Which developer/ developers combination,..for contrasty results...

[desienna]

Hi to everyone,

i'm finally starting off with developing my own negs,

and would like to get some up-to-date information about it,

 

i've been reading other posts and i have already gained a lot of useful info,

but here i am trying to understand more,

 

please note i haven't developed a neg since my college days some 20 years ago,

however i'm a skilled printer (i usually hand print all my photos)

so my darkroom knoweledge is just about printing ,

 

i've been viewing other post related to 'developers' and i found a multitude of

suggestions and i honestly got lost through all the postings , so i will try to

limit the flood of information by explaning what kind of results i'm looking for,

 

i'd like the negs to be quiet contrasty and 'gritty' but without loosing

definition (i know this is tricky) , to make a comparison the nearest

photographer i can think of is trent parke style or the latest paolo pellegrin

work (published in magnum),

so the advice about developer/dev combo and times should

help me to get a negative that is suitable for this kind of photography,

(keeping in mind that i will add contrasts/ by burning/edging while printing)

 

thank you all in advance for your time....

[allison_reese2]

try tri-x at 400-800 and d-76 1:1 for 8-10 minutes at 20c/68f, it's what i use.

[jkelly04]

I just started within the past few months developing film after a 25 year hiatus. So far, I've developed about a dozen rolls, and I'm just getting back to the point where I can successfully process a whole 36 exposure roll without ruining any negs. To make the learning process as simple as possible, I use Kodak D76 full strength and follow the film manufacturer's quides (Kodak, Ilford and Fuji) for development times, agitation, washing etc. My goal is to get to a point of consistent results before I begin to experiment with other recipes and techniques.

[david j.lee]

i am not sure what you mean by "gritty". any chance to see an example of what you want?

( maybe you should post this in the B&W film forum too ).

[allison_reese2]

gritty=grainy w/med-high contrast.

[MTC Photography]

Ralph Gibson's style picture has sharply defined grain. He used Rodinal.

[jose_angel]

To be short:

 

Contrasty= proper developing time.

 

Gritty= non solvent high acutance developer. It makes that "edgy" look prints (use Rodinal (does it still exist?) or another dilute developer) on faster films like TX or HP5.

 

Without loosing definition= a reasonably good lens, fine grain film if you like.

 

I never had on my hands prints from Pellegrin or Parke, it looks like they have a lot of darkroom work (I`d say Photoshop work... ). Anyway, IMHO you can obtain similar looking prints with TX and diluted developer (i.e. diluted D76). Dilution increase grain and sharp-look.

 

Correct camera technique and film exposure, and a lot of darkroom work will do the rest.

[Troll]

Rodinal. It comes as a liquid, and lasts forever in the opened bottle. How much grain you get depends on the film -- I'd start with Tri-X at ISO=400.

[jose_angel]

And "If your pictures aren't good enough...

... you're not close enough"

[asher]

I would only add that if you're going to scan the negatives rather than make wet prints, you

will run into trouble with very contrasty images.<p>

 

Ralph Gibson (mentioned above) does indeed reportedly develop Tri X in rodinal, but he

makes wet prints, then scans the print on a flatbed while it's still wet (eg for publication in a

book).

[jose_angel]

Asher is right, how do you want to print?

[jtk]

I've never looked at Parke before...nice...his images on the Magnum site seem to show several techniques.

 

1) some of his images are exceptionally grainy, as if they were shot on the old 2475 and processed in DK50, rated at only 800 (my old favorite).

 

2) some appear to have been printed on something very contrasty, Kodalith paper perhaps. Does that still exist? I used to use a slide dupe setup to produce images like that with Kodalith 35mm roll film...I'd develop it in Dektol to knock the contrast down a bit...grainy too.

 

3) virtually all images are of scenes or objects or people that are lit maximum-contrasty...late afternoon slanting light, night lighting etc...the light itself is as contrasty as one could find...some of those are NOT extremely grainy, suggesting that he didn't always bother with 1) or 2) above.

 

4) maybe the most grainy images are extremely cropped sections of bigger images...Parke's Magnum stuff doesn't all look "full frame" or un-manipulated to me.

 

If something else is going on, I'd sure like to know about it.

 

My own developing love affair is with Rodinal, which is a great way to get sharply defined grain and long tonal scale, but doesn't seem to be a way to get maximum contrast or such golf-ball grain, even when pushing Neopan 400 to 1200.

 

Maybe somebody knows how to get those golf balls, possibly cooking home-made neo-Rodinal.

[Troll]

I just had a peek at the Paolo Pellegrin images. I'd say that they were definitely shot on Ilford Delta 3200 and probably developed in Ilford DD-X, or possibly Diafine. Nice pictures, incidentally -- thanks for bringing him to my attention.

[clayh]

D-19 for 8 minutes at 72 deg. Gets you a Gamma of about 1.1-1.2 on on most films. That is very contrasty, but still continuous toned. It is used a lot by aerial photographers trying to goose contrast.

 

Also try diluted Dektol 1:3 for about 4 minutes. Very sharp, very grainy.

[neilambrose]

<p>I've developed a preference for a shooting/developing style that produces negatives

that are high in contrast and grain, with deep blacks and soft whites. You can get a feel for

what I mean if you look at <a href="http://36photos.org">36photos.org</a>. From what

you say, sounds like you're looking for something similar.</p>

 

<p>I shoot Tri-X or P3200TMZ, usually box rated. I process in TMAX Dev using times

recommended in <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">Massive Dev

Chart</a>. No black magic - just following the instructions :-). Results are pretty good, and

likely to give you what you're looking for.</p>

[jtk]

Neil, nice stuff, but I don't think many of your shots look at all like Parke's...yours are all far less grainy than most of his and yours usually produce a far longer tonal scale..

 

...though a few of your night shots are similar (everybody's night shots tend to be).

 

Your I.M. Pei Louvre Plaza pyramid looks most like Parke's shots.

[neilambrose]

<p>Your're right, John. There's a range of styles in there, some more contrasty than

others, and you kind of have to root about to see examples that are more extreme. I'm not

claiming that any of them are like Trent Parke's in subject matter or composition, but they

do involve a similar extreme of contrast.</p>

 

<p>Something like <a style="text-decoration: underline;" href="http://36photos.org/

street/series/20070201/images/

001.jpg">this</a>, perhaps, or <a style="text-decoration: underline;" href="http://

36photos.org/street/series/20070201/

images/005.jpg">this</a>, or <a style="text-decoration: underline;" href="http://

36photos.org/street/series/20070201/

images/014.jpg">this</a> would be more what I had in mind.</p>

[cardy_chung]

If you want contrast and a bit of grain, you should give APX100 a try. Develop in XTOL or D76 will be a good start. If you want it to be slightly grainier, try a dilution of 1+1. But don't dilute too much as you may lose the contrast that you said you wanted.

 

Then if you want really high contrast, try the Tetenal range of developers, like Neofin Blue or Ultrafin Liquid. Their times on their instruction sheets give VERY CONTRASTY results. Tetenal gives 2 times, one for lower contrast (for condenser enlarger) and the other for higher contrast (for diffuser enlarger). And make sure you stick with the lower contrast ones to begin with, otherwise your negative may become too contrasty that they won't be printable !

 

Enjoy.

[desienna]

first of all thanks to everyone for taking time to post your advice,

 

for gritty, i meant (fairly)grainy w/high contrast, but i'm also looking for dramatic results (skies very dark, also in daylight, ecc),

but it's very important for me to keep a good definition, so i will stick to slow speed (max 150 ISO), and maybe push for 1 (or 2) stops, but i'm not keen to use high speed films,

 

does anyone think that i should use the process of Negative Intensification?

 

and also what about ND filters?

 

and do you think that some (especially the 7th wave, see link below)

might be printed from color negs?

 

with the prints, i will scan them and then will use the scans,

(for distribution ecc),

 

i also will follow Jack's advice, to start practicing before for a while,

 

thanks for sending links (http://36photos.org, http://www.ralphgibson.com/...it's good work, but i agree with john about neil 's work, trent gets those night shots results in daylight,

and i don't think it's only down to burning/dodging)

 

have a look at this series :

http://www.stillsgallery.com.au/artists/parke/index.php?obj_id=series_04&nav=4

 

from what i read these shots came out from a mistake, which he didn't obviously reveal, now i 'm not looking to copy the style, but it's important for me to understand the process),

(the mistake seems anyway related to the processing of the films)

 

as for the developer i will try all your advices ( rodinal, D19, dektol, D76, XTOL ...)

 

thanks again, luca

 

(will post soon my website and myspace page...still under construction)

[jose_angel]

In my experience, you will not apply neither extreme process to obtain what you are looking for. To run a car, first fill the fuel tank.

 

Negative intensification? IMHO, Noooooo! Forget it.

 

ND filters? OK, best graduated filters. Dramatic effects? red and orange ones.

 

Definition? it depends of the enlarging size. A 400 ASA film properly processed print can have a super sharp look. Unless you want very big enlargements I`d stay stucked to fast film and -diluted- developers (one developer, not four). (Wet printing).

 

Yes, you can digitally manipulate (endlessly) color film for your purposes. It is easier to scan in my experience.

 

If you want to scan films to be printed (not optically enlargered), your main problem is to expose and develop to have a good and detailed archive. This is the most difficult part of the process IMO. I have really bad results with fast films, even worst if they are grainy and contrasty. In my experience I cannot have good scans of nothing but soft flat fine grain negatives.

 

Then you can do almost anything on Photoshop (and you must have good skills on that... )<div></div>

[jose_angel]

Just add a bit more contrast and sharpen<div></div>

[jose_angel]

I must say that this crappy shot were made with a soft 57 years old lens on a Leica, scanned directly on a flat bed crappy $40.00 Canon cheapest scanner (not suitable for transparencies). Film was TX on straigh D76, thought. I did it for fun on a boring afternoon. "Creative experimentation", for experts.

[jose_angel]

... In my experience, you will not <b><i>need to</i></b> apply neither extreme process to obtain what you are looking for... Excuse me. Don`t know why this words doesn`t appear.

[michael_londarenko]

Luca,

 

Sounds like what you're asking for is acutance developer of some kind. Metol based developer would be my suggestion then. Try Perceptol at 1:3 dilution or you may want to go with FX-1 or FX-2. You will have to experiment quite a bit before you find what you like. Ilford FP4 developed in Perceptol 1:3 looks great in my opinion (but tastes obviously differ, you might hate it). Using perceptol is also very simple. It's powder based, would never "expire" when kept in original powder form in the package, can be used at almost any ambient temperature and is perfect as a one-shot developer at that 1:3 dilution that I mentioned. Just keep in mind you can't do push-processing with it and with HP5 you lose a little bit of film speed (with FP4 you don't lose any speed).

 

 

Mike.

[jtk]

Luca, your last Parke examples suggest he's using very fast film or strobe lighting. For example he's stopping underwater motion: look at fingers in some of those shots, look at the depth of field. Also he MAY be relying on extremely dense negs to get that grain.

 

The ultimate proof of fast film or strobe may be #29: he's stopped flying water drops.

 

To make those underwater shots I wouldn't be surprised if he was using strobes, usually above water... shooting from windows in the side of a pool. For the spray he's above water and those strobes are located differently.

 

Parke's doing something distinctive with light in all kinds of different PLANNED shooting and lighting situations: underwater with light from above, technically stopping water drops above water with different light angles, with slanting very low afternoon light, by street lighting... multiple different situations with totally different lighting sources that nonetheless produce somewhat similar "look." (sun, aquarium light, possible studiolighting at the pool)

 

...and to get the look he's intentionally produced negs that most of us would hate, like several stops of extra density, then pumping lots more light and time through them in the darkroom. A patient guy.

 

I don't think we're seeing a tricky technical secret so much as his particular vision of light in all sorts of situations.

 

Thanks for showing us Parke!

 

The underwater shots:

 

http://www.stillsgallery.com.au/artists/parke/index.php?obj_id=series_04&nav=4