Developing film and experimenting: Where to start?

[willy_boots]

<p>So, I'm new to developing black and white film. I want to develop negatives and make awesome prints like Salgado. Learning to play like Hendrix will have to wait I guess. <br>

I'm going to limit myself to Tri-x for now so I can try different developers and times and things. I have a fairly stable ambient temperature so that variable should be out pretty easily. My plan was to start with standard manufacturer development times and then vary them. I won't be sitting around shooting banana still-lifes though I want to actually be out there photographing things of more consequence than 'test negatives'. <br>

My main question is, can someone recommend how to start with this? What developer and what time, and then I'll go from there. I'd like to start with a technique that gives a nice snappy negative, nahmsayin'?<br>

Any suggestions on how to go about this process would be appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Xtol and HC110 are two good developers to start and stay with.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Dear Ansel, Sup? Xtol would be my first choice for you, but HC110 is convenient and good too. To find times, check out the Massive Development Chart (MDC) at DigitalTruth.com, or as an app for your iPhone or Android. My only other suggestion is to consider using TMax instead of Tri-X, but I'd be nitpicking.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>What you want to "nail" first is consistency. The ability to develop two rolls of film on different days, with the same exposure, and the same development time, to get measurably identical negatives. Until you can achieve that, your "experimentation" is really just a random walk.<br>

For instance, the time/temperature charts are just an approximation. If you want the most consistent results, bring your developer to 68F every time. Have a repeatable thermometer, that gives the same reading for the same temperature every time. Agitate consistently. Use stop bath. Be very consistent measuring the HC-110 concentrate if that's what you use. Use one-shot developers. Use developer that hasn't spoiled. (Storing mixed powdered developers like XTol in 8 ounce or 16 ounce jars full to the brim is a good way to keep your developer stable.<br>

Only when you are "in control" should you start experimenting.<br>

If you want a film that is really persnickety about consistency, try TMAX 400 instead of Tri-X. It's very sensitive to small changes in processing conditions. Look at the detailed data sheet, the gamma (contrast) of the film is highly sensitive on developing time.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>experiment<br>

Most everything that has been done with tri-x has already been tried<br>

the best you can hope for is to adopy a proven method and developer<br>

and then make small adjustments as each person my get slightly different results.<br>

Caused by different methods of doing things.</p>

<p>trying first this developer.time dilution/agitation<br>

may change less that 5-10 % of the final results<br>

a Comment that some may agree with is that there are NO BAD ( or really great) developers or films. These ar3e combinations that may not work really well.<br>

When Modern Photography Magazine published development charts, a few combinations either had a dash - or a NA.<br>

But every b&W developer will "sort of" develop every B&W film.<br>

Even some "non-developers" will develop film.<br>

You are very wise to start with TRI-X, is is pretty close to a universal film.<br>

and by choosing one you can concentrate on other things and buy a bulk roll and save money.<br>

One of the films Freestyle sells is re-badged tri-x.<br>

save even MORE money</p>

[francisco206]

<p>I know what you are saying, but "snappy" is an ambiguous term. But there are not short cuts. If you want to play like Hendrix, you gotta practice, practice, practice until you know the guitar better than you know your right hand. If you want results like Salgado, you have to do the same with camera, lens, film and developer. There are two parts to photography -- the technical and the aesthetic. The aesthetic is up to you to develop (no pun intended). You may already have the vision, now it is up to you to bring it to a point where others can see it. The second part, equally important, is the technical. Without technique, all the vision in the world will help you very little. At the same time, all the technique in the world will give you nothing more but technically perfect mediocre images. <br>

There are countless of books and web sites that will tell you what is a good combination of developing time and developer for a particular film shot at a particular speed. These are nothing but starting points. That is so because every photographer using film has a particular "look" he aims for in the negative. Some like heavy contrast and large grain. Others like soft gradation and minimal grain. Others what very open shadows. The list is endless. But with someone like Salgado (or Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange and many others) the "look" matches the intention. That is, it is grainy and contrasty for a reason and that reason is part of the message. Take the guides only for what they are -- guides. Then define what images you would like to make and then take the results and work on them until results match your vision.<br>

You may find that the suggestions fall within a fairly narrow range. That is the starting point. Shoot, develop and print. In the beginning, do not judge your negatives by sight alone. Print them. Then see what sort of negative gives you the look you want in the print. Then, that becomes your standard.<br>

My suggestion? Do not take shortcuts. Do as the masters did -- do your homework, master the craft and, at the same time, develop your aesthetics so that you can express yourself clearly through photography. <br>

Good luck on your journey.<br>

Francisco</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Tri-X and D-76 are the classic combo, but you might find HC110 to be a better choice because it offers the convenience of a liquid concentrate as well as long shelf life (for the concentrate). <br>

TMAX 400 was improved and offers finer grain, but is less forgiving of processing variations. If you buy Tri-X under the Arista Premium 400 label from Freestyle you will save a lot over buying the Kodak branded stuff. <br>

Good idea to work with one film/developer combination and perfect your technique. Be aware that posted developing times (given at film manufacters' websites, developer data sheets, and Massive Development Chart) are meant to be starting times. You will probably have to adjust developing times to get the results you want.<br>

Finally, feel free to post some of your results. You will find lots of members here that will offer feedback.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>Salgado doesn't make prints. He points cameras and clicks at subject matter. There is a relentless and demanding art in that. But it is not the same art that puts a picture on a gallery wall or into a magazine.</p>

<p>The talented people who process Salgado's exposed film and re-image (=print) the resultant negatives to make photographs are a creative powerhouse. They transmit the drama of what Salgado saw to the drama the world audience sees. So far as I can discover Salgado film is developed normally. It is how the negatives are printed that makes the difference.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_b15]

<p>Salgado shoots digital now - if the internet is to be believed.<br>

I looked at his stuff - film has nothing to do with it. That guy could take a $39 Vivitar 5 MP P&S from Walmart, set it on B&W and create what he does.</p>

<p>Anyway, to answer your question: I agree with all the above especially about the Tri-X & D-76 combination - it's <strong>the </strong>classic combination. And D-76 is being made by just about everyone so it's dirt cheap.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I haven't done it for so long now, that I can't claim to be an expert on it. However, when I was about where you are now, more than 35 years ago, I just started by starting.</p>

<p>I had some Tri-X and some D-76, and I merely followed the basic instructions, temps and timings (and shot the film at ASA 400 too). If it was me, I would just do it... and leave the experimenting for later. I think it's important to be able to produce good, baseline results with the generic instructions before moving on to more esoteric developers, vary timings, and so forth. Even with just the standard by the numbers development, you can still vary the look of the prints significantly with the papers (or multicontrast filters) when printing. That's where the "snappiness" comes in, mostly, if you're already working with a well-exposed and properly-developed negative.</p>

<p>One thing is certain. You're not going to become a master printer by reading about what people are doing. You have to just do it yourself... and spend a lot of time doing it.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>TMax is the new Tri-X, XTol is the new D76, and 50 is the new 40.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I won't be sitting around shooting banana still-lifes though I want to actually be out there photographing things of more consequence than 'test negatives'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Test negative is exactly what you want to burn three or four rolls on.</p>

<ol>

<li>Place a gray card under consistent, uniform lighting. Meter it. </li>

<li>Start shooting at 5 stops under the indicating settings. Adjust the combination of aperture and shutter speed as necessary.</li>

<li>Stop shooting at 5 stops over the meter indicated setting.</li>

<li>Develop the film normally, then scan. Mindfully examine the physical negative and the digitized files. See how and how well the film/development combination was able to record the lighting dynamics. Look at the resulting grain structure.</li>

<li>Repeat the above but with development time shortened, and lengthened by 15% or 20%.</li>

<li>Repeat again with different developers if you're so inclined. Examine the magnitude of density recorded from stop to stop of additional light.</li>

</ol>

[willy_boots]

<p>Great! thanks for the encouragement and advice, everybody. Here's how I'll approach this based your advice: I'm going to go Tri-x and D-76. I'll get the really cheap roll film and shoot a bunch aiming to get consistent 'normal' results developing. From these negatives I'm going to then print a bunch and see what I can do with them. Once I'm used to this whole set-up and I've tried all kinds of variations pushing printing this way and that way, then I'll start changing my system and seeing what kind of prints can be made like that. My feeling is that I'm not really going to be able to see the differences until I have something very solid that I'm used to. Without that baseline how can you tell what your changes have made?</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>Michael Axel said: "TMax is the new Tri-X, XTol is the new D76, and 50 is the new 40."</p>

<p>I agree with the first two points (but would be more specific and say TMY2 rather than TMax), but I have no clue what is meant by 50/40.</p>

<p>Please help.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Tri-X, rated at 160 ASA, Rodinal 1+50, 20 C, 9 minutes.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Tri-X, rated at 160 ASA, Rodinal 1+50, 20 C, 9 minutes.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>Rodinal, Xtol, HC-110: all fine with Tri-X 400. Also Diafine 2 bath (3+3 minutes) on E.I. 1000-1250 when you need a real speed enhanced developer.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I'd second what Robert Lee wrote. It's really not that hard. You just set up a scene with a good range of brightness and shoot three rolls. Develop the first with the recommended time, and the others +/- 20%. Scan them all. Or wet print them all. Figure out what final image you like the most, and make note how relatively easy it is to handle over exposure than it is under exposure, etc. Figure out what is hard to deal with while scanning/printing and what is easy.</p>

<p>The key is that you need the SAME picture to do this on. Just shooting a bunch different stuff in the real world will lead you to false conclusions because you have no reference point.</p>

<p>If you don't want to blow three rolls of film, just shoot the first and develop it according to the instructions. Maybe shoot a couple different scenes from -3 to +3 exposure.</p>

[willy_boots]

<p>Yeah I got no problem blowing three rolls on a test. That's not much film at all. And I also don't mind hanging out in the darkroom printing and experimenting with them. Every now and then I like to photograph a still life in my apartment. We have nice south-facing windows. When the sun isn't shining straight in (behind a building, later in the day or cloudy) I boil some water until the windows all fog up to nicely diffuse the light while I set up whatever I'm photographing on a table (probably with a cloth under and behind it) arranged so that the windows side-light it, and then take an incident reading and fire away. I can easily blast off a few rolls doing this. First I gotta find a weird looking vegetable like one of those buddha-hand lemons. Thanks again for the advice! <br>

Question: is the 120 format tri-x (320 pro or whatever it's called) the same as the 135 tri-x rated at 400? I'm going to be shooting medium format as well so I wanted to know if I'd have to get to know and develop each film differently or what.</p>

[lilly_w]

<p>Take meticulous notes along the way. Without knowing where you’ve been you won’t know how to return. Record all the variables involving exposure (body, lens, shttr spd, f-stop, filter, how/what was metered) to development (ratio, temp, duration, agitation, etc.) and printing, if applicable.</p>

<p>Learn about different metering methods, esp spot, and understand how your camera renders a scene vs. how you want the scene rendered. Take control of the exposure and advantage of b/w film’s broad dynamic range. B/W is much more forgiving of overexposure than under.</p>

<p>Consider bulk film/loader. No reason to torch and soup a roll of 36 if only a dozen or so frames are need, esp in the context of experimentation. If you have a second or third body, load them with the same film (TRI X) but rate them differently, expose under identical light and adjust development (mix/time) accordingly. That’ll steepen your curve.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The TXP (Tri-X professional) has a box speed of 320 rather than 400 like regular TX. The TXP was discontinued a while back in 120/220 sizes but there may be some stock left at some dealers. It responds differently than regular Tri-X. TXP is not as tolerant of underexposure as TX so TX is better suited for general purpose for most users. IIRC, TXP is a "short toe" film and TX is "long toe". TXP was popular for black & white portraits. I'm saving my last roll of TXT 220 for a special occasion.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Go buy a copy of "The Negative" by Ansel Adams and read it. Do the film speed test. I set up a 8x10 Kodak gray card in the edge of an open shade, shot the test, developed at manufacturer starting time and read the gray card density on a densitometer and found my "EI" then adjusted my development for correct highlights. I do not practice "The Zone system" and my exposures are always ballpark correct.<br>

The film speed test is:<br>

First frame: no exposure, this is film base + development fog.<br>

2nd. 4 stops less than metered gray card. (normal zone 1) ISO______ @ metered f stop ________ and shutter speed ______. <br>

3rd. 1/3 stop less than #2.<br>

4th. 2/3 stop less than #2.<br>

5th. 1 stop less than #2.<br>

6th. 1/3 stop more than #2.<br>

7th. 2/3 stop more than #2.<br>

8th. 1 stop more than #2.<br>

Process the film for the starting point time/temperature as stated by the manufacturer. Adjust the aperture for the fractional stops. </p>

<p>Zone 1 should be just detectable above paper black in a print.</p>

<p>Technically this should be done for each lens/shutter/film combination you use.</p>

<p>This procedure will get you to your standard exposure/processing with the minimum testing and will be a sound starting point for <em>experimenting </em>without guess work.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Zone 1 is the closest reading to .1 above FB+F on the densitometer.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Ditto on the Tri-X 320 stuff. To be honest, even if you find a stash of it, I'd just stick with Tri-X 400 in 120. That IS the same as what is available in 35mm, and it's not discontinued, so your tests should carry over to 120 if you use Tri-X 400 in 120. Not that Tri-X 320 isn't a good film...</p>

[rick_jones5]

<p>If you have settled on TriX and D76 resist the temptation to switch films and developers if your results are, at first, not what you had hoped for. That combination has more inherent potential than you are likely to ever outgrow. I would limit experiments to learning how to properly expose the film and developing a processing sequence that is repeatable roll after roll. That means learning how to control developer temperature to +/- 1 degree; settle on an agitation pattern that gives you evenly developed negatives and devising a way to limit the dust that can settle on your negatives as they dry. If you have already read <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf">this </a>read it 4 more times.</p>