One film and one developer or many films and developers ?

Michael R 1974 said:

It takes a couple of rolls to find a developing time and that's about it. Other than that, I'm quite confident you could fool almost anyone when it comes to films in the same category such as Tri-X and HP5 for example. Same goes for developers.

Click to expand...

No no no! All my short-comings are due to not using the right film or developer. Or lens for that matter. Hmmm, it's probably time I go buy a faster one that's sharper and has more contrast. Can we just cut to the chase in this thread and all agree on the best film, best developer, and best lens? Oh and I'll be pushing all my films to 1600 at least. And want the best shadow detail. And no grain.

Michael R 1974 said:

Click to expand...

Sort of sad that what I posted resembles recent real APUG threads.

ill give my 2 cents into this....

For someone starting out I agree that the 1 film developer thing is a good idea. it helps learn process, understanding your hardware (camera and so on) and in the learning process, possibly helps understand why things happened or why they didn't happen to achieve the desired results.

once I got comfortable, then I started to branch out. I changed 1 thing at a time and then did comparisons. change film, same developer. change developer same film. with both I shot the same things and then compared. because I knew what to expect from the 1 film developer combo I could see what the differences were and did I prefer one to another. it took me a while to find the combos I liked and then I stuck with them.

so now I shoot a film combo based on the subject Im shooting. studio work is different from landscapes and different from out and about shooting. but I also love trying new things for the fun of it. i enjoy trying new things to keep things fresh. maybe I find a new film or developer to add to my tool chest. maybe not. but keeping it simple, 90% of my shots are the same combo and the other 10% is for fun. It helped me many times get out of a photography rut, trying something new. and I am glad I found that way to help me through it. but I like the fact that if Im going to yosemite to shoot, I know what film and developer Im gonna use.

As one progresses as a photo enthusiast you have two choices. Either continue to be a dilettante doing this and then that or maybe whatever OR to develop a personal and unique style. If you decide to develop a personal style then you have decided on a specific method. The humorous result (as related to many recent posts here) is that you have gone back to a more restricted choice of film and developer. Why, doing so is part of your method.

For sometime I've settled on 1 film (TriX 400) and 2 developers - Clayton 76 (200 speed) and DDX (box & 800 speed).
Camera gear? Can't have too many as long as you use them all.

Gerald C Koch said:

As one progresses as a photo enthusiast you have two choices. Either continue to be a dilettante doing this and then that or maybe whatever OR to develop a personal and unique style. If you decide to develop a personal style then you have decided on a specific method.

Click to expand...

I'm not being argumentative, honest. Why does a personal style require a single (or even limited set of) film & developer?
My style is not defined by my lens. My style is not defined by my use of filters. My style is not defined by my use of strobes versus natural light. Each of those things is a technique that allows me to express my vision in a specific situation. My personal style is more than the superficial attributes of the image. It is the content, the experession, all those things and more.
Steve McCurry is famous for his images shot on Kodakchrome 64. He has an amazing eye for colour, composition, and making photos that grab you and are still interesting after looking at them for minutes. But he's still working, still shooting, long after the death of K64. His images, now shot on digital without any film emulation software still look and feel like Steve McCurry images. His use of Kodakchrome 64 is no more important to personal style than his Nikon F3 was. To me, equating "personal style" with "consistent presentation" is superficial and ignores the work of Steve Mccurry, Yousef Karsh, Greg Hesieler, and pretty much all the photographers whose work I've consistently enjoyed.
It also ignores similarities to other art forms like music, where artists' can have a consistent style and feel, even when using different techniques in different situations (as an example, listen to a studio recording vs an accoustic set from radio ro club recording - same song but different arrangement, often only a subset of the band, similar feeling (what I consider style), very different sound (what I consider presentation)).

Why did McCurray use Kodachrome? It was part of his style. Obviously another film did not suit him. When it was no longer available he had to migrate to something else. In other words his style was forced to change. I'm a bit puzzled as he seems to agree with what I have said previously. One film etc.

For the last several years I have used a single film for approximately 90% of my photos. This is coupled with a single developer. The combination pleases me and is a good fit for my choice of subjects. Constantly changing film and developer leads nowhere. It only causes frustration. As I keep repeating I am not opposed to experimentation. Obviously it is needed to reach a personal style. If you use many films and developers then how can one see a particular style?

Gerald C Koch said:

Constantly changing film and developer leads nowhere. It only causes frustration.

Click to expand...

Every switch I've made is because I was bored or dissatisfied.

Gerald C Koch said:

As one progresses as a photo enthusiast you have two choices. Either continue to be a dilettante doing this and then that or maybe whatever OR to develop a personal and unique style. If you decide to develop a personal style then you have decided on a specific method. The humorous result (as related to many recent posts here) is that you have gone back to a more restricted choice of film and developer. Why, doing so is part of your method.

Click to expand...

Gerald is absolutely right! How many recognized and successful artists (photographers) can you name that are constantly changing film/developers? I can't think of any and I have a pretty extensive photographic library that says artists typically develop a successful method and then focus their efforts entirely on creating meaningful art/photography.

It depends on your goal: if you desire to be taken seriously as an artist, you work toward a finely honed technique and focus your efforts on your vision/message; if you're in it just for the fun you dabble/experiment as a hobbyist.

Fred Aspen said:

How many recognized and successful artists (photographers) can you name that are constantly changing film/developers?

Click to expand...

Adams?

Maybe not constantly changing but he seems to have been familiar/proficient with many and even dabbled in color.

markbarendt said:

Adams?

Maybe not constantly changing but he seems to have been familiar/proficient with many and even dabbled in color.

Click to expand...

C'mon, Mark! No cigar for you!

Fred Aspen said:

C'mon, Mark! No cigar for you!

Click to expand...

All the famous people that I can think of that settled on the 1,1,1 type strategy also did it as part of a product. And as their products, market, or supply changed they adapted.

Fred Aspen said:

Gerald is absolutely right! How many recognized and successful artists (photographers) can you name that are constantly changing film/developers? I can't think of any and I have a pretty extensive photographic library that says artists typically develop a successful method and then focus their efforts entirely on creating meaningful art/photography.

It depends on your goal: if you desire to be taken seriously as an artist, you work toward a finely honed technique and focus your efforts on your vision/message; if you're in it just for the fun you dabble/experiment as a hobbyist.

Click to expand...

Chicken and egg thing.

Fred Aspen said:

How many recognized and successful artists (photographers) can you name that are constantly changing film/developers? .

Click to expand...

I've no idea how many have or haven't as I tend to be interested in what they make not how they made it, and I've not trawled through the archives and documentation of thousands upon thousands of successful photographers' images to find out.

Have you? I guess you must have to be able to make a statement like this.

Fred Aspen said:

Gerald is absolutely right! How many recognized and successful artists (photographers) can you name that are constantly changing film/developers? I can't think of any and I have a pretty extensive photographic library that says artists typically develop a successful method and then focus their efforts entirely on creating meaningful art/photography....

Click to expand...

The recognized and successful artists are corrupted by money and fame. Of course they settle to one film/developer etc., and here start the difference between commercial artist and creative artist - the first always optimize for profit, while the second aim for creativity.

pdeeh said:

I've no idea how many have or haven't as I tend to be interested in what they make not how they made it, and I've not trawled through the archives and documentation of thousands upon thousands of successful photographers' images to find out.

Have you? I guess you must have to be able to make a statement like this.

Click to expand...

Working professional for a number of years.

Well, good for you, but it's not evidence to support a blanket statement of the sort you made.

It might be accurate to say that those professionals of your acquaintance worked in this way, but that will be the limit of your experience. It will be a very small sample of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of professionals working worldwide over tens of decades

markbarendt said:

All the famous people that I can think of that settled on the 1,1,1 type strategy also did it as part of a product. And as their products, market, or supply changed they adapted.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you can conflate the idea of one film, one developer with being commercial and selling a product. If it were true then I am a professional since I have followed this principle for a number of years. You are trapped by a logical fallacy that just because A infers B that it is also true that B infers A. All lions are cats but not all cats are lions.

In response to other posts I also have a problem with people saying that they are "experimenting" when in reality they are merely dabbling. To experiment you must have a least a clear idea of what you wish to achieve. You may not succeed but at least you are not flying blind.

I don;t develop my own film. But even shooting different film is confusing. I'll make mistakes on exposure forgetting to change the ISO on my meter, for example. Or forgetting the film that's in the camera thinking I'm shooting BW instead of color. There's a lot to be said for shooting one film. You only have to think about the picture you want focusing on composition, content and lighting.

Gerald C Koch said:

I don't think that you can conflate the idea of one film, one developer with being commercial and selling a product. If it were true then I am a professional since I have followed this principle for a number of years. You are trapped by a logical fallacy that just because A infers B that it is also true that B infers A. All lions are cats but not all cats are lions.

In response to other posts I also have a problem with people saying that they are "experimenting" when in reality they are merely dabbling. To experiment you must have a least a clear idea of what you wish to achieve. You may not succeed but at least you are not flying blind.

Click to expand...

I suggested that commercial photographers settle on certain processes, they do build assembly lines to churn out their work.

Amateurs may choose patterns to work with but the motivation is different.

pdeeh said:

Well, good for you, but it's not evidence to support a blanket statement of the sort you made.

It might be accurate to say that those professionals of your acquaintance worked in this way, but that will be the limit of your experience. It will be a very small sample of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of professionals working worldwide over tens of decades

Click to expand...

The ‘one film, one developer’ principle is nothing more than the incorporation of process control into photographic processes. Process control is an engineering discipline that deals with maintaining the output of a specific process within the desired range. As the number of variables increase, the process becomes less stable and results are uncertain.

The ‘one film, one developer’ guiding principle has been around for many, many years and appears in countless textbooks and articles. It is also taught in photography curricula in colleges and universities. Serious photographers have incorporated this principle into their workflow to ensure repeatable, consistent results commensurate with a quality product. Each time a new variable is introduced into the process, the process must be re-tuned for optimal results. This is an unnecessary time consuming disruption for a photographer who is focused on the quality, content and repeatability of his/her product.

Bottom line: Serious photographers strive to simplify their workflow processes to enhance the quality and repeatability of their work; dabblers enjoy the adventure in trying all the possible permutations that the myriad of products on the market allow along with variable results they produce. Dabblers are more interested in playing with processes and "I wonder what my negs would look like if...;" photographers are more interested in creating and displaying the results of their efforts.

I am impelled to agree with Gerald; dabblers are not photographers in the truest sense of the word.

If I can ever get back into it... it'll be a few films and two developers.

Slow, medium and fast panchromatic plus slow, medium and fast super-panchromatic films.

One each high acutance and solvent type developers... probably using just two dilutions each.

Old-N-Feeble said:

If I can ever get back into it... it'll be a few films and two developers.

Slow, medium and fast panchromatic plus slow, medium and fast super-panchromatic films.

One each high acutance and solvent type developers... probably using just two dilutions each.

Click to expand...

You already have 7 variants as opposed to 3, even before you introduce all the other variants from exposure to print. Think lottery ticket.

cliveh said:

You already have 7 variants as opposed to 3, even before you introduce all the other variants from exposure to print. Think lottery ticket.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because my brain is mush these days anyway. I'll not likely produce anything of value ever again. This time I'll be in the game just for the fun of trying... just like the lottery.

Alan Klein said:

I don;t develop my own film. But even shooting different film is confusing. I'll make mistakes on exposure forgetting to change the ISO on my meter, for example. Or forgetting the film that's in the camera thinking I'm shooting BW instead of color. There's a lot to be said for shooting one film. You only have to think about the picture you want focusing on composition, content and lighting.

Click to expand...

Systematizing is not a bad thing because it helps us avoid problems.

There are other ways to systematize though, rather than 1,1,1.

For example for the films I use, I develop "normally". I don't chase film contrast with film development. No +/- or push/pull. There's no confusion about how to develop any roll or sheet, no need for notes; it's just normal and normally just the manufacturer's numbers for box speed. All the print adjustments in my world are done during the printing process. My "1" here is that I just read the directions for box speed and follow the directions.

I have keyed all my metering to my incident meter and tested at box speed. Even when I use a reflective meter I know how it behaves in relation to the incident meter and adjust accordingly. All the films I use, I've tested and I know where I have latitude and where I don't. I can use this with any film and be dang close most of the time and well within my tolerances for the rest. My "1" here is the ISO standard.

...