A question regarding film , developer and development

[carl_crosby1]

Now, I realize I may place my patriotism in question, and the right to EVER take photos again in jeaopardy, but I just gotta ask: Are we not doing newer photographers, and some older ones a disservice by the constant, neverending search for the Holy Grail of grainless negatives, and the PERFECT film, and other such Photographick Proctologye?

I suppose all this is a LOT of fun, and I have pretty well tried everything (it got me, too!) except Tetenal Neofin Blue and Rodinal at higher dilutions. BUT! Are there any BAD films that are more than 5 years old? How about developers? XTOL? It REALLY looked good in the stuff Kodak sent me. Have the problems been solved? What are the old standards? Tri and Plus-x, Ilford films, of whatever designation, and if you really need to be anal about processing, the newer T Max films. For full film speed, great shadow detail, and sharp enlargements, the older developers, D-76 Ilford ID-11 and , for that matter, Ethol UFG, and Acufine have done very well for years. D-76 has been around since before my service days,(1958)and my boss in college had a thing for Acufine and Tri-x rated at about 1200(he said)

for yearbook photos of student activities and concerts. Remember, Tri-X was THE high speed emulsion back then, and it was really daring to rate it at 800. I thought the soot and chalk results were marginal, at best. When I asked "Jerry, what can we do to get better shadow detail?" he didn't have an answer. Probably, that was the best we could do, back there in the stone ages.

Now, we have films at any speed up to 3200, with fine grain that would make the photographers of yore dance and sing, and pharmacologies of developers- enough to confuse a rocket scientist, which most of us ain't. Right?

A modest suggestion would be: Select one film and developer, learn to produce excellent negatives using that combination, and brilliant prints from those negs, and then switch to somthing else, if the need is overwhelming. Who knows, the need to change may never appear, and more time can be spent on improving the seeing and composition skills. Lord knows, most of us could use that!

The old stuff is very good, or it would not still exist,is relatively easy to use, and matches or surpasses the performance of the newer whiz-bang creations. Now where did I put my high-button shoes?? Dear, Where is the bugggy whip?

[conrad_hoffman]

IMHO, everybody should start with a medium speed film and D-76. In

fact, special licenses should be issued before one is allowed to fool

with new-fangled films and exotic developers. At least that way,

everyone would have a decent standard of comparison for their

experiments. I don't think "the search" is really due to

dissatisfaction with the traditional products, but a touch of boredom

after doing the same thing for a long time. BTW, there may not be

many bad films or formulas, but there are certainly some hideous

combinations!

[carl_crosby1]

Conrad, You are an INTELLIGENT person! I could tell right away by how

well you agree with me. "Licensed to develop"? Perhaps that could be

expanded to "Licensed for a 1 or 2-stop push", Or "licensed for the

Zone system". The possibilties are endless. Maybe the

biggie, "Licensed to fool around in the darkroom". Boy, THAT would

have ruined the whole reason a lot of the kids in my photo classes

signed up.(besides the easy physics credit)LOL! CC

[pete_andrews]

Well said Carl!<br>What goes around, comes around; or, there ain't

much new under the sun.<br>I couldn't agree more that the pursuit of

'the perfect film and developer combo' is like the search for the Holy

Grail. If it ever existed, and you found it, how would it improve your

life? Marginally, is my guess. And even then, some other malcontent

would gainsay that it was the one true Grail.<p>Another old saw is -

"a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", and if the bird in the

hand is FP4+ and D-76, and that gives you stunning results, then why

go chasing a more exotic species?<br>Of course, some people will get

their kicks from shooting Minox, and getting results that are barely

distinguishable from 35mm. Good luck to them; but let's not pretend

they're quality freaks. Chuck the Minox and buy something (anything!)

larger if you <i>really</i> want quality.<p>As for high speed film:

3200 is just a number on a box.<br>Even with the most wishful

thinking, the highest speed film available to the general public

today has a true rating of about 1200 ISO

[ed farmer - mount laurel,]

I teach a non-credit HS photography class and recommend TMY to all of

my students. A few of the better ones end up shooting some TMX or

TMZ. Everything is souped in HC-110 (as supplied by the school)

except the TMZ for which I supply TMax developer.

 

<p>

 

My own work is pretty much limited to Tri-X in PMK and TMZ in TMax.

I have been down the road you talk about but, I returned long ago. I

really think that many of us have our view f the world skewwed by

photo.net. The mix here is heavy with "techies", much heavier than

the outside world. This makes us think that everyone's darkroom is

stocked with 10 films and 15 developers. I don't think that is the

case.

[ed b.]

Just to stir things up a bit, and at the risk of being flamed, I

respectfully disagree with the thesis that better developers than D-

76 and ID-11 haven't been invented. In my personal experience,

staining developers such as PMK and W2D2 produce a longer printable

scale than any conventional developer, with no pushing or pulling

necessary.

 

<p>

 

Bob Herbst, in his article "Effects of Pyro Stain in Platinum

Printing", concludes:

 

<p>

 

"Another observation from these tests is that my time and temperature

combination for pyro development yielded a longer scale negative than

D-76. As we saw in the print comparisons, pyro compresses the subject

brightness range resulting in a print with 9 stops of subject

brightness without overly compressing any one portion of the scale.

Prior to running these tests, my experiences in photographing in

cathedrals and the canyons of southern Utah showed this

characteristic of pyro. I frequently exposed images with a brightness

range from zone 2 to zone 11 and this range was accurately rendered

in the resulting prints. I believe that adjustments to the

development of a D-76 negative may be able to produce similar results

although separation in the shadow values might be reduced. This area

requires further investigation before any conclusions can be made."

 

<p>

 

Yes, the old stuff is very good, but the new stuff is even better.

[michael_feldman1]

Aside from the issue of being able to render long tonal scales, etc.

mentioned above, some prefer to use liquid concentrate developers

with long keeping properties. I agree that that are many benefits of

staying with one developer and learning it well, but does it have to

be D-76/ID-11?

[michael_devoue]

I couldn't agree more.

 

<p>

 

I use two different developers- Ilfosol-S and PF FX-2. I fooled

around with different combinations before settling on Neopan @400-800

in the FX-2, and Ilfosol-S with Delta 100 for the slower work. I am

not quite satified with the Delta/Ilfosol (although quite good), and

in my total of 36exp. on Plus-X (6 years ago), I recall good results

from d-76. I priced out Plus-X, but figured i'd give FP4+ a try and

got 20 rolls to test. Pete, I'm glad you mentioned D-76- I keep some

as a "back-up" if needed.

 

<p>

 

My point is I did a little searching, but I try to search as little

as possible. I agree that expending energy making progress with known

combinations and refining your results is the point. Sharing your

results with others is just plain good "karma".

[melvin_bramley]

Ilford!Kodak!D76,Xtol! All obsolete!!

I am using Newopan12. Whilst it is only rated at ISO 12 it can be

pushed to ISO 6400 with no problem.

The film is hard to come by as it is made in Antartica by virgin

maidens during the summer solstise just once per year.

I have found a good custom lab to push the film to ISO 6400 It is a

one hour lab located in Tibet half way up Mount Everest.Home

processing is said to be difficult as the film is processed at 130 deg

for 3.5 hrs (plus or minus .00003 secs) I am waiting for information

on using the film with the Zone system which I will post as soon as it

comes available.

[carl_crosby1]

Melvin; We breathlessly await the posting of results, and how they

might be adapted to the writings of ST. Ansel. The processing doesn't

sound too hard, a bit like my wife's cooking. Temp control might be a

small difficulty, but that's what we all got into photography for, to

OVERCOME! Right? I am astounded at the seeming lack of maidens of

the virgin persuasion, tho. Last time I was in Mexico, there were

guys on every streetcorner advertising that very thing. Supply and

demand? Hmmm this may need more study. Carl Crosby

[robert_orofio]

I have stadardized on 35mm Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1. My darkroom

addiction lay dormant for 15 years & back then I used 35mm Tri-X in D-

76 1:1 as my standard. I find the discussions about other developers

& films very interesting but quite frankly, I'm sticking with what I

know. BTW I'm still using the same Camera as back then, I would't

even know where to find the shutter release on the new stuff. I

thought Mt Everest was in Nepal :-).

[melvin1]

ROBERT.. .Errr! yes Everest is in Nepal,I must have an old map!!(the

Romans were not too accurate!

I too use Delta 400 in Xtol 1:1 with good results.It also seems to

push better than the old!! films. I do however have a bunch of HP5

that needs using up & I intend to develop it in Xtol & Microphen & do

a comparison;just for old times sake.When all said & done it is better

to stick with one film & developer untill you completley understand

its characteristics.That said'I have seen lots of wonderfull

photographs taken with "inferior"older emulsions;including glass

plates.

[robert_marvin]

Why does anyone need anything other than D-23? Its soooo

simple!

[robert_marvin]

Woops--I forgot to put a :-) after that. D-23 is geat stuff, but not

necessarily the be all and end all of developers. (Although I've

been using it for EVERTHING lately).