I care less and less about which film, camera, lens, developer ...

You aren't in control if the steering wheel is loose, or there's not enough fluid in the brake lines. If you don't care, fine. If you want to fine
tune your images, it's no more work to do it with good supplies than generic ones. The difference is, that with film and paper well matched
to the end result, you'll arrive faster and happier.

Somehow I first read the Op differently. He/she seemed to be commenting on reduction in wasteful stress, by avoiding an endless chase towards some silver-bullet. But then I re-read the bit about always stand developing for an hour. I'd rather have a predictable neg that was going to print as I wanted, rather than one which was going to be a struggle to get halfway there regarding it's contrast and density.

The never-ending, inconstant, silver-bullet-searching approach is still rather foolish though, so I could agree with that idea.

MartinP said:

Somehow I first read the Op differently. He/she seemed to be commenting on reduction in wasteful stress, by avoiding an endless chase towards some silver-bullet. But then I re-read the bit about always stand developing for an hour. I'd rather have a predictable neg that was going to print as I wanted, rather than one which was going to be a struggle to get halfway there regarding it's contrast and density.

The never-ending, inconstant, silver-bullet-searching approach is still rather foolish though, so I could agree with that idea.

Click to expand...

hi martin

i saw the same thing as you did.
but i had no problem with the stand development ...
while i have never used rodinal i have done
stand development with caffenol C and print developer mixed in ..
for about 30 mins ... every film worked, no matter the iso i developed all
at the same time and every negative was nice ... ( even c41 and e6 )
like the OP it was a lazy solution for me too, i didn't have a lot of time to
develop my film .. did this for a 2-3 years ? hundreds of rolls of film probably 1000 sheets ...
paring the tree of equipment, film and chemistry allows the person using the camera
to not worry as much about any of the usual stuff people tend to obsess about ...

darkosaric said:

So,



Only 2 points in the process where I try hard and care are taking the picture and printing the final print.
Am I the only one ?

Click to expand...

Nope. I care about a lot more than 2 points. I really enjoy exploring SLR photography. So many different lenses, even amongst the same focal length. At other times, I just pick up my rangefinders and shoot a totally different way. Nor do I cease to care about film. I enjoy exploring the various different types of film. If I refrain from buying cameras, that just leaves more money to buy film, so I buy a lot of film.

I am down to my last drops of Kodak HC-110 developer. The inquisitive part of me is now trying to find a new developer to try for the next year or two.

About semi-stand: for me it is important that I don't have thin negatives. Once when I have non-thin negative - all I want can be done with multigrade filters, dodging, burning and some potassium ferrocyanide. Of course I am not saying that this is best way for everyone, but it works for me. Rodinal is cheap and good - and that is why I am using it, but the same would be with HC110, or without semi-stand. I did tried almost all commercial developers in last 10 years.

For myself I have noticed that too much attention to the technical details makes my images suffer. Just picking a camera/lens/film/developer and sticking to it for a while works for me.

Gerald C Koch said:

Too many people obsess over the "look" of a certain film, failing to recognize the it is the skilled photographer that is in control. As commented before I defy anyone to determine with any certainly what particular film was used in the making of a print.

Click to expand...

There are many people who are the analog version of pixel peepers. I've got a pretty good idea of the capabilities of my materials and my equipment is kept in good shape. But I'm not going to stress over the little things. That keeps the photographer from really doing anything, imo.

I care less and less about which film, etc, etc...

railwayman3 said:

I remember a very ancient gentleman giving a talk on architectural photography at our school camera club; he used an even more ancient plate camera with Ilford(?) ortho cut film ("a few seconds exposure at f/32, until he thought it had had enough".)

I remember also his recipe for D23 developer...."pint of water, teaspoon of metol, handful of sulphite, develop in a dish until the neg looks right".

I've never seen better or more beautiful prints of churches and their interiors since !

Click to expand...

I'll bet he also took a handfull of sodium thiosulfate and stirred that into a quart/liter of water for his fixer. I have seen oldtimer professionals do that more than once. They would fix for a generous amount of time then wash the negatives or prints for at least an hour. Nothing ever seemed to fade or stain. Maybe we all worry too much......Regards!

To me, this way or that way kind of extreme approach doesn't work. Good blend of both works for me. While I don't obsess about composition, I do take care. While I don't have to have the world's best equipment, I have a capable equipment and I take care of them. While I no longer maintain +/- degree and few second variance in development, I do try to keep it within reasonable tolerances.

It's good to know a lot of things. It is not good to think there is only one right way.

Many discussions on Internet forums are, in general, very bad about this.

Occasionally, I take out a camera from mid last century or older. On some simple cameras, I care nothing and just point, look, and shoot. (what exposure adjustment??) Sure, it's not perfect, but it's refreshing. It helps me reset my priorities.

It's like saying you don't care what you eat as long as it has ketchup on it.

Some things are good with ketchup, some aren't.

karl said:

It's like saying you don't care what you eat as long as it has ketchup on it.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to the op, Its nothing like saying that

pdeeh said:

If you are referring to the op, Its nothing like saying that

Click to expand...

i couldn't agree more !

I read the OP as "I've been there-done that and found this T-Shirt fits well." Nuthin' wrong wif dat.

oldtimermetoo said:

I'll bet he also took a handfull of sodium thiosulfate and stirred that into a quart/liter of water for his fixer. I have seen oldtimer professionals do that more than once. They would fix for a generous amount of time then wash the negatives or prints for at least an hour. Nothing ever seemed to fade or stain. Maybe we all worry too much......Regards!

Click to expand...

I think that the point of my original post was exactly that...the old guy kept to the simple materials and methods he had used and mastered over many years, and his experience told him exactly what exposures and process times he needed to get the perfect negative which he wanted. A definite lesson there, I believe !

I think you are dead on. I have finally narrowed my own process so that my work looks more uniform and is easier to duplicate that look. There is no need to have five different of everything to select from unless you like living an overly complicated life.

For hand camera users (LF enthusiasts are a different breed), the reality we work in is out of our control, most of the time. Therefore it makes sense to eliminate as many variables as possible. To this end finding a camera, lens, film and developer one likes and trusts leaves the photographer to concentrate on the subject. Developing an instinctive relationship with the materials is essential, so the fewer the better.

why would LF be any different than anything else ?

Christopher Walrath said:

I think you are dead on. I have finally narrowed my own process so that my work looks more uniform and is easier to duplicate that look. There is no need to have five different of everything to select from unless you like living an overly complicated life.

Click to expand...

Variety is the spice of life!

frank said:

Variety is the spice of life!

Click to expand...

Not necessarily in the darkroom.

If you concentrate on one camera, one lens, one film, one developer, one paper, you will be able to get extremely good at anticipating and controlling the results.

The down side is that you are limited to what that combination is well suited for.

On the other hand, too many cameras, lenses, developers and papers, you will never get good at "seeing" the results the combination is going to give you. Unless you are obsessive in your recording of ever tiny variable, repeating something you really like will be very difficult, if not impossible.

Moderation in all things...

It is all a matter of balance -- and most folks have different centers of gravity.

In my own way of working I have no great desire to standardize everything. I love the accidents and the unexpected results, yet I have produced consistent portfolios of work. I have been making photographs for 38 years and hope for another 20 good solid years (with 10 more basking in my own imagined glory...that will get me to 90 yrs old).

One thing digital has done for traditional photography (by the disappearence of many traditional products) is to give a nudge to those who had gotten too safe using the same materials over and over again to produce images that have all look the same over the past decade or so.

Of course digital has also taken snapshot photography from what was once usually limited to machine printed 4x6 prints to bedsheet-sized prints.

jnanian said:

why would LF be any different than anything else ?

Click to expand...

Because you/they can develop individual sheets how they want them for the zone system. Also frame precisely in a way that's difficult or impossible on a hand camera, wait hours or days for the weather, etc. A miniature camera is not the best tool for that approach.

blockend said:

Because you/they can develop individual sheets how they want them for the zone system. Also frame precisely in a way that's difficult or impossible on a hand camera, wait hours or days for the weather, etc. A miniature camera is not the best tool for that approach.

Click to expand...

i see what you are saying ...

it is very easy to generalize and suggest that all or most or ... people
who use a LF camera use the same methods you described
and people using smaller cameras aren't as patient or methodical in their approach ..
but there are small format users who have the same relationship with their equipment + materials
and exposure methods as LF camera operators you describe
and there are people who use LF cameras who do not use the zone system, wait hours or days for the weather &C
and they do not process every sheet one at a time ...

the way i see it ( and it might be wrong ) is if the person using the camera has a relationship with his equipment and materials
( like you described ) it doesn't matter what camera or materials he or she uses because he /she is familiar enough
through personal experience, knowledge &c with the materials + equipment they don't need to worry about much.
its like knowing how to read the light and not having to deal with using a light meter ... or not measuring ingredients when
making a developer, or mixed drink or cooking a meal ... experience and comfort trumps all.
if the OP is comfortable with using whatever film he grabs and puts in whatever camera he uses
and developing the exposed film in the developer he has grown fond of in a way he is used to ( and it gives him
images he is able to work with ) i don't really see what is wrong with that ... not being bogged down with the minutia
that a lot of photographers tend to obsess about allows him to do what he wants ..

Sirius Glass said:

Not necessarily in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

Right. As posted, I've standardized my film, developer, paper, and processing.

Camera types, systems, and formats, as well as lenses, is what I play with.
Not buying new, just playing with what I've already got.

but 35mm is not designed for slow and steady usage - it is for the moment. LF is for the image at the best possible definition and to blow the minds of the portrait subjects! Nothing like a 'bag camera' to give you some authority.
That is the difference. And that a 35mm film is, in the vast majority of cases , shot over a period of time with many different lighting situations.