HP5 and Delta 400, much of a difference?

[wblynch]

...Somewhere he said "developing the film is the most boring part of the process". And also, his choice of film is rather simple, Tri-X by preference. He does not, to my knowledge, reveal much about his printing techniques, except that two to four prints is what he can do in a full day's work, in other words, there is a lot of trying and testing involved.
And after all, one negative can produce so many different results
Peter

Or perhaps more care and attention to the negative could result in less effort producing a satisfactory print?

My belief is that each step in the chain is important. We are constrained by the weakest link.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was led to this conclusion by studying the work of Michael Kenna including the rare interviews where he talks about his technique. Somewhere he said "developing the film is the most boring part of the process".

My experience is that film developing is a critical part of the process. One developer will produce bigger grain and less acuity while another will have finer grain and sharper acuity.

​

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

My belief is that each step in the chain is important. We are constrained by the weakest link.

Which is usually us. Which includes making conclusions too soon.

 

[ColColt]

I've pretty much settled on HP-5 and FP-4 as my go to film regardless the format. Good results in 120 as well as 35 format. Rodinal is the hands down best to my eye with FP-4 and HC-110 exclusively with HP-5. PanF is great if you have the light and a tripod handy.

Grain is good if it's tightly clustered. My old standby that's no longer made(Agfapan 400) excelled in that department.