Recipe for Nostalgic B&W tones

[abruzzi]

i don't measure my chemicals i don't measure my light i just expose and print or scan

Stochastic photography? If you really want to take it all the way, blindfold yourself and turn around three times before taking your shot. I agree some people get too hung up on details, but some control of those details allow us to influence the output. Why have you standardized on 1/15 and wide open? why not 1/4000 and ƒ22? You've probably made a subjective decision that too much exposure is better than too little, and that decision is based on some level of understanding the variables.

 

[removed account4]

Stochastic photography? If you really want to take it all the way, blindfold yourself and turn around three times before taking your shot. I agree some people get too hung up on details, but some control of those details allow us to influence the output. Why have you standardized on 1/15 and wide open? why not 1/4000 and ƒ22? You've probably made a subjective decision that too much exposure is better than too little, and that decision is based on some level of understanding the variables.

thanks for the suggestion but i am doing just fine. why did i settle on that exposure?
because i like the way it looks.
no care about the variables, although using and mixing caffenol for IDK 12 ( maybe 13? ) years
i know how it works and from using ansco 130 for films since the 1990s too i know how that works so it isn't fumbling and random
.. thing is, i don't sweat the small stuff
cause it matters less than being present and making the exposure/s. i can't tell you how manytimes
i have read threads here or wherever where people are so wound up in getting
the perfect xposure or using xyz methodology that so and so used
that they missed the whole point, AND the view ..
but whatever .. makes people happy sweating the small stuff
having fun with new and random developers and films, and fun lenses
and seeing how far they can push themselves in that department, more power to 'em !
cause if someone's not having fun making photographs after all that, IDK ..

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

formula already backwards engineered/figured out by a photo chemist

But John a formula isn't a formula unless all ingredients have been specified to the second decimal place.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If by 'figured out' you mean qualifications like 'probably', 'likely' and 'possibly' when discussing the ingredients, then yes...
In other words: it's not a published formula, it could be reverse engineered as a rough approximation, but it would be costly and likely technically illegal to do it accurately.

The more sensible answer would of course be to not fuss too much about the specifics of the developer used. It's a quite common, no-thrills PQ incarnation without any outrageously special or magical influence on the images developed with it.

The most likely answer is a minor variant on ID-68/ Microphen - a very rough extrapolation gets to about the same place in developing times. Much less likely to be a variant on one of Crawley's formulae.

Microfine is pretty clearly very close to Perceptol/ Microdol-X.

D-76, XTOL & DK-50 probably have equivalents in Fuji's range too.

 

[Peter Schrager]

thanks for the suggestion but i am doing just fine. why did i settle on that exposure?
because i like the way it looks.
no care about the variables, although using and mixing caffenol for IDK 12 ( maybe 13? ) years
i know how it works and from using ansco 130 for films since the 1990s too i know how that works so it isn't fumbling and random
.. thing is, i don't sweat the small stuff
cause it matters less than being present and making the exposure/s. i can't tell you how manytimes
i have read threads here or wherever where people are so wound up in getting
the perfect xposure or using xyz methodology that so and so used
that they missed the whole point, AND the view ..
but whatever .. makes people happy sweating the small stuff
having fun with new and random developers and films, and fun lenses
and seeing how far they can push themselves in that department, more power to 'em !
cause if someone's not having fun making photographs after all that, IDK ..

John I totally agree. Fun is good
But for me I do the same old same old everytime...stop 1+2 or pyro mc for alternative process ..I'm boring but but I get results

 

[Peter Schrager]

Supposed to be xtol.!!

 

[removed account4]

But John a formula isn't a formula unless all ingredients have been specified to the second decimal place.

LOL so right you are ..
my neighbor used to say
"its not a party unless you own 2 bottles of wine" ... same sort of thing

 

[Via Suksantinunt]

No, it's not necessarily about Rodinal - and if you used more average 1950's exposure & processing recommendations (generous compared to today) you'll get a grainier, denser neg - as much of the sharp grain etc is from printing on a contrasty grade of paper which really brings out the grain etc. A slight push (800-1000) & more generous processing are also worth exploring too. Ilford's Microphen or similar are worth a try as well.

Yes you can make prints like that from a scan, it's not difficult - BTDT on a not irregular basis for several people, but the better the scan, the easier it is. Try to avoid consumer grade flatbeds or excessive sharpening at the scanning stage.

Hi, I just came back to re-read this thread (to take notes) and noticed that I didn't understand what you mean by "generous processing".
Could you please help clarify? (Even though I might not be able to do it, I'd still want to know haha)
And what is average 1950's exposure & processing recommendations? I'm assuming they did things differently in the old days?
Do you happen to know where I can find such recommendations? THANK YOU

 

[Peter Schrager]

Hi, I just came back to re-read this thread (to take notes) and noticed that I didn't understand what you mean by "generous processing".
Could you please help clarify? (Even though I might not be able to do it, I'd still want to know haha)
And what is average 1950's exposure & processing recommendations? I'm assuming they did things differently in the old days?
Do you happen to know where I can find such recommendations? THANK YOU

Try some old pop photography magazines

 

[MattKing]

Hi, I just came back to re-read this thread (to take notes) and noticed that I didn't understand what you mean by "generous processing".
Could you please help clarify? (Even though I might not be able to do it, I'd still want to know haha)
And what is average 1950's exposure & processing recommendations? I'm assuming they did things differently in the old days?
Do you happen to know where I can find such recommendations? THANK YOU

If you should come upon some older negatives, there is a good chance that they will seem much more dense than what people currently aim for.
Modern films and developers tend to give sharper results, because they have both thinner emulsions and emulsions that don't rely as much on generous exposure (to the point of over-exposure) and generous development (to the point of over-development).
A lot of older negatives were also larger, and they were intended to be used to make small prints (often contact prints). This meant that the increased grain that happens when one over-exposes or over-develops wasn't as much a problem as it is in today's world where people seem to like bigger prints.

 

[ericdan]

If I remember correctly Nishimura also has been changing films, developers and papers over time as presto etc became unavailable. Super Prodol is also going away. He even writes that he simply used the cheapest film and developer. I’m pretty sure if you saw the original prints they would looks quite different from the scans on Flickr.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hi, I just came back to re-read this thread (to take notes) and noticed that I didn't understand what you mean by "generous processing".
Could you please help clarify? (Even though I might not be able to do it, I'd still want to know haha)
And what is average 1950's exposure & processing recommendations? I'm assuming they did things differently in the old days?
Do you happen to know where I can find such recommendations? THANK YOU

Pre-1960 ASA speed ratings for negative films were a stop slower than today (for a larger safety margin against underexposure) - ie something like Tri-X would be regarded as an ASA 200 film under the old ratings. Average development times tended towards a gamma of 0.7-0.8 rather than 0.55-0.65 of today - essentially a 1-1.5 stop 'push' by today's standards. It made sense in an era when lenses were more likely to be uncoated/ have generally higher flare, exposure meters were rarer, and denser negatives for contact printing were preferred.