Doing film tests

[anatole]

<p>I will be going to Bolivia for four months at the end of March for my gap year, and plan to settle on a film/developer combination for then. In the past, I've used Neopan 400 and XTOL. (If you would like, you can see some images on my website, <a href="http://www.anatolesloan.com">www.anatolesloan.com</a> - many of the images shown in the book are taken with this combination. Apologies in advanced that the images are rather small). BTW, I should take this time to thank everybody for the helpful answers you've provided in the past - it wasn't all that long ago I was seeking to shoot and develop my first roll of film.</p>

<p>Anyway, it seems to me that there are four different variables:<br>

1) Film<br>

2) Developer<br>

3) Exposure and push/pull processing<br>

4) Scenario (e.g. still life, landscape, portrait)</p>

<p>Question:<br>

-<strong>Is it really necessary to test all four?</strong> It seems like an awful lot of work to test four different films with four different developers at four different ASA settings and in two or three different scenarios. This could mean 128 to 256 different combinations…</p>

<p>I know this is a slightly stupid question in that ideally I would test all variables, but common sense would dictate me choosing a film first, then a suitable developer, etc…. but I just wanted to see what everybody's views were on this. For example, is film really the most significant variable? And should I try two very different developers to start of with, before looking between more similar developers?</p>

<p>As it stands, I am thinking about testing the following:<br>

Film: Neopan 400, Tri-X, Rollei Retro 400s and maybe HP5<br>

Developer: XTOL, Rodinal and maybe Tetenal Emofin, ATM 49, D76</p>

<p>I also imagine I'll have to test both for scanning as well as wet-printing… eh.<br>

<strong>Also, if anybody would like to suggest other films or developers, I will definitely consider adding them to my test.</strong> I'm focusing more on 400 films for now, since I maybe shooting MF or LF for landscapes, etc., in which case I would need to test on those formats at a later time.<br>

I'll post everything up for reference once I'm done (which will likely be a good couple of weeks at the very least).<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Anatole</p>

[anatole]

<p>The reason why I'm trying out Rodinal is that I may use a combination of developers (e.g. XTOL + Rodinal) in the future, since I'm looking for a more 'gritty' look.<br>

Anatole</p>

[paulcooklin1]

<p>Hi Anatola - Im sure everyone will have a different view on this but my view is that you should first choose a film that you like (for your reasons) and then decide what developer you like best with that film. Otherwise, as you pointed out, you will spend so much time doing tests and not long enough on each emulsion combo to really know what the film can do.<br>

That's not to say you shouldn't experiment; I enjoy trying different film emulsions as much as the next person but given your scenario, I would stick and work with one to get the most from it before trying too many others.<br>

I sometimes search Flickr for film emulsions and development chemical times/combos to see the 'general' mood/feel/look of a film. Naturally this is just ball park and you wont necessarily know if any post digital treatment has been applied to images on Flickr (unless stated).<br>

Rodinal would be a good place to start, assuming you like its look with your chosen film, mainly because a) it's cheap b) it has a long shelf life c) good value.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.<br>

I liked the book! How lucky you are to have gone to Eton, nice one!<br>

Here's mine: www.paulcooklin.com</p>

<p> </p>

[tim gray]

<p>Well, if you really want to see all the different combinations, you'll probably have to test them all :D</p>

<p>That being said, I'd narrow down my possibilities. If you want to compare Rodinal and XTOL, that's great, toss out the other devs. Now you are down to just 8 combos - 4 films and two devs. Personally, I could see the attraction of having two devs on hand with drastically different characters - Rodinal and XTOL, or XTOL and Diafine, etc. I don't really see the benefit of having very similar devs on hand to use. XTOL and D76 are too similar in my mind. Pick one and just go with it. I personally like XTOL.</p>

<p>The same goes with the films, but if you want to find which one is best for you, maybe a quick test is warranted. I think you'll find that Tri-X and HP5+ are more alike than different, and Neopan 400 could probably be lumped in there as well. To be honest, I think they are all pretty similar. The word is that Tri-X can be pushed a bit further, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. I do have the feeling that Tri-X and HP5+ are slightly faster and more flexible than the Neopan, but Neopan 400 has plenty of followers, so again, take that with a grain of salt. I'd probably recommend whichever one you can obtain easily and cheapest. I have no experience with the Rollei.</p>

<p>If you are going to test these, you REALLY need to take your pictures of the same scene so you have a reference. I'd suggest meter the proper exposure, and then bracket -2 to +2 or +3. Repeat until you fill up the roll. Repeat this process with all your films. If you bracket in whole stops, you should get about 6 sequences per roll. Then go into the darkroom and (after accounting for the blank leader) snip off about 10-12 inches of the first roll and load it into your tank. Develop with Rodinal. Snip off another foot and load it into the next tank. Develop with XTOL. Do the same with your other three types of film. I'd just use the manufacturer's suggested times for now. If you are lucky, some of them might be the same or very similar for different films, and you could double up in the tank and save some developing time.</p>

<p>Once you are done, you can examine your scans/negs/prints, decide which you like, and then begin to fine tune your development process with your chosen film and developer by using the exposures that you hadn't developed yet. I've not seen the need for adjusting my development time to help my scanning - my negatives print just fine at grade 2 and scan just fine on my Nikon scanner.</p>

[anatole]

<p>Ah... just closed the tab to my lengthy response...</p>

<p>Anyway many thanks to both of you for your advice. I think I will end up testing as Tim suggested, which is really the only practical way of doing this.</p>

<p>I have quite a lot of experience with Neopan/XTOL, but it doesn't feel quite right. It's hard to describe; I find that lighter midtones and highlights do not have enough separation, leading to a dreamy look, and the shadows lack detail (probably because of slower real speed). Compounded with the discontinuation of Legacy Pro 400 and my discomfort of using XTOL with the Bolivian water supply, I really need to find a suitable, economical alternative, although not radically different. I will be shipping all materials from the US straight to Bolivia, so that opens up a few options for cheap films we don't get in the UK like Arista Premium (Tri-X) but limits developing options due to weight/size concerns.</p>

<p>Hopefully I can get round to this in the next couple of weeks.</p>

<p>BTW Paul, I had a look at the link - really wonderful photographs...</p>

<p>Many thanks,<br>

Anatole</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Let me know when you are ready to try Coffee developer. :)</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Well, you could ad temperature and dilution to these tests, but then you add numbers to your exponent. I seldom find tests like these to be beneficial. Rather, I start with a combination of film and developer that I've thoroughly tested, and like, then experiment from there. For example, if you like your film, I think you would benefit far more from developing it in other developers. You will get many different representations of an image if you use Diafine, Pyro, HC-110, or Rodinal. Or you could take your Neopan and use stand development with Rodinal, for example, diluted 1:200 for about 2 hours, and see a very different image than you would in normal Xtol.</p>

<p>What that does is to let you explore beyond the viewfinder and camera--where composition, aperture and speed give you some variables to envision what your final image looks like--you will have a whole new set of creative tools if you learn to push, pull, and stand develop your images. Beyond that, you didn't say what you are really trying to achieve with your experiment (unless I missed it).</p>

[anatole]

<p>Larry - I was in fact just reading about Caffenol developers! It might be a possibility...</p>

<p>Michael - I somewhat explain the reason for experimenting in my third post, two above yours. I'm not entirely happy with the tonality, but it is really hard to explain. I'm really looking for something somewhat more gritty, with a bit more punch - but again, not something that is hugely different. I think I'll have a mess around; the experimentation is really to enable comparison with my normal film/developer combination (both of which I would like to change for various reasons).</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00YAhk</p>