that I shoot because they give me dependable results. I'm sure other films could give me similar results, but so far, I'm clicking with what I have. Though it would be a real shame to lose say TMZ or Delta 3200, since those are the only two films that do what they do.

There is something special about Tri-X though.

 

[MikeSeb]

I tend to get too caught up in trying the latest/greatest I've read about somewhere online; when, given my time constraints, I'd be better advised to keep it simple.

I've been doing this long enough that I've tried most of what's out there, and have a good idea of what it (film, developers, and their various pairings) can do. I just like tinkering; but this is not always the best thing if one's trying to produce consistent, quality work.

I'll probably, for instance, stick with 400TMY, 320TXP, and the occasional 400TX and 100TMX roll, processed in TMAX, Xtol, or D-76, depending on what I have on hand. I know all the various combinations of these well enough to get predictable results. "Predictable" not being a proxy for "good."

 

[2F/2F]

Some more selection would certainly help out for what I want to do photographically. There are many discontinued films and papers that are sorely missed. For me, the huge losses are color films and papers. Particularly, I miss 320T and 160T, Portra 100T, NPL, Portra Endura, and Ultra Endura (in cut sizes). You make do with what you have, but it is less and less all the time...

 

[brian steinberger]

I too used to love choices. I'd try one film one week, another the next, same with developers. But I never really took the time to test the films or really look at what I was getting with a certain developer. I was also developing different rolls in different developers I was trying out too. This sometimes leads to bad reviews of certain films, because the reviewer didn't take the time to test and learn the film. He just shot one or two rolls, developed it at the manufacturers recommended time and didn't like the results. Too much choice can hurt. I remember when I kept reading advice to "stick with one film and one developer for atleast a year" I would think 'man that sounds boring!' But now it all makes sense. I've been with one film and two developers for about 3 years now and I'm producing my best work yet. You can run into the same problem in the darkroom with papers. I've got it down to two papers and one developer. It's the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) approach. There's no doubt you can produce wonderful photographs with any combination of film, film developer, paper, paper developer. So pick one of each and learn them to their fullest possibilities!

 

[Ektagraphic]

I really enjoy all of the choices, but if there were only a few, I think I would still have lots of fun with it!

 

[jgjbowen]

TMY/Pyrocat HD, Azo/Amidol......are ther other choices????

 

[PVia]

In general I stick with what I like, but if something comes up out of the blue like a great deal on paper, I run with it and stick with it for a long time.

Films and developer are pretty standard for me. You have to work with something for a long time in order to really know it, and I don't mean just a few months, I mean at least a year.

But in answer to the OP, if RC paper was the only thing available, I'd stop printing silver. Seriously.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I see myself playing with diffrent films more than diffrent papers.

 

[BobNewYork]

I've pretty much standardized on TMX and TX, Xtol and Rodinal and Ilford MGFB, warmtone and RC. However, I arrived here through a whole slew of other options. There are differences, often subtle, but those differences are important to personal expression. The loss of choices is a crying shame, and particularly so for newbies, because it is only through trying those other choices and combinations that you develop a critical eye for the subtleties which differentiate a good photograph from a great one.

Bob H

 

[removed account4]

i am not too finicky when it comes to film and paper.
i'll use what i can. and if i can't find what i am "used to "
maybe i'll try something else. years ago i had settled on blue box seagull
and after they stopped making it i realized that i better not get too attached
to anything, so i am not.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I've standardised so choice is important for me only if I can choose what I've standardised on. If a discontinuation affected me, I'd standardise on another thing.