Need help getting systematic on _everything_ - get me past the beginner plateau!

[PFGS]

I’m going to condense the saga a bit, but a few years back I went totally crazy into analog photography in the worst possible way: indulging in massive GAS; switching film stocks, ISO/EI, developers, cameras and formats every third roll; spending way too much on hardware then cheaping out on consumables, and ultimately sticking most of my developed rolls in PrintFiles and throwing them in a drawer with no real evaluation of the negatives being suitable for either scanning or darkroom printing. What printing I did do was totally haphazard, no notes, random expired papers, overall slop and hastiness… I did learn a fair bit and occasionally got some decent results, but with massive inefficiency, even by amateur film standards.

Fast forward to today, I’m ready to try again and do it right this time. I’ve got a much better darkroom space set up, a handful of reliable 35mm and 6x6 cameras in good working order, and am looking to “dial in” two film stocks to start, ORWO DN21 and Delta 100 (maybe adding Ultrafine 400 if I need something faster, but more likely I’ll just stick with digital for low-light). I’ll be sticking to HC-110 because I have a ton of it, and Ilford’s new MGRC Deluxe for printing because the dmax and tone is awesome even in my incompetent hands.

So, I’m looking for advice, tips, and resources for a more systematic approach, and some “next step” ideas on how to move beyond beginner status. Right now, I’m totally comfortable with actually shooting, with the mechanics of developing (knock on wood, but I’ve never had a gross development misfire), and with making an enlargement – but my darkroom printing is pretty hit or miss with tons of bad test sheets wasted. I’m not looking for full-on zone system or the like, but it’s hard to find tutorials in between that kind of complexity, and ‘made my first enlargement, lol, and didn’t drink the fixer’-style YouTube junk.

To get an idea of what I’m after, let’s look at contact sheets: I did far too few of these in the past, which makes that pile of backlog rolls really forbidding. So step one, discipline myself to make contact sheets of every roll. But: how can I make them most useful and informative, to help me refine my process? I have a nice heavy glass contact printer – will they be sharper if I also taken out of the PrintFile, even though one can print through those? (And is 35mm too small for sharpness to be visible without enlargement anyway?) Are contact sheets best done at “minimum time for maximum black through filmbase + fog” or some other approach? What grade?

And printing, even for “straight” prints, proofs, whatever you want to call them, no dodging or burning, just trying to see if it’s a good negative – I can handle f-stop time sequences / test strips, pretty much, but what grade do you start with (assuming I’m not ready for split-grade printing yet)? Should every frame on a roll be printable at the same grade, or only those frames done under similar light, or it’s a per-frame thing? If I bracket exposures, how can I compare them usefully? If I’m constantly printing at 0 or .5 or 4.5 or 5, what do I need to change in my film development and/or exposure? Etc. etc. – I want to close the “feedback” loop so stuff gets better _and_ easier.

So again, anything from tips & rules of thumb, to a solid film-testing / personal ISO system that isn’t totally crazy-complex is appreciated. Books, websites, sternly avuncular advice – bring it, please. Some sensible way to organize negatives, test prints etc. would also be cool. I bulk load, so I can do short rolls for more efficient turnaround, if that helps.

 

[Alan9940]

I would highly recommend finding a copy of the "Zone VI Workshop" by Fred Picker and follow the simple tests and techniques therein. I couldn't advise any better than what's presented within those pages.

Have fun!

 

[cramej]

Fast forward to today, I’m ready to try again and do it right this time. I’ve got a much better darkroom space set up, a handful of reliable 35mm and 6x6 cameras in good working order, and am looking to “dial in” two film stocks to start, ORWO DN21 and Delta 100 (maybe adding Ultrafine 400 if I need something faster, but more likely I’ll just stick with digital for low-light). I’ll be sticking to HC-110 because I have a ton of it, and Ilford’s new MGRC Deluxe for printing because the dmax and tone is awesome even in my incompetent hands.

Ok, this is good but why pick ORWO DN21? How about FP4 and HP5? Orwo seems like an odd film to start with and D100 is expensive. Or even go with Foma or Arista since you will be burning through film? Dev and paper are fine.

So, I’m looking for advice, tips, and resources for a more systematic approach, and some “next step” ideas on how to move beyond beginner status. Right now, I’m totally comfortable with actually shooting, with the mechanics of developing (knock on wood, but I’ve never had a gross development misfire), and with making an enlargement – but my darkroom printing is pretty hit or miss with tons of bad test sheets wasted. I’m not looking for full-on zone system or the like, but it’s hard to find tutorials in between that kind of complexity, and ‘made my first enlargement, lol, and didn’t drink the fixer’-style YouTube junk.

This is partly why I suggest a more "normal" film to start with. You say you have the mechanics of developing down, but do you have consistency? Can you reliably shoot and process rolls of film with similar results each time? From there, make a competent, technically proficient print. Nothing too spectacular, but good highlights, shadows and contrast. Next step - dodging and burning. Now one step further - split grade printing. There really isn't much mystery to this. At its simplest, it is exposing a print with a high contrast grade first to get good blacks and strong highlights. Then go back an expose a second time with lower contrast filter to bring in some the missing details, particularly in the highlights.

To get an idea of what I’m after, let’s look at contact sheets: I did far too few of these in the past, which makes that pile of backlog rolls really forbidding. So step one, discipline myself to make contact sheets of every roll. But: how can I make them most useful and informative, to help me refine my process? I have a nice heavy glass contact printer – will they be sharper if I also taken out of the PrintFile, even though one can print through those? (And is 35mm too small for sharpness to be visible without enlargement anyway?) Are contact sheets best done at “minimum time for maximum black through filmbase + fog” or some other approach? What grade?

Don't take film out of the file - you can write important data on the header and have it on the contact sheet. 35mm, without a loupe, is difficult to judge true sharpness in a contact print. Best to select a frame you like, examine the film with a loupe and decide if it is good. Expose for maximum black on paper without any contrast filters and forget about the base+fog crap.

And printing, even for “straight” prints, proofs, whatever you want to call them, no dodging or burning, just trying to see if it’s a good negative – I can handle f-stop time sequences / test strips, pretty much, but what grade do you start with (assuming I’m not ready for split-grade printing yet)? Should every frame on a roll be printable at the same grade, or only those frames done under similar light, or it’s a per-frame thing? If I bracket exposures, how can I compare them usefully? If I’m constantly printing at 0 or .5 or 4.5 or 5, what do I need to change in my film development and/or exposure? Etc. etc. – I want to close the “feedback” loop so stuff gets better _and_ easier.

See second point above. Test strip with no filter, judge from there. If it's lowish contrast, start at 2.5 or 3. I like a bit more contrast so I usually default to 3 and go from there. Every frame will be different if you have different exposure, contrast, subject matter.

Bracketing can be compared on the contact print.

As far as controlling contrast on film with exposure and development, a book like Beyond Monochrome has a chart that shows examples of underexpose/overdevelop, overexpose/underdevelop, normal expose/overdevelop, etc. and the effects on grain and contrast. This would probably be a suitable answer to your questions at this point.

So again, anything from tips & rules of thumb, to a solid film-testing / personal ISO system that isn’t totally crazy-complex is appreciated. Books, websites, sternly avuncular advice – bring it, please. Some sensible way to organize negatives, test prints etc. would also be cool. I bulk load, so I can do short rolls for more efficient turnaround, if that helps.

The "personal EI" thing doesn't need to be complicated. Let's say you shoot a roll of film and it looks a little thin and your exposures for printing are really short. Two possibilities are (1) your exposure was off or (2) they are underdeveloped. 1 is easy - give the film more exposure next time. For example, I did one test of a roll of Acros some years ago at different EI's and developed with normal development. The combination of my meter, exposure and development looked better at 80 than 100 so that's what I decided to shoot Acros at. This was good enough for my purposes so I didn't need to spend more time on it. Some other combinations have been by accident...sort of. I found that I really liked HP5 shot at 640 with an orange filter and pushed one stop in processing so it stuck. It's not the only way I shoot HP5, but it works.
#2 is a bit more involved. Did you process too cold? Is your developer fresh? If there are no problems with the process or the dev, then longer development might take care of it. Longer development for normally exposed or underexposed film can increase contrast or cause highlights to block up.

There are 83 bazillion variables in the entire process from film selection to finished print. Most of them can be ignored unless you're trying to shift the tone curve by .37%, measuring density to the .05 stop on a densitometer and then considering adding 3 grams of sodium triborate chloride (whatever that is) to your water bath tempered developing process all because the average grain size on your 8x10 Tmax was 2 microns too big. Okay, sarcasm filter off .

When you are shooting, developing and printing with consistent, repeatable results that are satisfactory, then it's time to change a variable for improvement.

 

[MattKing]

Books are a good idea. The trick is finding one that resonates with you.
I would suggest Henry Horenstein's books - there are several editions. Some of the books will have sections which seem too simple for you, but it is the consistency of approach that matters.
Here is an example: https://www.amazon.ca/Black-White-P...renstein&s=books&sr=1-6&text=henry-horenstein
There are also a number of excellent resources that are specifically oriented toward darkroom printing. Your local library may have some of them available for loan. If you find one that resonates with you, consider buying a used or new copy.
Way Beyond Monochrome is a very good, very thorough resource, and if you have any questions, one of the co-authors, Ralph Lambrecht, posts here regularly.
Any evaluation of the shooting process that you feel currently comfortable with should really be rooted in the presentation part of the process. Good negatives print more easily or become usable digital files more easily.
Speaking generally, if you aim to average out around grade 2-3 with your negatives, you will have a more satisfying experience.
With that in mind, contact proof sheets at grade 2 are desirable, because they will help you predict whether work prints need to start at that grade, a lower grade, or a higher grade. There is no point taking 35mm negatives out of the sleeves for your contact sheets, provided you have good contact.
One suggestion: do you have contact with anyone who can help you evaluate your prints, and direct you to prints from others that are high in quality? One of the frustrations in this internet age is that one really cannot evaluate the quality of prints through a computer screen.
I have a link that I share regularly on the subject of Assessing Negatives. It isn't perfect, but it may help you in your attempt to systemize. Here is the link: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

 

[PFGS]

Ok, this is good but why pick ORWO DN21? How about FP4 and HP5? Orwo seems like an odd film to start with and D100 is expensive. {snip}

DN21 because it caught my eye, is affordable, and because I've shot very slow films in the past and they suit my subject matter, general shooting methods, and preference for fine grain. 100 feet is on it's way, so I'm running with it. It's admittedly an odd film but not, I think, so unusual in its characteristics that it won't respond to systematic principles valid for HP5+ etc. Delta 100 because I have a bunch that's just a few months from expiring, and I've just always liked its look.

{snip} You say you have the mechanics of developing down, but do you have consistency? Can you reliably shoot and process rolls of film with similar results each time? From there, make a competent, technically proficient print.

I do have good developing consistency from roll to roll and can repeat results well. But - "from there, make a competent print" still feels like hit and miss and endless bad test prints trying a little more exposure, then a little less, softer grade, then a harder grade - every time. This is why I'm looking for some structure in my process - I don't really know how to look at a print and know which parameter to change either in the darkroom for _that_ negative, or in the next roll to improve my future negatives. I can develop film as consistently as anybody, but I'm making consistently bad negs it doesn't do me much good.

{snip} Don't take film out of the file - you can write important data on the header and have it on the contact sheet. 35mm, without a loupe, is difficult to judge true sharpness in a contact print. Best to select a frame you like, examine the film with a loupe and decide if it is good. Expose for maximum black on paper without any contrast filters and forget about the base+fog crap.

My understanding is I would give the contact print the minimum amount of exposure to take to maximum black an area where light was shining through film base, fog, and, if present, file plastic - but not through any part of an image. That's all I meant, not some more sophisticated measurement of base+fog density or the like. Is that not correct? These are the specifics I feel like I need to advance.

The "personal EI" thing doesn't need to be complicated. Let's say you shoot a roll of film and it looks a little thin and your exposures for printing are really short. Two possibilities are (1) your exposure was off or (2) they are underdeveloped.

I know, at least theoretically, how to address these two issues. What I'm unsure of is, by looking, which one I am dealing with. 1) lack of shadow detail > give more exposure and 2) flat contrast > give more development?

When you are shooting, developing and printing with consistent, repeatable results that are satisfactory, then it's time to change a variable for improvement.

Right - hence my stripping away a bunch of "bad habit" variables. So I'm no longer shooting myself in the foot, but that doesn't mean I know where I'm supposed to run...

But - thanks for taking the time for a complete answer. Everything I didn't quote with questions back, I'm filing away for use! And I will check out Way Beyond Monochrome.

 

[138S]

Books,

1) First read "Beyond the Zone System" as many times as necessary to get a solid knowledge about practical sensitometry, make the excercises in the book and make some film and paper calibrations. Having that knowledge all the rest makes quite more sense. This book has been used in many photo schools to ensure a good basis for the rest. Read it with a magnifier, specially the first half about sensitometry, unsderstand well logarithms and how they are used.

2) "The Darkroom Cookbook" and "The Film Development Cookbook" . You will learn practrical operation and what necessary to manipulate the sensitometric curves and grain to suit your taste.

3) Now it's time for a very good and comprehensive book: "Way Beyond Monochrome". It covers all the entire process, if you understand well every chapter you will be mastering tradiditional photography technique.

4) Now let's refine your knowledge about post: http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

5) Lest's see how a master worked: Ansel Adams: Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs

 

[cramej]

DN21 because it caught my eye, is affordable, and because I've shot very slow films in the past and they suit my subject matter, general shooting methods, and preference for fine grain. 100 feet is on it's way, so I'm running with it. It's admittedly an odd film but not, I think, so unusual in its characteristics that it won't respond to systematic principles valid for HP5+ etc. Delta 100 because I have a bunch that's just a few months from expiring, and I've just always liked its look.

Well, that's reason enough to use what you've chosen. I questioned it because it's easy to get caught in the trap of the esoteric and "don't want to do what everybody else is doing".

I do have good developing consistency from roll to roll and can repeat results well. But - "from there, make a competent print" still feels like hit and miss and endless bad test prints trying a little more exposure, then a little less, softer grade, then a harder grade - every time. This is why I'm looking for some structure in my process - I don't really know how to look at a print and know which parameter to change either in the darkroom for _that_ negative, or in the next roll to improve my future negatives. I can develop film as consistently as anybody, but I'm making consistently bad negs it doesn't do me much good.

So let's overlook the issues with knowing what parameters to change in printing for now. Did you really mean to say that you're having a difficult time with making good negs? I've struggled with prints in the past only to realize 20 sheets later that it's probably a bad exposure or whatever and I'll never get it to look how I want it. Sometimes, you can accept it and make it as good as you can, other times, it's just bad. Back to the point...if processing is consistent and not in question, then metering and exposure technique is. Time to go back to the testing, and this might be easier to do with medium format but can still be done with 35mm. Find a low to medium contrast scene (not bright sun and harsh shadows) and meter for box speed - let's say Delta 100 for simplicity. Make an exposure metered at EI 100, then do + and - half stops out to 3 stops in each direction (write down your exposure so you can remember!). As MattKing said, it may be easier to do a contact sheet at grade 2. One tip for contact sheets is to have a fully exposed and developed blank piece of paper to compare maximum black. If your contact sheet shows that your best exposure was +.5 (EI 75, call it 80), then make a print of that. Does it look good? If yes, then you at least know where to start for the next roll by setting your meter at 80.

What are you metering with - handheld incident, reflective, in-camera (if so, what camera?)? That could also greatly affect how your negatives are turning out.

My understanding is I would give the contact print the minimum amount of exposure to take to maximum black an area where light was shining through film base, fog, and, if present, file plastic - but not through any part of an image. That's all I meant, not some more sophisticated measurement of base+fog density or the like. Is that not correct? These are the specifics I feel like I need to advance.

Yeah, I suppose I read too far into your initial response.

I know, at least theoretically, how to address these two issues. What I'm unsure of is, by looking, which one I am dealing with. 1) lack of shadow detail > give more exposure and 2) flat contrast > give more development?

Here, you can go back to your contact print of the film test. Make a print of an underexposed frame, compare to a print of what you believe to be a nicely exposed frame. Now look at the difference in the negatives. The underexposed frame will be thin, fairly see-through. Compare to the correctly exposed frame. Now look at one of the overexposed frames. It will be very dense and dark. Somewhere in the middle is good, and even just by looking at the negative, you should see detail in the highlights and shadows

Right - hence my stripping away a bunch of "bad habit" variables. So I'm no longer shooting myself in the foot, but that doesn't mean I know where I'm supposed to run...

But - thanks for taking the time for a complete answer. Everything I didn't quote with questions back, I'm filing away for use! And I will check out Way Beyond Monochrome.

Reference the above remark about having trouble getting good looking negs. If that's really the case, then that's where to start. A decently exposed and developed neg should give you a decent straight print at grade 2 or 3. It probably won't be something you want to hang on the wall yet, but....

The worst day in the darkroom is better than the best day at work!

 

[PFGS]

{big snip} Did you really mean to say that you're having a difficult time with making good negs?

I think I have, in the past - in large part because I was constantly going down one rabbit hole or another before I'd had the basics down. Every film under the sun including weird and/or ultra-expired, caffenol (fog city), and just generally changing everything all the time like a nitwit - for example, the answer to "handheld incident, reflective, in-camera (if so, what camera?)" is "all of the above, and more."

Reading over all your tips, I think I'll be well served by starting over with some basic tests like you outline, and a massive dose of simplification.

 

[jvo]

the best advice i was ever offered was start with one film, one developer and one paper. use them for a year then change one.

start with widely used, plain vanilla materials - nothing exotic or esoteric. adjust, shoot at box speed, play, make pictures, and most of all have fun. don't worry about all the testing at first.

welcome to photrio!

 

[Bormental]

@138S Do you think "Way beyond Monochrome" may be repetitive for someone who read the first two of your (excellent) recommendations? I am thinking about getting it, but having clicked on TOC on Amazon... chapters like "understanding exposure" seem unnecessary, no? It's not cheap.

 

[koraks]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested Adams' trilogy of the camera, the negative and the print yet. It's an easy/pleasant read, fairly compact and yet comprehensive, richly illustrated and even today and using 35mm gear, it'll give the fledgling film photographer a pretty good starting point for making satisfying (or even excellent) images.

 

[PFGS]

I have a link that I share regularly on the subject of Assessing Negatives. It isn't perfect, but it may help you in your attempt to systemize. Here is the link: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

That link on assessing negatives is really interesting, I've been hauling out and attempting to evaluate some. Here is a boring photo I took last month, as part of a test roll for a Canon EOS 650 I'd bought and never used. The color photo of the setup, taken with my Fuji digital, is pretty true to the light. The image of the negative (expired Ultrafine Extreme 400 at box speed, HC-100 dil. B), sitting on my phone-as-lightbox, was also taken with my Fuji. Last image is a quick, dusty and probably meaningless scan. I'd call the negative a little underexposed and a little underdeveloped, and would try grade 3 first - what do you think?

 

[MattKing]

The exposure looks good to me.
As far as development is concerned, it seems to me that the rendering in the scan looks quite faithful to the subject and faithful to the moderate contrast lighting seen in the digital version. I would therefore say that, objectively, the development looks quite satisfactory.
Subjectively, I can see choosing to increase the contrast for the aesthetic effect. If you were using sheet film or exposing an entire roll under similar lighting conditions, you could certainly elect to increase the contrast by increasing the development. But if this is just one shot in a mixed lighting roll, it makes sense to increase contrast at the printing stage - try grade 3.

 

[removed account4]

I would suggest Henry Horenstein's books - there are several editions. Some of the books will have sections which seem too simple for you, but it is the consistency of approach that matters.

+1. he's a great teacher !

the best advice i was ever offered was start with one film, one developer and one paper. use them for a year then change one.

start with widely used, plain vanilla materials - nothing exotic or esoteric. adjust, shoot at box speed, play, make pictures, and most of all have fun. don't worry about all the testing at first.

welcome to photrio!

couldn't agree more with everything here

don't waste your efforts on all sorts of cameras and films and developers and papers,
just use one, learn how to see, learn what your seeing means translated on film and then as a print.

have fun!
John

 

[PFGS]

The exposure looks good to me.
As far as development is concerned, it seems to me that the rendering in the scan looks quite faithful to the subject and faithful to the moderate contrast lighting seen in the digital version. I would therefore say that, objectively, the development looks quite satisfactory.
Subjectively, I can see choosing to increase the contrast for the aesthetic effect. If you were using sheet film or exposing an entire roll under similar lighting conditions, you could certainly elect to increase the contrast by increasing the development. But if this is just one shot in a mixed lighting roll, it makes sense to increase contrast at the printing stage - try grade 3.

Matt, thanks for taking the time to give this individual evaluation. In the past, I would have been sure that this was a very "thin" negative, but as I've said above, I wasn't really giving myself a firm basis for comparison by printing regularly. I'm excited to take my boring old tomato to the darkroom and report back.

P.S. if you garden and cook at all and have never planted them, or have a decent farmer's market near you but never checked them out, I can't recommend these Black Krim tomatoes highly enough...

 

[MattKing]

I've posted this before.
The attached is from a 6x6 negative that looks very thin to the eye:

There is a tendency for those who are new to the darkroom to want negatives that look more dense than may be best for printing (or scanning). As they gain experience, and start adjusting their approach based on the experience they gain while printing, the shadows in their negatives retain density, but the highlights end up better controlled.
That feedback loop results in negatives that may not look as pretty to the inexperienced eye, but will print well.
Based on how you started this thread, I would posit that you may not have ever got yourself into that really rewarding feedback loop. Once you do, you will really enjoy it.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of tomatoes:

Boring and most likely from the local large greenhouses.
I wonder how the "heirloom" tomatoes we see around here compare to the heirloom tomatoes near you?

 

[PFGS]

On the subject of tomatoes:
View attachment 252647
Boring and most likely from the local large greenhouses.
I wonder how the "heirloom" tomatoes we see around here compare to the heirloom tomatoes near you?

It's more my wife's specialty than mine (I'm just the cook) but over the years we've done a lot of Brandywine, Mortgage Lifter, German Johnson, and Cherokee Purple; the Black Krim beats them all.

 

[PFGS]

I've posted this before.
The attached is from a 6x6 negative that looks very thin to the eye:
View attachment 252646
There is a tendency for those who are new to the darkroom to want negatives that look more dense than may be best for printing (or scanning). As they gain experience, and start adjusting their approach based on the experience they gain while printing, the shadows in their negatives retain density, but the highlights end up better controlled.
That feedback loop results in negatives that may not look as pretty to the inexperienced eye, but will print well.
Based on how you started this thread, I would posit that you may not have ever got yourself into that really rewarding feedback loop. Once you do, you will really enjoy it.

You can keep posting that; killer tones and great use of negative space.

But no, I really didn't close that feedback loop in any useful way. I was too busy "testing" my newest camera/lens/film/developer/push/pull/metering technique/filter set/macro setup/you name it - of course, without a complete process I wasn't really testing anything other than my credit limit.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@138S Do you think "Way beyond Monochrome" may be repetitive for someone who read the first two of your (excellent) recommendations? I am thinking about getting it, but having clicked on TOC on Amazon... chapters like "understanding exposure" seem unnecessary, no? It's not cheap.

It's got some useful segments on MTF/ OTF behaviour and masking - otherwise the BTZS book and Ctein's book are more useful overall - there are flaws (Ctein's claims about focus point shifts of VC papers for example) but overall they do a good job of explaining the most important aspects of understanding the relationships between negative curve and paper curve - which is a good way of testing whether or not someone has actually read and understood these books - especially as they clearly demonstrate why the T-Max film curves are intended to behave as they do.

I struggle to recommend the cookbooks as they're a strange combination of quite a lot of strong opinions masquerading as absolute fact & not terrifically transcribed old Agfa/ Ansco/ Ilford/ Kodak formulae - which are nowadays available elsewhere.

If you want more seriously scientific approaches, Richard Henry's 'Controls in Black and White Photography' is very worthwhile, as is Grant Haist's 'Modern Photographic Processing'.

 

[awty]

Ive only been doing darkroom work for a few years, do everything wrong, use multiple formats, use multiple films and papers. Dodge, burn, tone to an inch of a pictures life. Dont use books much except for looking up some more complex procedures and formulas for chemistry. Try as many different techniques as possible.. Never done a contact sheet, scan negs and work out whats needed and go ahead and do it. Dont bother with notes past the first year. ........after awhile you get an eye for it, up until then you mostly get bin fodder. Once I use to take a dozen tries to get it close to right, now it only takes me a few, still need to perfect technique but that will only come with more practice.
I treat each picture as an individual and work out the best way I can present it choosing the right technique and materials. Then I frame them and put them on the wall and think of how I could do better and if I cant then it is done. Im just an armature and only need one or two copies of a print. If you wish to do it as a profession or compete, then probably best to use other methods.
As soon as I feel I have reached a creative plateau, I try something else and come back more invigorated.

 

[Bormental]

@Lachlan Young I am primarily interested in optics, film development and color. Unfortunately, I cannot afford a dark room so wet printing is not even on the roadmap. My final destination is a scan + outsourced printing. Film Development Cookbook was very helpful and, BTW, it was relatively easy to see the boundaries of personal opinions of the authors. I just wonder what else should I read.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Bormental in that case, start with Ctein & read Henry - many of the same principles apply across BW & colour. If you want to dig into the science, Haist, then Hunt's 'Reproduction of Colour' as starting points - there's plentiful academic literature too, though less readily accessible to the casual reader.

 

[Bormental]

@Lachlan Young thank you!

 

[PFGS]

Ive only been doing darkroom work for a few years, do everything wrong, use multiple formats, use multiple films and papers. Dodge, burn, tone to an inch of a pictures life. Dont use books much except for looking up some more complex procedures and formulas for chemistry. Try as many different techniques as possible.. Never done a contact sheet, scan negs and work out whats needed and go ahead and do it. Dont bother with notes past the first year. ........after awhile you get an eye for it....

This approach works for me with cooking, darkroom not so much.