Step No. 1: Have an image that is worthy of putting on film.
Step No. 2: Figure out one's way of getting the image in whatever final form one wants.
Step No.3: Do it.
Your biggest worry is finding trays / a way to develop large size / mural(?) prints.
I find at Box speed exposed med -speed film, developed at rec times and temps is not all that grainy and satisfies your requirement of max prrints very well.The oposite is real easy : Unsharp and lousy contrast 5x7 prints from 35mm !
We all might have no need to learn more about!
Beside a good lens, beside a good darkroom workflow, beside the right format of films!
How to tune? The right film is a first step (don't try E.I. 600 with Delta 3200) to minimize grain and maximize print format!
The right developer is a good second step (don't change Ilford ID 11 and use Rodinal for minimize grain)
But here is the first problem : Rodinal may sharp your negatives but you get more massive
grain from Rodinal's tendency to a (most) grainy look!
What is better : small grain or more sharpness ?
That all is of course dependable from each photographers preference! Some feel fine from
grainy look, some feel fine from tonals.....some like it indeed unsharp and want to hear
how to get real unsharpness AND MOST GRAIN WITH BW ON 5X7 PRINTS?
THAT IS "EVERYBODYS BABY" ("darling" for your englishmen)!
So THE very first step should be that I define what a max. print (to me)is ! From what max. size it should be and from what characteristics!
A max. sized bw print to me is a print " normaly not possible " without the use of next higher film format! In concern of resolution AND normal (small) grain and normal contrast!
A max. bw print in regards of perfect, absolute and "never better seen" and outstanding
tonals is NOT MY PRIORITY!
SO EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER HAS HIS OWN "DARLING" - and that is a fine thing!
Is sharpness = resolution (edge effects for example) NO IT ISN'T! (pseudo sharpness)
Can high contrasts guarante high resolution NO THERE IS NO MORE RESOLUTION FROM!
But extreme low contrast can of course Smaller the resolution!
What is Resolution btw? Resolution is the Tower clock seen from a cropping image !
In comparison from different examples the shot where you can read 15:07 quite clear is from more resolution!
The shot that would show clear the indicator of the correct second would be the best !
But there is allways No indicator for seconds (it is just to make it more clear)!
Resolution is the information within a bw negative. A tonal range of a wide spreat is of course an important part of resolution also! But here is a real compromis!
THERE is one rule that will help to tune films from a general step = exposure long/
develop short!
In darkroom , while film developing, that is allways pulling ! But pulling is also in regards
of lower contrast - and real low contrasts can smaller the resolution itself = the delema!
AND HERE IS THE END OF THAT STORY FRIENDS = NOT REALY POSSIBLE
what you can make is the following : You generally have the need of lower E.I.
(ISO 25) for example with low speed films! You can pull those films to the max.
The max. is the point were contrast come too low !
And you of course pull with finest grain developers! Tonal experts might find here the point
to calibrate tonals to the limit (for max. of resolution) but this workflow is restricted in general!
What one have a need of would be a bw film with characteristics of real good contrast
(high contrast) and characteristics in regards of " holding lot of that original high contrast
during pull development" - but this is not possible in relative values!
Pulling will allways cost much contrast (extreme pulling development of more than
1E.V. lost of speed)!
So normal bw films can be tuned a bit (from general workflow during shooting - a tripod is a most) but the use of perceptol is recomanded beside other developers!
You have the need of high contrast before pull development!
That is one of other reasons for using microfilms if it is going about :
High resolution photographs - today !!!!!!!!!!!!
Any "secret hints " with normal low speed bw film and most "secret" developer combinations you perhaps will tell here?
with regards
FWIW, back in the 70s I used 120 Panatomic-X developed in Microdol-X at 1:3. After all, they both had an 'X' after their name. I only enlarged onto 16x20 (image size about 15x15). The prints pretty much still hold their own after 40 years...some of them, anyway.
It is indeed relative Ralph! The common recomandation of manufacturers to ISO rating of a film isI find at Box speed exposed med -speed film, developed at rec times and temps is not all that grainy and satisfies your requirement of max prrints very well.
I believe there is a stardard test procedure (hense, ISO)....The common recomandation of manufacturers to ISO rating of a film is
typically made from conclusions of a manufacturer in concern of a film design!
...
Right said Yaughn - exactly! Btw. to some films (not to the majority of bw films) - there is just a smallI believe there is a stardard test procedure (hense, ISO).
My point is absolute simple David - that might be the difference to some others hereThere is NOT a precise negative film exposure to satisfy all needs at one time. The ones who choose to be stingy with exposure will reap the benefits of superior highlight separation. The ones who are 'conservative' and demand that ALL be captured will reap the benefit of assuring that their shadows do not lag in the (muddy, undifferentiated) toe region of the Characteristic Curve. Given that most films today are extremely forgiving, my words work out to be mere theories and, thankfully, are not so resplendent with negative, desultory results. We make fine photographs even if we deviate from the norm.
Box speeds maximize the possibilities for technical success and, even today, might still have a bit of a safety factor that was, supposedly, 'obfuscated' decades ago. We have better meters but, even then, the meter is ignorant of how the scene is supposed to be presented; thus, it optimizes onto a medium gray result. Sometimes the subject does not conform to that 'average' and, so, we must override the reading.
One thing that trendland is correct with is the undying 'need' for manufacturers to proclaim their 'high' speed, sometimes to the (very slight) detriment of reality. But, most of the time, the box speed will deliver at least a nearly optimal effect, overall, to satisfy each pictorial need. - David Lyga
Hmmm Vaughn - you don't belive ....so soI do not believe the testing procedure for determining the ISO of a film uses the opinion of an actual user of the film as part of its test/equation.
My actual ISO rating of a film to achieve perfection might be, and probably is, different than trendland's. And I do not care what the 'actual' ISO is. What is of import to me is to set it consistently on the meter so that I have a solid point of departure on the way to the print that sings in my voice.
Whew! Mixin' them metaphors, or whatevers...I got to get back to matting and a little framing...then platinum printin' tonite!
David BTW : a good fellow colleague told me the workflow of his boss who is filming cinema pictures ! The workflow his boss has with photigraphy :There is NOT a precise negative film exposure to satisfy all needs at one time. The ones who choose to be stingy with exposure will reap the benefits of superior highlight separation. The ones who are 'conservative' and demand that ALL be captured will reap the benefit of assuring that their shadows do not lag in the (muddy, undifferentiated) toe region of the Characteristic Curve. Given that most films today are extremely forgiving, my words work out to be mere theories and, thankfully, are not so resplendent with negative, desultory results. We make fine photographs even if we deviate from the norm.
Box speeds maximize the possibilities for technical success and, even today, might still have a bit of a safety factor that was, supposedly, 'obfuscated' decades ago. We have better meters but, even then, the meter is ignorant of how the scene is supposed to be presented; thus, it optimizes onto a medium gray result. Sometimes the subject does not conform to that 'average' and, so, we must override the reading.
One thing that trendland is correct with is the undying 'need' for manufacturers to proclaim their 'high' speed, sometimes to the (very slight) detriment of reality. But, most of the time, the box speed will deliver at least a nearly optimal effect, overall, to satisfy each pictorial need. - David Lyga
If a photographers preverence is to small grain - the workflow has to be different to a photographer
who' s preference are highlights and tonals!
Right said Yaughn - exactly! Btw. to some films (not to the majority of bw films) - there is just a small
group I have an idea of : Manfacturer changed ISO rating of a film!
One example is Rollei Retro 80s! It is ISO 80 of course! But this film has absolute better characteristics at ISO40!!!! I can imagine Rollei changed ISO recommandation .The original Agfa
Aviophot 80 may have had in history the original speed of lower than ISO 80.
WHY SHOULD A 3rd Tier MANUFACTURER CHANGE (HIGHER) ISO RATING OF A FILM ?
Because it may be a hart task to sell a film with box speed ISO 40 today ?
The issue is : From changing recomandation of development via developer and times a manufacturer can establish the box speed of his film!
Beside this the test procedure you mentioned Vaughn is a good way to prove speed characteristics
of films! Well I can't say if there was indeed an ISO CHANGE to Retro 80s - the Aviphot was at last
ALSO rated with the same box speed (ISO 80) so it is just an idea!
Because it is absolute the better ISO 40 film.
To clarify this issue one may ask Agfa - what isn't possible any longer. I could imagine that there was an issue (in the way I described [ISO change] from technical reasons [camera]....) long time ago!
This film was exclusevly designed and produced for military use!
An other example (not from changing ISO rating) but from incorrect box speed are the 2
ISO3200 films. Here definied test methods clearly say : below ISO 3200!
with regards
PS : One film I tested was the Rollei R 3 the recomanded ISO was ISO 25 - ISO 6400....!
This film showed first good results at E.I. ISO 800 and best characteristics at E.I. ISO400!
Also good characteristics with ISO 25 and best results at ISO 100 ????
BEFORE YOU WONDER ABOUT - THE FILM WAS "ORTO-PAN CROMATIC FROM MULTI LAYER DESIGN!View attachment 221931
12 min. is the max. exposure I ever remember! Perhaps it was about 15min. (Bad remind)the stability of the enlarger & its ability to hold the film flat during the often long exposures matter far more in making good mural prints -
12 min. is the max. exposure I ever remember! Perhaps it was about 15min. (Bad remind)
But the format then is about hight (the darkroom hight +60cm ) lenght ~ 4,40Meter!
So around 270 x 400cm! But then you can count each visible grain (35mm film)!
And no the stability of enlarger a.s.o. is not the problem (guess that could be a problem concerning type of enlarger) the problem is simple = the grain and the resolution of a bw film
in different formats!
with regards
bollocks.
you want to tell us you have done grain-sharp 100x enlargements?
you must be the troll of the century, trendland...
bollocks.
you want to tell us you have done grain-sharp 100x enlargements?
you must be the troll of the century, trendland...
especially if he isn't using a developer made of alpaca dung and expired flap meat...
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?