stick to one developer and film combo: really?

[Rich Ullsmith]

That's a bit of practical wisdom there, stick with one or two variables until you figure some things out . . .so naturally I did the opposite. I am adverse to unsolicited advice unless it comes from somebody who is badly beaten, burned or bleeding.

It's like telling a kid to draw between the lines, or not to push that big red button on the wall. See what happens. Hee-hee!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll split the difference here- don't be afraid to try different films, but do start with one combo and get to know it well before you start sampling around. I don't have a magic number of rolls or sheets to say "ok, you've shot enough to KNOW a film, it's ok to move on now", but it should be substantive - you should shoot it in many lighting conditions, and print it with those different conditions before you are comfortable understanding its limitations. Once you've pushed the film to its limits and beyond, so you understand what it is good for, then try something else. I started off with one film, Tmax (both 400 and 100) when I started learning. I used Edwal FG-7. After I shot a LOT of it (maybe 50 rolls or so), I didn't like the grain I was getting with FG-7, so I switched to TG-7 (which no longer exists, but was a great developer). I kept with TG-7 and the Tmax films until I took a major break from photography (about 2 years). When I came back, I switched my developer to Rodinal because I couldn't get TG-7 anymore. I was happy with Rodinal and Tmax for another several years. I got turned on to Pyro as a developer by several folks here on APUG, so I gave it a shot. Tmax didn't get along so well with Pyro, so I switched to a traditional random-grain film - first Bergger BPF200, then Ilford FP4+. From that grew an interest in alt process printing. I now use FP4+, Fomapan 200, and the occasional Tmax 400 or HP5+ for low-light work in large format. This migration has taken me about 15 years.

 

[gainer]

For what it's worth, a really good oboist once told me "If you want to learn to play the oboe, you have to play around with it." I think the same idea applies to photography. A certain amount of time must be spent playing with it. Do outrageous things just to see what will happen. You can learn enough from books to make a technically good photograph, but you will have to teach yourself how to put your viewpoint of your subject into a photograph.

 

[pcyco]

hallo

@Ray Heath

see the smile and:

long time i used t-max with a developer which was not continued. so i had to look for anoter and this took a long time (tmax-developer, lp-developer etc.(im not a prof. , im an hobbyist). at this time i alsways said that i dont want to mix the stock liquid by my self, -> now i think otherwise
i think i was looking around for a year.

but now im happy again.

testing other developers is maybe kidding but i like it. maybe there comes something better.

fg

thomas

ps.: last week i tried a lucky-100 in rodinal (brr-nothing for me)

 

[pnance]

While I will admit to trying many films and developers, for 95% or so of pictures have used Tri-X and Microdol-X (not diluted). By knowing one combination very well, you will always have a tool when the job has to be done. (If only the manufacturer was as reliable.)

 

[frugal]

I think the big issue I see with some people trying out different film and developer combinations is that they change more than 1 variable at a time. I'm all for trying out different films and different developers to see what you like but if you throw a roll of Tri-X into D76 then a roll of Efke 25 in Rodinal, and a roll of Delta 3200 in DDX then guess what? You're going to end up confused and not having any reliable basis of comparison.

I think if you're going to try different combos then it helps to be a little systematic about it, try a bunch of different films in the same developer for instance. Or try the same film in a bunch of different developers. At least that way you're only changing one thing at a time and can compare the results more easily.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I didn't follow that advice, because it was never given to me. After taking a couple of adult education photo classes (very low standard) I must have tried every film there was to be had in 35mm b&w. What that did is it thoroughly confused me, because I could never pick up on the differences in HOW I use various materials. The first two years of my photography endeavor is just lost space and time where I learned nothing.
On the other hand - after I settled on Agfa APX 100 as my standard film along with the odd roll of 25 and 400, and Rodinal as my developer, I started picking up on differences in over/under exposure, agitation during development, and I started being able to see better what a final print might look like at the time of exposure. That was such an important step for me.
Then of course Agfa went out of business and screwed me up again, but that's a different story. I wish I had been given that advice when I started.
- Thomas

 

[kiku]

Hi Murray: TRI-X and HC110 are still available from Kodak.
Cordially, Howard Tanger

... I used the film/developer combination most used by the photographers whose work inspired me the most; TRI-X and HC110.
I stuck to that combination for over 20 years...until Kodak turned its back on me... Murray

 

[Tim Gray]

As someone who has only been doing B&W for less than a year, I think it is important to play around a bit to see what is out there/possible. Sure, settle on one developer and film early on to learn more about exposure/development interactions, but why not try a roll of PanF+, Tri-X, TMZ, etc. every once in a while?

I mostly shoot Tri-X because I like it and I got a ton of it on sale. While I know why I like it over PanF+ (for most situations), I really don't know what I'm missing compared to HP5 since I've never tried it... In that sense, it's my loss since I might actually like HP5 more.

And heck, not every situation calls for a 400 speed, or 50, or 3200 speed film, so on a sunny day, pick up a roll of slow film and tried it out. Or try a 3200 indoors one night.

 

[Steve Smith]

I really don't know what I'm missing compared to HP5 since I've never tried it... In that sense, it's my loss since I might actually like HP5 more.

For quite a long time I didn't bother with HP5 because my thinking was: ISO 400 = lots of grain = not for me. This was based on one or two rolls of 35mm, probably not processed very well in my early days of home processing.

This year I have done a little bit of experimenting and I have found that for medium format, I love the look of HP5 exposed at EI 200 and given a 25% reduction in developing time compared to the EI 400 time.

By experimenting I mean actually going out and taking the pictures I want to take, not wasting film on test charts, etc.

Conversly, I don't know what I'm missing as far as Tri X goes as I have not used it (perhaps one roll once). If I tried it and worked at it, I might find I like Tri X more.

But it's unlikely to happen as HP5 does exactly what I want it to do (except compose a scene properly!) so I don't expect I will change now.


Steve.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The first year or two that I started developing B&W film, I've been trying all sorts of film, and would pick a developer just based on what seemed to be appropriate. Rodinal for Efke, HC-110 for tri-x, and then I would always have a "flavor of the month" tryout, like Rodinal Special on APX, etc. I eventually figured out that I wasn't learning much because I didn't compare things properly.

So after reading the Film Developing Cookbook, I decided to stick to tri-x and XTOL 1+1 in 35mm for a good time. I wanted to use tri-x because it had the look I wanted, and the Cookbook recommendation for 35mm was a developer like D-76 or XTOL. Being the edgy man I am, I went for the more modern product. Heh.

I would always try stuff on the side, but my efforts at finding a proper dev time were geared towards that combo. And I stopped using other formats as well for a bit.

Eventually, I found a good time for tri-x & XTOL, one that gave me negatives that just printed themselves.

THEN I went back to trying other developers. I made a side-by-side test of tri-x in Perceptol 1+3, DD-23, and XTOL 1+1. I could finally see the effect of the developer!

I decided to stick to tri-x and XTOL because I really like it and I can buy it anywhere. It is also my baseline for further comparisons. XTOL is also good with pretty much anything in 35mm, so now I always test a new film with it.

My conclusion is: if you want to experiment early in the learning process, experiment with different films. They are responsible for 90% of the final look. Once you nail a proper dev time for a film and a standard developer for that emulsion, then it makes sense to fine-tune your results by switching developers.

On the other hand, trying everything in a slapdash manner eventually teaches you that you NEED to work more consistently. It's good to make errors, too.

 

[fparnold]

When I was in HS, it was HP5 (when freestyle had it cheap) or some nasty eastern european stuff (when HP5 wasn't) in DK50 1:1. We had Microdol-X available, but I didn't like the speed loss or loss of acutance.

Now, it's delta 100 in XTol 1:1 for rolls, FP4 in XTol 1:1 for sheets, with the occasional roll of TMY for the speed.

 

[erikg]

i hate to jump the chuckwagon ...
but i've been using the same developer for
a long time as well ...

i use a different developer from time to time, but always
fall back on my good friend.

John's secret is that his film developer is actually his print developer, once one finds something cool and different that works so well, why change?

I always thought that what people are saying when they give that advice is "get a handle on your technique before you start messing about because you don't really know enough to know what you are looking at". I love running comparisons, but I always have a regular to compare to.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Murray: TRI-X and HC110 are still available from Kodak.
Cordially, Howard Tanger

I know...but why should I help fund their move to digital? I choose to spend what little money I have with a company like Ilford, who is dedicated to both B&W film and B&W paper products.

Murray

 

[highpeak]

Not really

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I produced my best work by using one film and developer for an extended amount of time. I also used the same paper and all of my prints were very simple to print. I think it's best to stick with one or two films and have one developer for everyday use, one for pushing (acufine/diafine/microphen) and maybe one for portraits (microdol-x, etc)..
The less variables you make for yourself, the better. IMHO.

 

[karavelov]

When I started developing I used for 2-3 years only Rodinal mainly with APX100 and Foma 100 films. Playing with dilutions and agitation gave me a lot of difference using only one developer (I think you could not make the same with D76 or Xtol). Now my standard film developer is Pyrocat but I use for time to time Rodinal for some films with which pyro does not play well.

 

[psvensson]

I used to use Tri-X and D-76/Xtol almost exclusively, and printed on Ilford Multigrade. Remarkably, I went through a year of photo school without really being exposed to anything else. It was only really after Patrick Gainer's article in Photo Techniques about using organic solvents to make developers that I started experimenting, and I must say it's been rewarding. I've gone through a lot of variations, and have really started to see the effect different developers have on the film. I don't think I ever tried a non-solvent developer in my first 10 years of photography!

Of course, if you're experimenting with developers, it's best to stick with one or a couple of films.

Now, once again, I've found a film, Delta 400, and a developer, MC-TEA, that I'm really happy with, and I'm pretty much sticking to that combo except when I need more speed.

 

[Chuck_P]

a common piece of advice i hear is for someone new to developing to stick to one film and developer for the first XX number of rolls and get to know the characteristics. this makes a lot of sense, since it's hard to know what's going right or wrong if the variables keep changing.

now... hands up... who actually followed this advice when they started learning?



i know i didn't (maybe that's why i'm so bad at this)

I did. It's good advice.

 

[jovo]

I guess I've spent most of my energy learning to 'see'. My very early attempts at making photographs were met with courteous but dismayed silence by the first 'real' photographer I ever showed them to. His critique had absolutely nothing to do with film or developer, so I didn't worry about them either. Since then, I've regarded fine printing as the art I needed to concentrate on in the face of a good enough looking negative. I've come a long way in that regard. It has just never occurred to me that, with all the adjustments one can make as a printer, fussing over nuances in film and developer would make much difference assuming I can make a nice print with the combination I've used almost exclusively for ten years. So....if I get bored someday, maybe I'll mess around with some other film and developers....if there even are any to choose from.

 

[k_jupiter]

So....if I get bored someday, maybe I'll mess around with some other film and developers....if there even are any to choose from.

Never fear, you can always look to your coffee cup.

*L*

tim in san jose

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Maco UP100+ in Xtol, then Maco UP400+ in Xtol, then Maco UP400+ in Xtol, pushed to 1600EI...
I've stuck to Xtol ever since, but the film changed pretty regularly.

 

[m_liddell]

If you only shoot one type of subject in the same conditions every time perhaps this might make sense.

My landscape combo of acros and exactol lux would not make a very good combo for low light street photography.

 

[frugal]

If you only shoot one type of subject in the same conditions every time perhaps this might make sense.

My landscape combo of acros and exactol lux would not make a very good combo for low light street photography.

No, but the point is that it's easier to identify that when you've already learned what a properly processed negative looks like and are comfortable with identifying problems.

It's not saying that you have to stay to one combo for the rest of your life, it's just saying that you should start out with one combo and get comfortable with it.

I know I've seen a lot of students having trouble distinguishing between development problems and exposure problems. If you're just starting out then it can be hard to tell if the neg is thin because of underdevelopment or underexposure for instance.

If you stick to the same combo then it's possible to learn about these differences and how to identify problems. You start to learn what a properly developed neg looks like, you're able to look at how your printing is working and figure out if you should make adjustments to your exposure or development, you can lock in what works for your with that combo.

Then, when you move to another combination you're able to compare with what you already know and see the differences that the developer or the film is making and make decisions on whether you like that combination or not and know that it's based on evaluating the look of the results and not a gut reaction based on a poor result.

 

[gainer]

How about this: when the chips are down, use a developer you know. If you don't know one, you're not ready to throw down the chips.

Some time in the darkroom should be dedicated to trying new things, but not too many things all at once. Until you learn a new developer, stick with the best one you really know in serious situations. If you fall for the hoopla, even mine, and try a new developer in a one-time situation without learning its ins and outs, you're asking for whatever you get without knowing for sure what you will get.