One film and one developer or many films and developers ?

[Richard S. (rich815)]

To be clear: I only load one film per time in my cameras. And only use one developer at a time in my tanks. ;-)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here are some developer trades offs

Too bad there isn't a chart like that objectively included Rodinal, PyrocatHD, and RolloPyro.

What do you expect? It is a Kodak publication. Why would they help competitors?

 

[Sirius Glass]

To be clear: I only load one film per time in my cameras. And only use one developer at a time in my tanks. ;-)

 

[bence8810]

I shoot one film and use one developer and 3 cameras in total. One for workdays (tiny automatic) and one for weekends (Leica M3) and then there's a Rolleiflex for specifics like a family trip or a portrait session.

I started out by trying several different films (Tmax100 / 400 / Trix / Fuji Neopan Across etc) and then I found the Kodak Eastman 5222. Ever since I shoot it exclusively in Small Format and use Rodinal only for development. I shoot the film at 400 or 1600 depending on what i'd like to see.
Sticking to one film I think is liberating as you don't have to worry about which film to load. Just load THE film. Also the cameras, no need to wonder what to take with me, I just pick THE camera up.

Having said that, I don't enjoy gear and experiments in general so for someone who likes playing around and accepts the never ending learning curve - multiple emulsions etc might be the way to go.

Good luck!
Ben

 

[Dwayne Martin]

After screwing up several good photographs experimenting with films and developers I've decided to shoot FP4 and develop with D-76 exclusively. (Almost). I'll save the experimentation for actually taking the photograph.

 

[Arklatexian]

One film and one developer or many films and developers?

I am very much of the school of thought that using only one emulsion, once mastered, can produce the best results possible, especially when you use one developer exclusively and learn to do it well. Others seem to be able to get on with any emulsion thrown their way, but does this approach suit quality and consistent output ? Plenty of folks adopt the one camera one lens approach in an attempt to improve technique, but would they be better long term with the one film one developer doctrine instead ? Thoughts please.

Most of the photographers whose work I admire, among which are Ansel Adams, David Vestal and some of Fred Picker's, all seem to have recommended finding one film and developer and sticking with it, but from reading past Forums, I have found that these people are now "passe" here which I guess means that they are dead and can't "protect their opinions. I think, as you seem to, it makes sense to become really proficient with a combination so when you expose a film (I shoot B&W as my serious photography), you can depend on the results. The film manufacturers have kept me from becoming too complacent by discontinuing films or going out of business. Soooo, by all means find a film/developer combination and STAY WITH IT. And when I find that combination, I am going to practice what I am preaching............Regards!

 

[MattKing]

Experimenting with new combinations is a lot more fun and rewarding if you already have the benefit of a dependable combination that gives you the results that both please you and are repeatable.

 

[John Bragg]

Most of the photographers whose work I admire, among which are Ansel Adams, David Vestal and some of Fred Picker's, all seem to have recommended finding one film and developer and sticking with it, but from reading past Forums, I have found that these people are now "passe" here which I guess means that they are dead and can't "protect their opinions. I think, as you seem to, it makes sense to become really proficient with a combination so when you expose a film (I shoot B&W as my serious photography), you can depend on the results. The film manufacturers have kept me from becoming too complacent by discontinuing films or going out of business. Soooo, by all means find a film/developer combination and STAY WITH IT. And when I find that combination, I am going to practice what I am preaching............Regards!

It is indeed a huge problem when a favorite film is discontinued. I usually have an alternative in mind and when things looked shaky with the future of Kodak, I auditioned Neopan 400 and liked it very much, only to have the plug pulled by Fuji. Then I looked at Ilford and tried HP5+ and Delta400. Result of this approach is that HP5+ is now my one go to film, but I can use Tri-X if for some reason HP5+ should disappear or be temporarily unavailable. I also know that the same developing regime works for both interchangably, so I can make a pre-tested substitution should the need arise. Yes as in my op, one film and one developer, but with the added security of an ace up my proverbial sleeve.

 

[georg16nik]

I am very much of the school of thought that using only one emulsion, once mastered, can produce the best results possible, especially when you use one developer exclusively and learn to do it well. Others seem to be able to get on with any emulsion thrown their way, but does this approach suit quality and consistent output ? Plenty of folks adopt the one camera one lens approach in an attempt to improve technique, but would they be better long term with the one film one developer doctrine instead ? Thoughts please.

The illusion of one x, y, z, simplicity is tragicomical in the grand scheme of photographic complexities.
So, I am totally fine with any kind of emulsions, processes and equipment (up to MF).

 

[brokenglytch]

It is indeed a huge problem when a favorite film is discontinued. I usually have an alternative in mind and when things looked shaky with the future of Kodak, I auditioned Neopan 400 and liked it very much, only to have the plug pulled by Fuji. Then I looked at Ilford and tried HP5+ and Delta400. Result of this approach is that HP5+ is now my one go to film, but I can use Tri-X if for some reason HP5+ should disappear or be temporarily unavailable. I also know that the same developing regime works for both interchangably, so I can make a pre-tested substitution should the need arise. Yes as in my op, one film and one developer, but with the added security of an ace up my proverbial sleeve.

Wish I could say the same John. If I could make all the discontinued films available again, my chosen combination would have solved itself years ago, at least on the film side of things. I couldn't get enough Kodak HIE or TMZ. I like Ilford Delta 3200, and eventually might even like it better than TMZ, but it's not quite the same. Nothing is or was like HIE and I miss it dearly. Hell, I don't even know if there's an IR film on the market currently, but none of the ones that have come and gone since HIE ever dipped so far into the infra red spectra as that one did. Made for some truly unique shots.

Edit: Neat, looks like B&H has Ilford SFX 200 IR film in stock now...they didn't a few weeks ago when I looked. Guess I'll have to try it since it's the closest I'm going to get to the old days...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do whatever you enjoy. I've worked with dozens of different films and developers, even though 90% of my routine work is done with only a
few products. Leave gotta-do-it-this-way manifestos to political rhetoric and brutal dictators.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a primary film and developer combo, Foma 200 and MCM 100, but on occasion if need speed I shoot with Tmax 400 or Kentmare 400 and develop in DDX or D76. My best guess that I shoot Foma 200 about 80% of time, Tmax for sports.

 

[Pioneer]

I was very close to using one film only with Efke 25. We all know where that went.

Since then I have used several options but have used more TMX100 and TriX than anything else.

Now, since the price of TriX has been climbing through the roof I am again on the hunt for a reasonable alternative.

I do feel that staying with an emulsion and developer that your understand is a great idea. Now, can someone talk to the film companies and explain this concept so they quit dropping our favorite films?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Those that constantly switch films and developers may be having fun but they run the risk of being jack of all trades, master of none. Photography is ultimately about taking pictures. Experimentation may be useful and even fun but it shouldn't be your primary objective. If it is then you are NOT a photographer.

 

[Black Dog]

Experimenting with new combinations is a lot more fun and rewarding if you already have the benefit of a dependable combination that gives you the results that both please you and are repeatable.

That's been my experience too. XP2 is probably my favourite film for MF and HP5 or FP4+ for LF [RIP APX , Verichrome and Fortepan].

 

[brokenglytch]

Those that constantly switch films and developers may be having fun but they run the risk of being jack of all trades, master of none. Photography is ultimately about taking pictures. Experimentation may be useful and even fun but it shouldn't be your primary objective. If it is then you are NOT a photographer.

That's a strong stance to take and we'll have to agree to disagree Gerald. It depends entirely on your aim as a photographer and what style of shots you want to shoot as to which method will provide you the best results. If you want to document the world super consistently for an encyclopedia or something, you're probably somewhat more correct in your assessment. If, however, you want to produce stylized art and you value the variance and unpredictable results that only experimentation brings to the mix, you're just as much a photographer as anyone else when you cycle films, chemistry and cameras and try new things. All comes down to the content of the shots.

In your own words, photography is about taking pictures. As long as you're taking shots and getting results you like, why do they have to be cookie cutter consistent in style, tone, and technique?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As long as you're taking shots and getting results you like, why do they have to be cookie cutter consistent in style, tone, and technique?

The advantage of using one film and developer is that you standardize your process. This saves time in the darkroom. If you are constantly changing things then you will waste not only time but also expensive film, paper and chemicals. It has absolutely nothing to do with style, ... It is a practical consideration. Do anything you want but you need a "go to" method when making a print is the prime consideration.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have absolutely no problem switching between different films and formats, or even between color versus black and white, even on the same day, and realistically claiming I am a master of all of them. If you drive a Porsche are you thereby incapable of driving a Toyota? But where I would agree with the one film, one developer, one paper theory is at the start of the learning curve. If you are just a beginner, you don't want to juggle too many variables at once. Get the most out of something simple until you learn the basics, decide what you like or don't like about what you're doing, identify the weak links, and go forward from there. Nothing can be worse for the average beginner than trying to overthink the whole process. And then there are some really accomplished individuals who never vary technique much over their entire careers. But you can't force everyone's foot into the same shoe.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

That's a strong stance to take and we'll have to agree to disagree Gerald. It depends entirely on your aim as a photographer and what style of shots you want to shoot as to which method will provide you the best results. If you want to document the world super consistently for an encyclopedia or something, you're probably somewhat more correct in your assessment. If, however, you want to produce stylized art and you value the variance and unpredictable results that only experimentation brings to the mix, you're just as much a photographer as anyone else when you cycle films, chemistry and cameras and try new things. All comes down to the content of the shots.

In your own words, photography is about taking pictures. As long as you're taking shots and getting results you like, why do they have to be cookie cutter consistent in style, tone, and technique?

Yup. I could not have said that better. One day I might just stick to one film and one developer. Right now it would bore me too much and not be as fun. And I'm very very satisfied with my results from my many films and developers and do not see it hindering me at all in my art or my craft. I think I get terrific results. And I certainly don't denigrate people who get satisfaction from it in a different manner than me.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What I am saying is only what Ansel Adams espoused. When you push the shutter you need to be certain what you will get. You can only achieve this by becoming completely familiar with the film in all situations. Once you have done this then if you need a second film then repeat the process. I could be wrong but I think that most of the great photographers stick to this method. For example the portraitist G. Paul Bishop used only one developer. A simple mixture of Metol, sodium sulfite and acetone. Why? It did exactly what he wanted. There was no reason to change.

I no longer shoot much color but when I eventually found that trying to juggle two mediums was too distracting. Either it was a color or a B&W day.

Please read all of what I have said. I am not against experimentation. Not against fun. But if you have a clear message that you wish to convey with your images then keep your method simple.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I no longer shoot much color but when I eventually found that trying to juggle two mediums was too distracting. Either it was a color or a B&W day.

Sometimes I will shoot both of a subject, but the processing and printing are handled very differently and separately.

 

[MattKrull]

I agree with some points of one film one developer - that it simplifies your process, gives you a solid idea of what you are going to get, etc. but it fails one simple issue for me: "Use the most appropriate tool for the job". This also being a suggestion of many highly regarded photographers (Since everyone is dropping names, I'll associate that one with Greg Heisler, who is still alive, still working professionally, and still uses an 8x10 from time to time).
Adjustible wrenches are nice, but when you know the size of bolt you need to turn, and you have limited space to work, a ratchet or box end wrench beats it hands down. Chosing to stick with the adjustible wrench because it is what you've perfected your process around is silly.
HP5+ works well enough in most situations, but for a studio portrait I want RPX 25 or Retro 80s; for shooting a dark venue I want Delta 3200; for shooting those seductive sunset colours I want, well, something that captures colour.
To me, One camera, one lens, one film, one developer exercises have always been that - an exercise. A temporary learning tool to remove distractions and help you learn just how effective you can be with one specific tool set. It's only a useful full time philosophy if your photographic interests never stray from that combination's result set.
The one place where I limit my playing around is in dark room paper and developer. That's the one place where I want consistency and to remove variables.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree with some points of one film one developer - that it simplifies your process, gives you a solid idea of what you are going to get, etc. but it fails one simple issue for me: "Use the most appropriate tool for the job". This also being a suggestion of many highly regarded photographers (Since everyone is dropping names, I'll associate that one with Greg Heisler, who is still alive, still working professionally, and still uses an 8x10 from time to time).
Adjustible wrenches are nice, but when you know the size of bolt you need to turn, and you have limited space to work, a ratchet or box end wrench beats it hands down. Chosing to stick with the adjustible wrench because it is what you've perfected your process around is silly.
HP5+ works well enough in most situations, but for a studio portrait I want RPX 25 or Retro 80s; for shooting a dark venue I want Delta 3200; for shooting those seductive sunset colours I want, well, something that captures colour.
To me, One camera, one lens, one film, one developer exercises have always been that - an exercise. A temporary learning tool to remove distractions and help you learn just how effective you can be with one specific tool set. It's only a useful full time philosophy if your photographic interests never stray from that combination's result set.
The one place where I limit my playing around is in dark room paper and developer. That's the one place where I want consistency and to remove variables.

I agree.

One extension, the 1,1,1 idea is great for producing a signature look or continuity within a set. That is a great commercial advantage. Another way to put that though is that it creates an assembly line for a single product.

One must decide if they want that continuity or not.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I agree.

One extension, the 1,1,1 idea is great for producing a signature look or continuity within a set. That is a great commercial advantage. Another way to put that though is that it creates an assembly line for a single product.

One must decide if they want that continuity or not.

Or better yet: can you imagine if you settled on a particularly 1-1-1 combo, early in your photo career. Then on a whim 5, 8, 10 years later, you try something new because you sort like something that someone else did with that other film or developer. Then the results are like, "Oh my god, this is wonderful! Much better than what I've been using!". Lot of time wasted. Settling on 1-1-1 is great for many reasons, but don't do it until you have a certain amount of experience, perhaps have tried a few to understand how the differences are created and the results affected. And after enough time has passed and experience gained to even know what you're after.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of us just like to switch things up and learn something new from time to time, and what one does learn might come in handy. Just get used to it, and stop preaching that one can't do this or that, because people like me do it all the time, and the work doesn't suffer an iota, because I've spent the effort to learn each option deeply. In fact, I find it helpful to the creative juices to alter my approach periodically. And I'm every bit as comfortable shooting color or black and white on the same day. But that doesn't mean it's logistically or economically sensible to be doing too many things at once, especially if you tend to lug an 8x10 system over the hills. You can only carry so many filmholders at the same time, and it ain't many! And sometimes changes are market driven: products themselves come and go. If you can't evolve and adapt, your darkroom goes extinct. One more reason to be flexible.