It's just words, words, words: Describing and interpreting film performance.

[Craig]

The pursuit of graphs is neither artistic nor practical for roll film users.

I'd disagree with that, knowing the correct film speed and developing time is still important, no matter if it is roll film or sheet film. Once I did the testing and found both a proper film speed and developing regime the quality of my negatives improved considerably.

More importantly, I gained an understanding of what the film can and can't do. That's useful for roll film users, as if you know your scene has a contrast range outside what the film can capture you can make decisions about how to meter and what detail to sacrifice if needed.

 

[MattKing]

The only part of the "perfect" negative approach that isn't well suited to roll film use is the part that involves tailoring development to a single negative.
But even with that in mind, expansion and contraction development tools are still useful any time you expose an entire roll under similar lighting conditions.
This image is from a roll that I used increased development, due to relatively flat, high overcast lighting that was consistent throughout the day.


On the subject of the thread, what I would like to see is a combination of graphs, juxtaposed with example photographs and descriptive words, in order to be able to associate the three descriptive tools.
By the way, the way you overlaid the Zone indicators with the curves in post #44 was really useful!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The only part of the "perfect" negative approach that isn't well suited to roll film use is the part that involves tailoring development to a single negative.
But even with that in mind, expansion and contraction development tools are still useful any time you expose an entire roll under similar lighting conditions.
This image is from a roll that I used increased development, due to relatively flat, high overcast lighting that was consistent throughout the day.
View attachment 329371

On the subject of the thread, what I would like to see is a combination of graphs, juxtaposed with example photographs and descriptive words, in order to be able to associate the three descriptive tools.
By the way, the way you overlaid the Zone indicators with the curves in post #44 was really useful!

I suppose that there is a good use for interchangeable backs on medium format?

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I'd disagree with that, knowing the correct film speed and developing time is still important, no matter if it is roll film or sheet film. Once I did the testing and found both a proper film speed and developing regime the quality of my negatives improved considerably.

More importantly, I gained an understanding of what the film can and can't do. That's useful for roll film users, as if you know your scene has a contrast range outside what the film can capture you can make decisions about how to meter and what detail to sacrifice if needed.

I guess I have just become lazy!
The old densitometer comes out of storage and the learning curve starts again.
Thanks..

 

[alanrockwood]

I suppose that there is a good use for interchangeable backs on medium format?

Or multiple bodies in 35mm format.

It's not actually a bigger inconvenience to carry multiple camera bodies in 35mm than to carry multiple backs or multiple film holders in medium or large format photography, especially if one chooses to use relatively compact 35mm bodies. It's just that 35mm shooters aren't used to carrying that kind of extra equipment.

 

[MattKing]

I suppose that there is a good use for interchangeable backs on medium format?

Yes.
But I'm really not a devotee of that part of the Zone System - the one that relates to fine-tuning the contrast of each, individual roll film negative.
I rely on the variable contrast printing materials for that - they provide the flexibility that wasn't available when so much of the Zone System was being developed.

 

[aparat]

Yes.
But I'm really not a devotee of that part of the Zone System - the one that relates to fine-tuning the contrast of each, individual roll film negative.
I rely on the variable contrast printing materials for that - they provide the flexibility that wasn't available when so much of the Zone System was being developed.

I struggled with that at times. What I decided to do long ago is to buy 35 mm in bulk and make twelve-exposure rolls for the times when I want to really focus on one particular subject under specific conditions. Then, I can apply the rules of the ZS (or any other framework) because all twelve frames are shot as if they were a single sheet of film. With thirty six exposure rolls, I just don't care as much and will later rely on printing controls, assuming I have a photograph worth printing, which is not always the case.

Graves (The Zone System for 35mm Photographers, Curtin & London, Inc., 1982) presents a thorough guide to making the ZS work for amateur photographers who shoot 35 mm film. However, he does not really address the fact that a single roll of film may contain photographs taken under vastly different lighting conditions. His solution is, basically, to vary exposure according to the rules established through ZS testing. Then, pick a development time that should work for most frames on a given roll. Ideally, choose twenty four over thirty six exposure rolls, if possible. I think this approach may work, along with a choice of relevant printing controls.

Graves offers the following perspective:

"Not taking steps to understand our materials makes us slaves to the technology that we use. Paradoxically, photographers who pretend not to care about technique are allowing their creative impulses to be controlled by it."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Or multiple bodies in 35mm format.

It's not actually a bigger inconvenience to carry multiple camera bodies in 35mm than to carry multiple backs or multiple film holders in medium or large format photography, especially if one chooses to use relatively compact 35mm bodies. It's just that 35mm shooters aren't used to carrying that kind of extra equipment.

I use the extra back and extra LF film holders for different emulsions. That's confusing enough.

 

[snusmumriken]

Or multiple bodies in 35mm format.

It's not actually a bigger inconvenience to carry multiple camera bodies in 35mm than to carry multiple backs or multiple film holders in medium or large format photography, especially if one chooses to use relatively compact 35mm bodies. It's just that 35mm shooters aren't used to carrying that kind of extra equipment.

Some of us want to carry as little as possible. If it’s a burden it’s no fun anymore.

 

[alanrockwood]

Some of us want to carry as little as possible. If it’s a burden it’s no fun anymore.

Fair enough. That's a perfectly valid way to practice photography. I just wanted to point out a fairly simple way to practice the zone system when in 35mm photography.

 

[jp498]

For 35mm or even mixed use of 120 film, it's nice to understand that you'll have a certain amount of compensation in the highlights (or not) and midtones the way you like them and shadows the way you like them (or not). Not to create a need to change films or bodies, but to make the most of what's in the camera. e.g. Some people shoot only one film (such as tri-x or hp5+ or tmy2) and only use one developer and with science we can maximise the versatility of the film and make good prints with minor contrast grade options.

 

[aparat]

For 35mm or even mixed use of 120 film, it's nice to understand that you'll have a certain amount of compensation in the highlights (or not) and midtones the way you like them and shadows the way you like them (or not). Not to create a need to change films or bodies, but to make the most of what's in the camera. e.g. Some people shoot only one film (such as tri-x or hp5+ or tmy2) and only use one developer and with science we can maximise the versatility of the film and make good prints with minor contrast grade options.

This is a very reasonable approach to shooting roll film. For many years, that's basically what I did. I used Ilford FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus, one camera, one developer (D-76), and occasionally a Holga or Smena 8M for fun. More recently, I started experimenting with other films and developers, and it's been a lot of fun, but, at the end of the day, I dislike too much complexity, too many options, too many variables. I do, however, like the feeling of confidence derived from testing that if I follow a plan, it will help me produce good negatives. At some point, that confidence makes the technical aspects disappear because they become second nature, and one can focus on the pictures. I used to be there, but now I am still struggling to regain that confidence from a few years ago. I tell myself I need to take baby steps.

 

[aparat]

I have another Ilford Delta 100 comparison. This one is between the old Kodak HC-110 and the current version. Here's the caveat. My old HC-110 was old, over five years old, at least, quite possibly older. So the result might not be representative of that old formulation. The current one, though, is fresh, for what it's worth. Both with rotary agitation.

Old:
delta100HC110Old by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Current:
delta100_hc11049 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

How current is your current HC-110?
Is it the 2019 version with Kodak Alaris' name on it, or the more recent version with Sino Promise' name on it? If 2019, does it say made in USA, or made in Germany?
And if it says Sino Promise, does it say made in Germany, or made in China?
Until things finally shake out, you may need to post a lot more charts!

 

[aparat]

How current is your current HC-110?
Is it the 2019 version with Kodak Alaris' name on it, or the more recent version with Sino Promise' name on it? If 2019, does it say made in USA, or made in Germany?
And if it says Sino Promise, does it say made in Germany, or made in China?
Until things finally shake out, you may need to post a lot more charts!

Matt,
The old one was in a rectangular bottle. I dumped it because it was looking nasty, and there was about a third left in the bottle. The new one, I just bought from B&H. Here's the label:

 

[MattKing]

That is an orphan - the 2019 Made in USA stuff that is no longer being produced.

 

[aparat]

That is an orphan - the 2019 Made in USA stuff that is no longer being produced.

Damn. This is getting pretty messy. No wonder (some) people have lost trust in Kodak chemistry. I wonder if Freestyle sells this version, too. On their website, they list the same product number and say it is made in the USA. The liquid seems much less viscous than the old version. It's actually easier to mix from concentrate. I also wonder about its shelf life. I guess time will tell.

Here's a close-up at 3600 dpi:

delta100HC110Closeup by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

That was Kodak Alaris's short term response to the bankruptcy of Tetenal, who were most likely the manufacturer of the previous product.
It is most likely fairly old now - is there a best before date on the bottle?
Kodak Alaris sold the photochemistry business to its largest Chinese based distributor, Sino Promise in 2020, and then Sino Promise was nearly destroyed by the effects of Covid 19.
There now appears to be some new HC-110 slowly appearing on to the market under the previous catalogue number - some made in Germany, while some is made in China. Its not clear how much has made its way to North America.

 

[aparat]

That was Kodak Alaris's short term response to the bankruptcy of Tetenal, who were most likely the manufacturer of the previous product.
It is most likely fairly old now - is there a best before date on the bottle?
Kodak Alaris sold the photochemistry business to its largest Chinese based distributor, Sino Promise in 2020, and then Sino Promise was nearly destroyed by the effects of Covid 19.
There now appears to be some new HC-110 slowly appearing on to the market under the previous catalogue number - some made in Germany, while some is made in China. Its not clear how much has made its way to North America.

Thank you for that information! You are a walking encyclopedia of all things film photography. I always learn something new from your posts.

 

[aparat]

I decided to try this "orphan" HC-110 in my usual semi-stand routine. I agitate continuously for the first two minutes, followed by stand and two gentle inversions at the half-point. I found Delta 100 to respond very well to this kind of development, showing some interesting effects, full box speed, and very low B+F density, courtesy of HC-110. Oh, and I used the 1+100 dilution. To me, the 20-30 minute range is ideal.

delta100_HC11040 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Grain is also nicely controlled with some evidence of adjacency effects:
delta100HC110_99_30min by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The only part of the "perfect" negative approach that isn't well suited to roll film use is the part that involves tailoring development to a single negative.
But even with that in mind, expansion and contraction development tools are still useful any time you expose an entire roll under similar lighting conditions.
This image is from a roll that I used increased development, due to relatively flat, high overcast lighting that was consistent throughout the day.
View attachment 329371

On the subject of the thread, what I would like to see is a combination of graphs, juxtaposed with example photographs and descriptive words, in order to be able to associate the three descriptive tools.
By the way, the way you overlaid the Zone indicators with the curves in post #44 was really useful!

I have no comments on your procedures as I don't develop film. I have no darkroom and don't use the ZS. But that's a nice photo. Very sharp and interesting. Good tones.

 

[MattKing]

I have no comments on your procedures as I don't develop film. I have no darkroom and don't use the ZS. But that's a nice photo. Very sharp and interesting. Good tones.

Thanks Alan for the compliment.
With your workflow, you can do the same thing though - an "expansion" development is essentially the same as a "push" development, which is something that many labs offer as an extra charge option.
So if you are out there on a day where the light is really flat and your SLR/SBR is fairly narrow, you can add some punch to the negatives by exposing normally and requesting a one stop "push" from the lab.
The net results will be the same or provide slightly increased/better contrast and detail in the shadows, better contrast and tonal differentiation in the mid-tones and, due to the narrow SLR, still very good highlight detail, but better contrast and tonal differentiation there as well.
All of which are the "words, words, words" which I think aparat was referring to in the opening post to this thread.
(Just a reminder: "SLR" means "Subject Luminance Range", which is an arguably more correct reference to light reflected from a subject - "Subject Brightness Range" or "SBR" being arguably more correct when referring to light sources)

 

[aparat]

@Alan Edward Klein I agree completely regarding Matt's photograph. In addition to great compositing, mood, etc., it has a "feeling" of "sharpness" but without excessive graininess or any special processing tricks that I can see. At least that is how it looks to me. It may also be the white birch against the dark backdrop of the other trees, emphasized by longer development time? It reminds me of the quote below (speaking of words, words, words) because it represents a certain look or character that I find familiar and pleasing, as does this one:

"Rodinal is a high-acutance developer and I found that, in combination with Delta 400 - which is reasonably fine-grain film for its speed - it produced a negative with uniform sharp grain structure. This developer, for example, when used with 35mm HP5+, will give a much sharper grain than a conventional developer, such as Ilford ID11. But note, it is not fine grain. The negative will be a visible sharp-textured grain, which can be very pleasing." (Adrian Ensor, Advanced Processing and Printing, RotoVision, 2001).​

I think there is something to that "sharp" look. Barry Thornton wrote about it as well. A lot of people find it pleasing. I do, too, but not all the time. Also, now that I am trying to print again, I find that the whole notion of sharpness has a very different character/meaning with regard to silver gelatin prints than it does with scans. Scanning tends to change that character somewhat. Some scanners will emphasize grain, others will soften it, not to mention focusing, anti-aliasing filters, unsharp masking, and other digital variables involved. I am not bashing scanning. I am just realizing how different the process is in how it affects the final image. Sharpness is not something that is immediately evident from conventional sensitometric testing, except when it comes to contrast. But it is an important aspect of our perception of print quality.

I wonder how you guys evaluate sharpness in your own work?

 

[Craig]

(Just a reminder: "SLR" means "Subject Luminance Range", which is an arguably more correct reference to light reflected from a subject - "Subject Brightness Range" or "SBR" being arguably more correct when referring to light sources)

You make a good point. I just went outside and took some light readings. Keep in mind, this is 1:40 past solar noon for today. The ground is also snow covered, so that reflects quite a bit of light. Today is a cloudless, sunny day.

First, I used an incident meter pointed straight at the sun and it gave me EV15, which for a ISO 100 film is 1/250 F11. Then I used my Nikon F6 set to matrix metering and composed a scene that includes the road ( 50% clear of snow) some trees ( no leaves on them), some sky and a house that is middle toned. Except for the road, there was no snow covered surfaces in the frame. The light reading was 1/200 F8, or about 1-1/3 stops less than the incident reading. The reflective reading is more in line with what I expect would generate a correct exposure on film.

 

[snusmumriken]

@Alan Edward Klein I agree completely regarding Matt's photograph. In addition to great compositing, mood, etc., it has a "feeling" of "sharpness" but without excessive graininess or any special processing tricks that I can see. At least that is how it looks to me. It may also be the white birch against the dark backdrop of the other trees, emphasized by longer development time? It reminds me of the quote below (speaking of words, words, words) because it represents a certain look or character that I find familiar and pleasing, as does this one:

"Rodinal is a high-acutance developer and I found that, in combination with Delta 400 - which is reasonably fine-grain film for its speed - it produced a negative with uniform sharp grain structure. This developer, for example, when used with 35mm HP5+, will give a much sharper grain than a conventional developer, such as Ilford ID11. But note, it is not fine grain. The negative will be a visible sharp-textured grain, which can be very pleasing." (Adrian Ensor, Advanced Processing and Printing, RotoVision, 2001).​

I think there is something to that "sharp" look. Barry Thornton wrote about it as well. A lot of people find it pleasing. I do, too, but not all the time. Also, now that I am trying to print again, I find that the whole notion of sharpness has a very different character/meaning with regard to silver gelatin prints than it does with scans. Scanning tends to change that character somewhat. Some scanners will emphasize grain, others will soften it, not to mention focusing, anti-aliasing filters, unsharp masking, and other digital variables involved. I am not bashing scanning. I am just realizing how different the process is in how it affects the final image. Sharpness is not something that is immediately evident from conventional sensitometric testing, except when it comes to contrast. But it is an important aspect of our perception of print quality.

I wonder how you guys evaluate sharpness in your own work?

Coincidentally, I was browsing and admiring Arthur Steele’s work earlier today. I know they have been scanned and digitally printed, presumably with some digital tweaking, but they all have an amazing underlying sharpness and clarity despite being quite grainy. Look at his photo of Twiggy, for instance. You can see the big grain in her face, but the photo has real bite. It was taken on 35mm Tri-X (I asked through Instagram).