Beginner B&W landscape film/paper ect...

[ann_m]

Yes, I am going to do the testing but..... first I need a place to

start. Last week I plodded through 'The Negative', 'The Print' & 'The

Film Developing Cookbook' and I am presently working my way through a

3 foot stack of darkroom and camera publications from the '80s. I

believe I am BEGINNING to understand the visualization/film/paper

relationship. Yes, I know the nuances take a lifetime! However, even

selecting initial combinations of B&W film, developers, and papers is

proving difficult and I am in need of assistance from experienced B&W

landscape photographers.

 

The primary situations I am concerned with at this time are:

1. High contrast coastal scenes (specular reflections, rocks with

deep shadow)

2. Low contrast fog.

3. Coniferous rain forest (low contrast, deep shadows).

 

I shall be using tray development with a diffusion enlarger.

My assumption is that I will require different film, paper, and

developers for each of the above situations. So.... I am (humbly)

asking for recommendations for film/developer & paper/developer

combinations for the three situations mentioned above so I have a

place to begin my testing.. With 3 films, 3 developers, & 3 papers to

work with I am sure to be happily occupied for years! Thus

liberating this forum from my annoying learning curve! Thank you in

advance for consideration of my beginner's dilemma.

[steve_rowell]

Ann,

 

Well, if I'm the first to reply, I will probably be among many that suggest one film and one developer. Please take a look at http://www.mcitret.com . Others will no doubt offer other examples. Or how 'bout http://www.johnsexton.com . And since you asked for a suggestion, T-max in Rodinal. The point is with any of the combinations about to be suggested you can make extraodinary photographs. Don't agonize over the stuff, agonize over the vision. Just my 2 cents.

 

Steve

[john_kasaian1]

FWIW, I suggest starting with something simple and economical. Arista Pro 400 in D-76. For paper, whatever paper you're using for your small and medium format negs will do nicely. This is just a place to start. Once you are comfortable with sheet film anything goes!

[eugene_singer]

Ann, you didn't mention the format you will be using. I'm assuming that you will be using LF cut film, where you can control the exposure and development of each individual sheet. Your assumption that you will need different combinations of film, developer, paper, etc. doesn't seem necessary. It is possible to handle all three of the situations you describe with proper exposure, development, and printing technique, using one type of film, one film and paper developer, and a few grades of paper, or VC paper and printing filters. Decide on a brand of film, preferrably medium speed. Use film and paper developers that are readily available, along with a brand of printing paper that works best in your hands. I like to use Ilford's film, chemicals, and paper. I believe that the Ilford research people design their products to work together, compatibly. Other people like Kodak products for similar reasons. Still others, use combinations of products from the various manufacturers. Whatever works best in their hands. Just go out and make photographs. Your learning experience will become fun, instead of an annoyance. There's no need to make it into a complicated dilemma.

[witold_grabiec]

Ann,

 

If you're after perfection, and your readings would suggest that, stick with one film/developer combination. The mentioned T-max/Rodinal is surely a great place to start. It takes time to learn what your whole set-up will and will not do, even more time to match material combination to a specific subject, thus for perfecting the technique alone the simpler the better. This does not mean you should not change your whatever combination, just don't give up on it too easily.

 

One thing I always suggest is to stick with developer sold in liquid form, such as Rodinal. Also Tetenal makes great stuff as well. It will allow for really easy dilution to whatever ratio you may require. Rodinal is a one-shot developer, you use it once and of it goes down the drain. Saves on surprises coming from inadequate storage, overuse etc.

[donald_miller1]

Ann, as others have stated, there is no advantage to complicating this more then necessary. I would choose one film and developer and spend the time to determine at what speed it exposes. What the effects of normal, contraction, and expansion developing are on this film. And more importantly how those effects translate to values on the print. If you choose Ilford, I would shoot HP5 because it responds to expansion developing. If Kodak, I would work with TriX and HC110...however this film does not respond as well, in my opinion, as HP5. Good luck and have fun.

 

Regards,

 

Donald Miller

[Troll]

Medium speed film, like Ilford FP4 or Bergger, Pyro developer such as PMK or Weston's ABC, and develop by inspection.

[michael_sherck]

Everyone has their own favorite film, paper, developer, etc. You probably have such from prior experience in other formats -- why don't you continue to use them? It would at least give you a basis for comparison of large format work vs. whatever you were doing before. Definitely do the film speed and development tests, though: they could very well change from what you are used to, based on your new equipment and way of working.

 

Whatever you chose to go with (and, frankly, when I started LF I chose whatever local stores carried in stock. Ease of access was important to me!) try to make yourself use it long enough so that you get to know its characteristics. Large format is expensive enough without changing materials (and all the testing that goes with such changing,) just because of some yahoo's comments you read on the Internet. (Present company included!)

 

*Grin* Ok, ok: Tri-X developed in HC-110. Capable of outstanding results over a wide contrast range but forgiving enough to give you some sort of result even if you completely muck it up. Widely available, affordable, lots of other photographers have experience with it so there's a wide pool of advice.

 

Best of luck to you. We'd love to hear how all this turns out.

 

Mike

[ann_m]

Perhaps I have been reading too much..... It all started when looking at Sexton's book 'Listen to the Trees' he used 6 different films to take 49 photographs (not that I have the photographic ambition to 'be' like any other photographer) so I thought this was the usual way to go. What a relief that it does not have to be that complicated! As for vision... I have been travelling about for 20 years, 35 countries, lived in 5, and I have just returned to my childhood landscape, it has had a strong effect on me.... am I skipping about in nature admiring my own sensitivity, I hope not. This is not an epic landscape like Yosemite or other photographic icons, but I find it has visual power for me. I am just a simple person with a simple desire to make photographs of a place that I find to be sublime. If one film and developer is adequate I am more than pleased with that. Cheers

[ralph_barker]

Another vote for keeping things simple by learning the possibilities of one film and one developer - at least for a while.

 

I like Ilford FP4+ for its tonal response, and the convenience of DD-X developer, also from Ilford. I use Agfa Multicontrast fiber-based paper, and also like the convenience of Agfa paper developer in small bottles.

[dave_karp]

Ann,

 

Sexton took those photos over a long period of time. Now he uses T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 films, and T-Max developer. He also recommends choosing one film and developer combination, and becoming very familiar with it. Changing films and developers all of the time keeps moving you back to step one, without the benefit of experience as to how the film/developer combination handles different situations, or perhaps stated better: how to use that combination to handle different situations. So, it is possible to keep things simple, and highly recommended.

[kevin_kolosky]

Ann

 

I don't mean to argue with what everyone else here has had to say, but may I suggest what I always suggest, and that is instead of starting with the middle man, start with the end result. Pick your paper first. then, do your testing of a couple of films with that paper, and then make up your own mind which you like the best. After all, it is YOUR vision.

 

You may want to try the Maco/Cachet papers with perhaps a kodak film an ilford film, and possibly Berrger 200. Look to Fine Art Photo Supply for some of their mild fixer (especially if you take the advice of using pyro).

 

May I suggest one more book. Alot of people put him down, but Fred Picker's little book called Zone VI workshop has helped many people who just didn't quite get it from Ansel's books. And especially if you don't have a densitometer then you should do a maximum black from minimum time test first so that you can establish zone 1 and film speed without the usual densitometer .10 above film base plus fog, and then of course your zone zone viii (or zone ix) test last, and then if you want to play around with compaction and expansion.

 

good luck

 

Kevin

[harry_pluta3]

Ann,

 

First I will say that you have picked some fine reading to get you started, I would like to suggest two others, the first is Kodak's Book of Large Format Photography- An excellent resource for the camera and basics of LF work and a brief review of the Kodak papers. Next is The Practical Zone System by Chris Johnson- I found it really simplfied my understanding of how to visualize and capture what I saw in my minds eye. It also has a great section on expansion and contraction. Darn near a "for dummys" book, but well written.

 

For myself I use two B/W films, one for portrait work and the other for all else. For portraits under studio lighting I like Kodak's Tri-X developed in Diafine. Very smooth tones with fine grain, and Diafine is almost idiot proof.

 

For everything else I use T-Max 100. For normal development I use Diafine, for expansion or contraction development I use Photographer's Formulary BW-2. It took me a while to get comfortable with the BW-2, but I find I can get more consistant +/- results then with anything else I've tried.

 

As to printing, I no longer do wet printing, but rather have gone digital. I scan my negatives, burn and dodge them in Photoshop, and then print them on an Epson printer. The results, while not for everyone, have been very satisfying to me.

 

Best light to you,

[wayne_crider4]

Hi Ann. I must say that it is nice seeing more women taking part

over here, and a note to all our fellow LFer's that Sandy Sorlien

has a nice write up this month in Camera Arts magazine.

 

I've tried 4 films and 2 developers so far, and find that Tmax 100

and FP4+ are the two I like the best. Both were standouts in Xtol

and Tmax in Diafine. Both films seemed vary capable without

alot of fuss and experimenting to get a nice scale of contrast. Of

the two I would have to pick T-max as others have mentioned.

 

For developers I picked Diafine for straight development as it is

a very easy to use developer that doesn't need an exact

temperture, and timing is a non issue with it. It's a 2 bath

developer and requires only a minimum ot 3 minutes per bath. I

also use Xtol as it is less hazardous than most other developers

and is a speed increasing developer meaning you'll get at least

the stated ISO or greater out of your film, but you must test

anyways for your E.I. Use TF4 (alkaline) fixer (B&H) and you will

have no obnoxious smells and a development that is more

friendly to the enviroment.

 

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask for help when you are stuck.

We are always willig to help and enjoy the company.

[ann_m]

Thank you to all! I am certainly grateful for your thorough and considered responses to my 'dilemma' & just in case anyone is curious.... I have decided to begin with a modified version of Kevin's suggestion, the Cachet paper seems to be a solid place to start, this week I will photograph one scene of moderate contrast with a few of the films recommended just to get the feel of how they may appear in the final print, then select one and begin to explore it's possibilities... and just let me add what a great resource the Large Format Forum has been for me... Cheers and thanks again...

[ole_tjugen]

Everybody has given different answers...

 

So I'll give my opinion too!

 

First of all, with the deep shadows you find in coniferous rain forests, this is a high-contrast scene too. So you're down to two contrast ranges.

 

After trying just about anything I could lay my hands on (mostly in medium format), I now use FP4+ for almost everything. It can hold detail over a 14 stop range without special processing, although it can be difficult to print...

 

As to developer, I'm experimenting a lot. I prefer to mix my own, so that I can't blame bad results on a bad batch of developer ;).

 

Split D23 works fine for high contrast range, but tends to compress midtones a bit too much to my taste. I'll try pyrocathecol next...

[ed_pierce2]

Ann:

 

I love what you said "I have just returned to my childhood landscape, it has had a strong effect on me.... am I skipping about in nature admiring my own sensitivity, I hope not. This is not an epic landscape like Yosemite or other photographic icons, but I find it has visual power for me. I am just a simple person with a simple desire to make photographs of a place that I find to be sublime."

 

You have a pretty high aesthetic ideal. The real challenge will be making photographs which convey your emotional message. I've been struggling with this for many years with only very occaisional success. It requires mastery of the craft (film, developing, printing etc) combined with the ability to visualize the final print. Most of all it just takes a lot of time. That's great that you're learning so much about films and stuff. These are important things to know. Just keep in mind that all of it is just tools to get you to that sublime place where your print speaks your message. Get out there and start shooting...good luck!

[ann_m]

Steve,

 

Thank you for your reference to Mark Citret, I read his essays... I think I am a bit closer to understanding conceptualization... It's symphonic, when Mozart heard the music in his head he was not obsessing about the haircut of the first violinist that would play it (ouch, that is a real groaner of a metaphor but you get my idea) .... I don't want to 'talk' too much about photography I'm too new to it.... besides I don't want that 'wee triblett beastie' nipping at the heels of my ideals..... So all that is left to do is the photographs....... see you in a hundred years..... cheers.

[philip_sweeney]

On testing: I had to read the "Negative" twice and referred back to it numerous other times. If you do not mind the heavy tech stuff I'd recommend "Beyond the Zone System" also, although I personally do not care for his test methods. My zone system is derived from both those books primarily: I determine my N number and then select ASA (I keep a small chart taped to my meter). I think that is better than having a base speed and adjusting (and remembering) fractional stop values for 6 or 7 developments! I know many folks do not have the room, but I have a zone board (The Book of Pyro) permanently standing in a room for testing. As for making charts, just get the raw densities and make some photos, charts are for teachers etc. FYI some of my test data:

<html>

 

<a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/index.html">phil sweeney's website</a>

 

</body>

</html>

 

I really like PMK and FP4 and do not use HC110 anymore. For me the increased sharpness is reason enough. There are alot of people using PMK for good reasons. My tube developments will slow you down, but the rewards are considerable.