Which film / dev combination for long term use?

[Triptytch]

Ok, so I've been messing around with analogue (analog?) photography for a couple of years now, and have played with various ilford, kodak film and dev (ID11, d76), and have recently had a go at that maco / rollei 820/400 IR film. I print on Ilford RC paper ('cos that's what my nearest shop sells).

Anyway, I've decided to introduce some kind of normality in my photography - I want to get away from the kind of anticipation and nervous excitement :confused: that goes along with not really having any idea what the outcome of my film/dev choices are going to be.

Therefore, I've decided to learn the zone system - now calm down, I don't want a for/against debate about the zone system (I can read that in other threads/sites), but it would seem that I need to pick a film/dev combination and stick to it for at least some period of time.

So... what would you recommend that combination be?
(My photography is mostly outdoor, available light (but usually daytime), no tripod)
One of my concerns is that if I pick a combination, will it still be available in a year or so?


Thanks for any advice,
Chris.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Tri X > D76 for flat to normal scenes
Tri X > pyro pmk for normal to bright scenes rated at 100iso or 200iso

 

[Lee Shively]

Oh, Chris, you're going to get a lot of opinions. My suggestion is to try a lot of film and developers and settle on one or two films and developers that give you consistent results. Then stick to them. There really aren't any bad films or chemicals out there--just a lot of people with different preferences.

 

[jim appleyard]

What Lee said. Actually, Lee, wasn't it you that said something to the effect recently that "they all roll down the road"? Well put, whoever it was.

Delta 3200 in Rodinal is going to give you a different look than Delta 3200 in a PPD dev. Efke 25 is going to to look different in PMK than D-25.

None are bad. Are all good? That depends on what you want.

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of this site, photo.net, unblinkingeye.com and the books by Ansel Adams, and Anchell/Anchell Troop.

There's more than one way to skin a cat! Isn't that the same as "they all roll down the road?" Which one do you prefer?

 

[Gerald Koch]

For some one just starting out, I would suggest picking a slow film like Ilford PanF+ and a fast film like Kodak Tri-X. That way you can easily photograph under most lighting situations. I would recommend Kodak HC-110 as a developer since it is readily available, has pubished development times for practically any film, and it lasts forever. Once you are thoroughly familiar with these two combinations you can expand to other combinations.

 

[Jordan]

I second Gerald's suggestions. Two films, one developer, and stick with them for a while!

 

[Triptytch]

Thanks for the advice...
After doing a bit of reading around and stuff, I've decided to start my long term experimentation using FP4+ and DD-X (because it'll keep for a while, and my id11 keeps going off). I'll let you all know how I get on, and once I've got a bit more of an understanding with what I'm doing (rather than just playing), I may experiment with others (I'm quite keen to try tri-x, just to find out what this "grain structure" thing that people rave on about is like), but it's a bit fast for me at the moment.
So, for the next few months at least, fp4 and ddx it is.

Chris.

 

[fschifano]

Thanks for the advice...
So, for the next few months at least, fp4 and ddx it is.

Good choices. You might want to throw some Tri-X or HP5+ in there. I'm certain either will perform well in DD-X, and there may be times when you need that extra two stops of speed.

 

[df cardwell]

...
(My photography is mostly outdoor, available light (but usually daytime), no tripod)...


Thanks for any advice,
Chris.

Well, unless there is more bright sun in Kent then is rumoured, why not forget about slow films ? No big loss. And you're a 35mm shooter. Good.

FP4 and DDX is a perfect combination. The long straight line performance of that combination means most of the Zone System gymnastics necessary for LF shooters with some other film/developers combinations are unnecessary for you. You will capture all the data in front of you, and be able to retrieve it at your leisure in the darkroom. You've solved most of your problems with an astute choice of materials.

For much of your work, year-round, in all kinds of weather, FP4 will be fine. At dusk, or on grim, dirty days, HP5 or Delta 400 will give you extra speed, yet perform in DDX as does FP4. You can't do any better.

For 95% of the pictures you make, printing on Ilford fiber MG, you'll need only normal development for your film. Have fun !

.

 

[rbarker]

FWIW, Chris, FP4+ in DD-X is my "standard" combo, too, backed up by HP5+ in DD-X when I need a bit more speed.

The truth is, though, that film and developer choices are highly subjective. Among 10 photographers, one is likely to get at least 12 different answers before putting the subject to rest, so to speak.

Dead Link Removed

 

[anyhuus]

I can't give any advice on developer/film combo, for that I am too inexperienced. But you seem to have similar starting point as my self with respect to analogue photo, and I just want to mention that I found a lot of help, advice and inspiration in the late Barry Thornton's book "Edge of Darkness". I believe it can still be purchased from Amazon (At least I got from there spring last year)

 

[argentic]

One of my concerns is that if I pick a combination, will it still be available in a year or so?

Ofcourse I agree with the advices given above : choose two films and one or two developers, and stick with them.

But which film and developers will still be there in a few years ? AGFA has deliberately backrupted their analog section. KODAK will undoubtedly follow as soon as they can. Big shareholder companies will sooner or later all leave this niche market. For long term commitment you have to choose smaller healthier companies.

KENTMERE is a small and financially very healthy paper producer with excellent products and excellent service. ILFORD seems very motivated to stay in the B&W business. FUJI seems to have a little less of the "profit only" mentality.

Companies from eastern Europe manufacture products of very different quality. Some are very good (FORTE papers) and some very bad (FORTE films). Furthermore they regularly show production irregularities (EFKE / ADOX). Some of them will survive, but it's very difficult to know which ones and why. I.e. FORTE treats small retailers very badly, which will get them in trouble in the long run. And ILFORD has chased away many long time customers because their products were simply unavailable for almost a year in many countries.

I for one was forced to buy Fuji Neopan and Acros this way, and I am so pleased with them I will not go back to HP5 and Delta. ILFORD lost a 20 year customer this way. I cannot imagine such policy is good for business in the long run.

My personal choices are:

Chemistry: I decided to become independant from manufacturers. I mix my own now, which turns out to be both very simple and very cheap.

Films: My bets go to Ilford and Fuji for B&W, and Fuji for color.

Paper: I stick to Kentmere, Ilford and Forte (in that order).

Once in a while I try out new films or papers from eastern Europe. But I don't rely on them for the future, until the market has calmed down.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Soeren]

You allready know ID11/D76. You have developed alot of different films in it.
Take a look through your negs, which negs looks best to you ? Which negs was easy to print and looked good on paper ? which negs was the easyest to get the right devtimes for ? For me that was Neopan 400 in Rodinal. You have to go through all your negs and decide for yourself.
Regards Søren