The whole 'using one film and one developer' thing... I view it like this:
There is a very strong relationship between the 'Paper/Developer' combination, and the 'Negative/Exposure/Development' combination. It takes time to understand that relationship, and how to tune your negatives with exposure and development, taking everything like lens contrast, light, subject matter, etc into account to make the very most of the paper's qualities.
You can get good results by 'overexposing a stop and pull development 20%' all day long, but if you are after the very best your materials have to offer, then you have to look beyond information on the internet and the box the film came in. Reason: There is no way in hell everybody else is going to be able to tell what paper you're printing on, what developer you're using, at what dilution, what type of enlarger you have, what contrast filters you have, your camera's shutter, your camera's lens (and its contrast!), and on and on and on. All those things are individual to each user, and have to be taken into account.
The only thing that can tell you the truth of what your paper needs is the print and your eyes looking at it, and the only person that can do that for you is: YOU!
So, am I nuts or what? Maybe a little bit. Luckily, the magic comes from YOU, and not the camera, the film, the developer, or paper. It is how you fit all these things together that really makes it gel. If you don't believe me, then buy a hundred rolls of fresh FP4+ or Tri-X, a few bags of D76, shoot one roll at a time, and contact print, proof, and print. If you don't have enough shadow detail for a particular kind of light - expose more. If your highlights block up - develop less. Learn each lighting scenario, and how to adjust for it, print your negs, on the same paper, using the same developer, and eventually you will see that the only magic there is is hard work.
So, about the 'nuts' part. To me it's just exactly twice as difficult to learn all this with two films. If you add one more developer, it's four times as difficult. If you have two different papers, it's eight times as difficult, or at least eight times as much information needed to get to the goodies that hide within the potential of all your materials.
That is how I see it, and why I have stopped using anything but Tri-X these days, processed in replenished Xtol, printed on Ilford MGIV (unless it's a portrait in which case I use MGWT) processed in replenished LPD. Not because I think they're better, but it's what I know best. My negs prints with an ease I could not have imagined, meaning I waste a whole lot less in the darkroom (paper is so f-ing expensive these days). This becomes utterly clear when I try to print old negatives, and it takes me 4-5 sheets to get to a good print, while I can get one that I'm really satisfied with in 2-3 sheets with newer negatives. That to me speaks volumes.
I hope that this little anecdote is of use to someone, as I realize that my way of doing things is just one person. None of it is my idea, but learned from photographers who have taught photography for a very long time, and in term learned from past masters. Shaking what I call the 'photographers disease' has been an eye-opening experience for me.
- Thomas
There is a very strong relationship between the 'Paper/Developer' combination, and the 'Negative/Exposure/Development' combination. It takes time to understand that relationship, and how to tune your negatives with exposure and development, taking everything like lens contrast, light, subject matter, etc into account to make the very most of the paper's qualities.
You can get good results by 'overexposing a stop and pull development 20%' all day long, but if you are after the very best your materials have to offer, then you have to look beyond information on the internet and the box the film came in. Reason: There is no way in hell everybody else is going to be able to tell what paper you're printing on, what developer you're using, at what dilution, what type of enlarger you have, what contrast filters you have, your camera's shutter, your camera's lens (and its contrast!), and on and on and on. All those things are individual to each user, and have to be taken into account.
The only thing that can tell you the truth of what your paper needs is the print and your eyes looking at it, and the only person that can do that for you is: YOU!
So, am I nuts or what? Maybe a little bit. Luckily, the magic comes from YOU, and not the camera, the film, the developer, or paper. It is how you fit all these things together that really makes it gel. If you don't believe me, then buy a hundred rolls of fresh FP4+ or Tri-X, a few bags of D76, shoot one roll at a time, and contact print, proof, and print. If you don't have enough shadow detail for a particular kind of light - expose more. If your highlights block up - develop less. Learn each lighting scenario, and how to adjust for it, print your negs, on the same paper, using the same developer, and eventually you will see that the only magic there is is hard work.
So, about the 'nuts' part. To me it's just exactly twice as difficult to learn all this with two films. If you add one more developer, it's four times as difficult. If you have two different papers, it's eight times as difficult, or at least eight times as much information needed to get to the goodies that hide within the potential of all your materials.
That is how I see it, and why I have stopped using anything but Tri-X these days, processed in replenished Xtol, printed on Ilford MGIV (unless it's a portrait in which case I use MGWT) processed in replenished LPD. Not because I think they're better, but it's what I know best. My negs prints with an ease I could not have imagined, meaning I waste a whole lot less in the darkroom (paper is so f-ing expensive these days). This becomes utterly clear when I try to print old negatives, and it takes me 4-5 sheets to get to a good print, while I can get one that I'm really satisfied with in 2-3 sheets with newer negatives. That to me speaks volumes.
I hope that this little anecdote is of use to someone, as I realize that my way of doing things is just one person. None of it is my idea, but learned from photographers who have taught photography for a very long time, and in term learned from past masters. Shaking what I call the 'photographers disease' has been an eye-opening experience for me.
- Thomas
