Suggestions for new landscape b/w film/developer combos

[macgregor_anderson]

I've taken the advice. I've limited my film and developer choices

for a year now. FP4 and HP5 in D-76 1+1. Fooled around with Tmax

100 but really it's those other two. Tested for personal exposure

index and plus and minus developing. Shot several hundred sheets of

4x5. I know what to expect most of the time from these films with

this developer.

 

What's the best way to branch out from here?

 

Try a couple new developers?

 

Try some new films with the same developer?

 

Try a new combo of developer and film?

 

And with all the options out there, how does one find the most

promising new avenues?

 

Are there any websites with comparisons of the same shot using

different film and developer combos?

 

Any general info like "if you want subtle tones in zones VI and VII

while maintaining crisp blacks try this..." ?

 

Not expecting anybody to respond to all those questions. Just

curious, really. Are there any good resources for this next phase,

or is it a crap shoot?

 

Do I need to first figure out what I'd change about my shots, and be

able to explain this, before I can find my next combo?

 

Thanks for any answers to any of those questions, plus thanks for

the inevitable "you need to spend at least two decades with one film

and developer and one scene in one type of light before you even

think about shooting it vertical instead of horizontal, and then,

and only then, can you consider a different lens. Don't even think

about changing film or developer."

 

Cheers,

 

Mac

[macgregor_anderson]

Oh, and did I mean "crap shoot" or "craps shoot?"

 

And does the ? go before the " or after?

 

Mac

[john_finch]

I'd say stick with those films, they will give you everything you want. But take a look at

Pyrocat-HD developer and learn what it can give you with respect to tonality, sharpness,

grain and so on. If you put in the same effort to learn it as you obviously have with D76

you'll get some great negs. Formulary sell it if you don't want to make your own.

[silent1]

If you're looking for something different in 4x5, you might consider trying a box or two of T-Max 400. I find (in medium format) that this film gives grain like Plus-X and speed like Tri-X. Developed in HC-110 Dilution G for nineteen minutes (68 F, agitation every 3 minutes) it produces full film speed, excellent resolution and sharpness, and almost invisible grain; overall, the best negatives I've ever handled. Contrast control is easy within about N-2 to N+2 range (though nearly impossible beyond those limits) and the film is much more forgiving than T-Max 100, as well as requiring less light to get the job done (probably of more concern with medium format and smaller than with large format) and having reciprocity characteristics nearly as good as TMX (only 50% factor required at 10 seconds metered exposure).

[chris_waller]

I use Ilford Delta 100 rating it at 50 ASA and devving in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 8 minutes. That's for a diffuser head. Since you're shooting 5x4 then grain is not an issue. I'd suggest youtry both TMX and Acros, rating at 50 and devving in Rodinal for the same time.

 

Rodinal gives a unique tonality and with TMX gives an acutance which overcomes what I regard as the slightly 'greasy' look in solvent developers. Ditto Fuji Acros. Ilford Delta 100 is intrinsically sharper that both TMX and Acros. But Rodinal gives excellent negs also with FP4 and with HP5 (but rate this latter at 160 ASA and dev in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 9 minutes.

[r_hofland]

Out of new found curiousity after another and more thorough reading of the "Cookbook", has anyone carefully compared Rodinal and the Formulary's TFX-2 for their "look" and grain? I've heard good things about TFX-2, and am pondering testing Rodinal with small amounts of sulfite and NaCl to see if the wonderful tonal gradation will be detrimentally effected by the very judicial addition of either sulfite or NaCL (LESS THAN 5 G/LITER final concentration) to highly diluted Rodinal which will then have a very modest grain solvent effect in low concentrations while also providing a bit of developer regeneration benefit at those high (100-200x) Rodinal dilutions.

 

I've also developed some interest in the PC-TEA and Pyrocat-HD developers but not yet tested any of them with my primary films which are my declining stocks of Agfa 100 but still available FP-4+, HP-5+, Delta and T-Max films. I also intend to start using the Efke 25/100 and similar old style films, and wonder if the slower films will show highlight blocking where developer derived film speed enhancements (TFX-2 and sulfite addition) and "stand development" are of greater benefit.

[macgregor_anderson]

Thanks, some very good suggestions. I think I may place an order at Photographers' Formulary for a couple of these and try for myself. I've got some fairly "static" scenes around here that I have shot already so I can compare the results.

 

I wish I had the time to pick a few scenes with very different light and contrast, shoot them with a couple different films, and try those films in different developers. Even with a couple films and a couple developers and maybe three scenes you are talking about a lot of work. Just finding your e.i. and normal and +/- development times takes a lot of time.

 

Great project for an intermediate or advanced photography class I'd think. If there are any schools out there or groups of students that want to tackle it, and post the results on the web to help guide others, I'd supply some film and developers.

 

Mac

[daniel_smith6]

"I wish I had the time to pick a few scenes with very different light and contrast, shoot them with a couple different films, and try those films in different developers."

 

Do you watch TV? Go to the movies? Go out to eat? Sleep late?

 

If it were important, you would find the time.

[macgregor_anderson]

I haven't been out to a movie in four years. I watch very little television (maybe three hours a week). I wake up at 6am and go to bed around 11 mostly. I go out to eat once or twice a month.

 

I do enjoy cooking, however. I spent four hours yesterday making a nice Osso Bucco and safron Risotto (from Mario's cookbook). That morning I was rolling out homemade pita with my girlfriend's 3 y/o for turkey sandwiches. I smoked the turkey breast myself the night before. The day before I spent most of the day at the zoo with a that 3 y/o and her mom.

 

I've had my 4x5 for just under a year now. I've shot several hundred sheets of film (not including testing), sticking to the advice that I should learn one thing before jumping on to the next. Incidentally, I've also had a digital SLR for just over a year, and I've shot about 80 memory cards with on average 30 to 40 photos per card download. My passion is 4x5, but I find the DSLR to be a good tool for exploring new ideas. I also can't possibly afford the color film needed to shoot that much color 4x5. I've only just loaded color film holders for the first time a few weeks ago.

 

So photography is pretty important to me. I tested my FP4 and HP5 and tried testing TMax 100 (at the time I couldn't get consistent results on that one). I spent several weekend days with good even light exposing sheet after sheet on my shaded porch, running into the darkroom and tray developing. Finding standard contact printing times, making those contacts, inspecting my arrays of contact sheets and adjusting development times. It was fun, I learned a great deal, and I plan to do it again. Maybe I'll use a stepwedge as a time saver next time.

 

My point here is that even if you set your paper and paper developer constant, testing several new films combined with several new developers in several different real world situations would require an immense amount of work. And take time directly away from taking photographs. And I really need the practice there. Testing is very important to me and ultimately a time saver. But blind testing all those possible permutations seems a little nuts.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to inquire into these possible combinations. Makes more sense than randomly setting out.

 

When I need a new vehicle (not very often, I run mine til the wheels fall off) I don't just hit every single car dealer and testdrive every vehicle on the lot. I do a little research into what might fit my needs. Then I might test drive a few of them and make a decision.

 

I love the article on LFphoto.info on magic bullet chasers. I'm not expecting magic results without any effort. I know my vision or ideas will make the most difference. And then proper and careful technique. That some new combo won't suddenly propel me into the land of great photographers.

 

I just don't know what the kinds of things I like to shoot would look like if they were done on FP4 in Pyro, or Tmax or HP5 in Rodinal, or any of the other zillion combinations. I figure a real look at lots of examples might help. And while it really does matter to me, I'm not about to spend my life blindly testing one film and developer after another. There are too many good pictures to take with the films I know run through D76 1+1. There is too much good cooking to do. And did I mention I also like to fly fish? I cut down on that from four times a week to twice a month so I could take more photos.

 

Mac

[goemon]

I guess I'm at something of a loss as to what you want. Is there something specific you're missing with FP4 and HP5? Do you want more acutance? Then you could try Rodinal, or FX-2, or more dilute D76 even. Do you worry about holding highlight detail and want something more compensating? The pyro developers are known for their ability to do this but they're not the only developers with that ability.

 

It's not impossible that there's something out there that you would like better than FP4 or HP5 in D76 1+1. But that's a damn fine combination, and it's going to be tough to improve on unless you have a clear idea of what you're missing. If you're really not sure, you could try a high acutance developer and see if you like it, or you could just go and shoot, confident that you understand your materials well.

[macgregor_anderson]

Graham,

 

That's a very good point and I touched on it I think earlier in the thread. Do I need to see a problem or some missing potential before trying something new? There is a good chance that I do. I certainly don't have any complaints about the film and developer I am using.

 

However, I do see other people's shots from time to time where I can't imagine my film and developer returning a similar look. It may be darkroom skill, or better light, a finer subject, etc. And I'm not talking about a case where it's just a much better photographer taking a much better picture. It's like oils, or water color, or ink. Not so pronounced, but a different medium. Does that make sense?

 

I suppose a better way to go about this would be for me to look for other people's shots that I admire and that I don't think I could come close to replicating (even if I had the vision and technical skills), and see what combo they have used. Try it for myself, and see if it makes a difference.

 

I must say, it would be very interesting to see a real study on this. That's why I hinted at it's being a great class project. Or photo club project. I'd just love to see a few examples of the same thing shot with different films and developers. And a few of those scenes.

 

I guess playing with TMax has my curiousity up more than anything. It is unpredictable for me. A LOT of washed out muddy looking shots that I think FP4 or HP5 would have handled better. And a few fairly striking results that I wouldn't expect to see on those other two. But I'm afraid I don't have the vocabulary or critical experience to describe what is sometimes lacking and sometimes rewarding with a given film. Maybe I should read a bit more on the subject.

 

I would say that it is less accutance for me than it is tonal subtleties. But beyond that, I feel like I'm trying to describe a good wine and what I like, or worse, trying to describe an ideal wine and what I'd hope to find in it.

 

Mac

[chuck_pere]

The truth is that how you print probably makes more of a difference then film/developer combos. I think it would be very hard to first optimize exposure and development for a bunch of films. You would need to do this for comparison. Probably should be done with a step wedge not a real scene. Your time would be better spent working on printing. Everyone has a favorite. I would try your FP4 and HP5 with PMK or Pyro-Cat for some high contrast scenes. I always keep some Tmax 400 loaded to take advantage of it's better reciprocity. Helps on windy days. I just take the Tmax through PMK. I find that TRI-X sheet film produces a more dramatic look compared to HP5. This is due to it's long toe/steep highlight curve. Works better for some things. I hope the new TRI continues with the same curve. So at least try some HP5 vs. TRI-X comparisons. You may also want to try some "old world" film like Bergger 200. I would just rate everything at 1/2 the rated speed, bracket your exposures especially if you find a nice test picture and have fun. You probably won't find anything that will make as great an effect on the look of the final print as a one paper grade change does. But you might find a new look that you can apply to the right subject.

[scott_walton2]

I didn't like the t-grained films since Kodak sent me some to try, before they came out with it years ago... until I tried it with Divided D23! I tested D76, D761:1 (it was, at best ok), Divided D76 (very thin) Microdol, Diafine (miserable), Acufine, HC110B, Tmax Dev (there again... ok) and was seriously writing that film off totally. I went back to it after a week and exposed 50 more sheets and started with DD23. I liked what I saw in the negatives and the desitometer readings as well... next, I printed some on my cold light system... and an understated wow came from my mouth. The prints were snappy, the gradations were smooth and the grain was fine and sharp... suprisingly so because of the high sodium sulfite content! I was able to print, filterless with my cold light and got a 2.5 contrast with glowing, detailed, highlights and shadows that were full of detail.

The further tests were the same result, from very sunny, snowy days to heavily overcast, shadowless days. Having to develop the 4x5's for 10 minutes in Divided D23 (Bath A) on cloudy days, raised the levels of the highlights so they sparkled, I have used the Readyloads only when I have a weight restriction and do prefer non t-grained films but the use of DD23 helped me, sort of like TMX, TMY, Delta 100 and Delta 400 enough to use them.

[macgregor_anderson]

Chuck, that's a very interesting point and one I will take to heart. When I first got into black and white in high school, almost 20 yrs ago, I felt my printing skills were pretty strong relative to everything else. 18 or 19 years went by, and I picked it up again. While I still enjoy printing, I tend to focus much more on finding great light and interesting shots. This has made printing easier, but I bet I'm not getting nearly what I could out of my negatives. I've been using Ilford Multigrade IV in Dektol (big surprise) and fooled around a little with Seagull. I adjust my contrast, dodge and burn, but probably haven't put in enough effort with these things. I've got a backlog of negatives I want to print. Sounds like greater care in the darkroom may be the most important next step for me.

 

Scott,

 

Thanks for the suggestion on the new developer for T grain films. I haven't used the 400 speed T Max yet (suggested once before here) but I certainly could use the improved reciprocity and speed.

[lowell_huff1]

Contact me and I will supply Clayton F 76 and Extend plus Developers as samples. askus@claytonchem.com

[jrileystewart]

Mac, Phil Davis's book "Beyond the Zone System" has a good description of the relationship between image brightness range, negative density profile, and paper density profile and how all three come together to affect the appearance of the print. It takes some testing to determine the profiles of the negatives, developers, and papers you are using in your darkroom, or you can use the profiles supplied by the manufacturers if you can find them.

 

Once you know if a certain negative has an upslope curve, shoulder, or short toe (all descriptors of the profile), you can better match it to the paper because you don't want the same profile in both the negative and the paper (exceptions permitted of course--no die hard rule). Matching the scene to the negative is similar: if you have a scene that has lots of delicate shades of highlights, you usually want to avoid a negative/developer combo that compresses the exposure range at the highlight region: pick a combo that produces a clear shoulder (Rodinal on FP4 does a good job with that, but TMY in rodinal doesn't). If you want decent constrast throughout the exposure range because you have a long subject brightness range (SBR), pick a negative/develop combo that has a short toe and no shoulder (D76 1:1 on TMY does that for me and I move the shadows are higher up the curve by shooting at ASA 200 vice ASA 400). Matching the paper to the negative is a big trickier but Davis explains it all (and I can't). Paper scale is much shorter than negative scale so you wind up balancing preserving the shadows or preserving the highlights (at the same time as preserving the mid-tones).. but that's the most important part of it isn't it?

 

I think Ctein's book "Post Exposure" also explains this a bit.

 

Might try to get a copy of BTZS or Post Exposure if you're interested in these characteristics.

 

Hope this helps.

Jim