Fed up, going LF, what's the most idiot proof?

[jeff_rivera5]

I'm tired of pixels and inks and color shifts and staring at a

moniter. I've been threatening for years but now the time has come,

fire up the 8x10!

 

What's the most idiot proof film/developer and paper/developer

combinations? I'd appreciate combinations that are a bit more

tolerant of temp and agitation issues. Any suggestions? And yes,

this is my first plunge into the darkroom (I can hear the groans

now, He's starting with 8x10!!!!!).

 

Thanks,

[Troll]

Tri-X tray developed in D-76. Azo (contact printed) developed in Dektol. Almost bulletproof. After you've done this for a year, sign up for Michael Smith's workshop. Good luck.

[david vickery]

I think you should do what Bill says and don't listen to any of the naysayers.

[wally_hess1]

I agree on the D76. I've been doing LF about 1 year now and have only used D76 to develop without a failure as yet. Have'nt tried AZO as yet, but use Dektol on RC papers with no problems. Best of luck and ...have fun doing it (or why bother!).

[david_goldfarb]

I started with 8x10" as well (after trying a friend's 4x5" and finding 8x10" and contact printing more intuitively appealing), so no reason not to start there.

 

Bill's suggestions are as good a place to start as any. Azo also looks good in Agfa Neutol WA, though you'll probably eventually migrate to one of the amidol formulas. Another easy developer to use with Tri-X is Acufine, which I use when I want more speed. I rate Tri-X sheet film in Acufine at EI 640.

[jeff_rivera5]

Bill and all,

 

Thanks! Were can I get 8x10 tri-X? Are there liquid concentrate developers that are similar to D76 and Dektol (diluting from liquid concetrate to make one shot developers seems easier and I've got a source for small 1-10 ml syringes)?

 

The BEST looking print I ever saw was Paula Chamlee's Yellowstone Canyon at the AA at 100 show at LACMA. It was fantastic! Micheal's 8x20 of trees didn't move me as much, but the detail was also impressive.

 

thanks,

[michael_chini]

Another vote for AZO. I find the grade 2 to be extremely rich and punchy. I use grade 3 as well, but not as much. Use Neutol WA for neutral tones. I've yet to use the Amidol but will get to it shortly. Using both grade 2 and 3 as well as varying the dilution, you will be able to get any contrast levels you need. Also, with AZO it just seems that dodging and burning really aren't as nec. as with enlarging. Printing is just so much more rewarding and simple this way...2 paper safes, a few trays and a lightbulb as well as some foam and glass and you're good to go.

 

As for film, take your pick. HP5+, Bergger 200 (BEAUTIFUL but slower film), JandC or Tri-X. Can't go wrong with D76 but Rodinal is MUCH more economical if you plan on using D76 as a one shot. And no heating up water or mixing powders involved.

[richard_cochran]

If you prefer a liquid concentrate, try Rodinal or HC-110 instead

of D-76. Personally, I like Rodinal, but as much as anything, that's

because I have more experience with it. It's very economical, long

shelf life, high accutance, sharp grain that's maybe a bit

excessive if you use it in small formats, but that won't be

an issue in 8x10.

<p>

I most often use

it at 1:50, where developing times are in the neighborhood of

12 minutes for Tri-X, making it very tolerant of minor timing

errors. Since you use 50 parts water to 1 part concentrate,

you can easily use ice or hot tap water to get the water to proper

temp before adding the concentrate, knowing that the ambient

temperature of that tiny amount of concentrate will have a negligible

effect on the diluted developer temperature.

<p>

As for paper/developer, nearly all standard papers/developers

are as idiot proof as the next -- the big difference is in the

"look" of the finished product, as in its finish surface and

its color.

[david_karp]

The most idiot proof developer is Diafine. It is a divided developer: 3 minutes in bath A, 3 minutes in bath B. Temperature (within a broad range) and time (beyond 3 minutes) do not make any difference. You can even develop multiple film types at the same time. As a two bath, it is inherently compensating. I find the acutance/grain combination good with 4x5 FP4+ and HP5+. In the past I used it with success with 35mm Tri-X and Plus-X.

 

The only problem with Diafine is that you can't do N+ development. You can, however, intensify the neg with selenium if you need to do N+1 development.

[david_goldfarb]

8x10" Tri-X is usually available from bhphoto.com, and shouldn't be too hard to find at other pro shops in major cities. freestylecamera.com is also a good source for LF film.

[john_kasaian1]

Jef, Freestyle has Naaco D-76, which is a liquid version of the stuff that comes in the yellow envelope. For really idiot proof processing, I use (and like alot!) a unicolor processor---about $40 on ebay--- for my 8x10s, check out http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/ for more details(you don't have to stand around in the dark listening to chemicals shlosh around in trays---very civilized!)

[james_chinn]

After shooting LF for about 15yrs it seems in retrospect that starting out with 8x10 and contact printing is an easier way to go. You eliminate the hassles and expenses of an enlarger, lens, etc. You can get stunning prints with contact printing even on non AZO paper.

 

I would start out with HC110 for a film developer or jump right in with Pyro. Agitation is not really an issue because you are going to be using trays so agitation is pretty controlled.

 

For paper I would start with a couple of boxes of an Ilford or Forte Fiber based paper and as you get the hang of things move on to AZO for really superior prints.

 

It is interesting to note that I now know of two others who both went to school to study photography and after realizing most of their professional time is spent with digital imaging and computers, have opted to use LF film and wet darkroom for personal work.

[jim_shanesy]

"The BEST looking print I ever saw was Paula Chamlee's Yellowstone Canyon"

 

I would've said the same thing (in fact, I bought one of her prints of this picture) until I saw their show in Richmond, VA this past April. Michael's prints were so absolutely stunning that people were walking out with dazed looks on their faces. They'd never seen world class photography in that town.

 

My advice to you: start right in with the best materials. Efke PL100 (far superior and less expensive than Tri-X), ABC pyro, Azo and amidol. It's probably ok to compromise on the amidol for a while with Agfa Neutol WA, but you'll soon want to have amidol in your arsenal. Then take Michael's workshop as soon as you can.

 

Michael started with a 35mm camera back in the 60's but went to 8 x 10 within a year. He hasn't used a smaller camera since.

[jim_shanesy]

"Are there liquid concentrate developers that are similar to D76 and Dektol"

 

I wouldn't use Dektol with Azo. The prints are very blue.

[tim_atherton2]

Come on Micahel, please chime in and tell us you use a little digi point and shoot when no one's looking.... :-)

[jim_shanesy]

"Come on Micahel, please chime in and tell us you use a little digi point and shoot when no one's looking"

 

I saw one on his desk when I took the workshop. You're busted, Smith!

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

The most forgiving developer I have used is Pyrocat HD. If you dont mind mixing your own or ordering from artcraftchemicals the kit, this is an excellent developer. Most any film will do good in it. I use 400 tmx for the 8x10 and fp4 for the 12x20 and the developer alsways gives me great results. I would not recommned 400 tmx to start but once you get the hang of the processing it is a great film to work with.

 

Azo is a fine paper, but you cannot use an enlarger, you have to rig at least a 300 watt lamp to expose it. If you want to use your enlarger as a light source, then any good paper will do. I prefer Oriental graded on the few instances that I print silver, but most any other brand will do. Once you see your first contact print, you will know it was worth the effort. Good luck.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

If you really want paralysis by analysis, use the zone metering system, and develope each neg differently, according to how much lattidude you need!

[david_karp]

Jeff,

 

I should have mentioned this earlier. If you like HP5+, then give Freestyle's Arista 400 a look. There have been many threads on this, but the bottom line is that if it is not private labeled HP5+ then it is something awfully close. I believe that Gordon Hutchings did an article on this in View Camera a while ago and concluded that the films seemed identical or so close as to not matter. I use the 4x5 versions of the Arista 125 and 400 films. I don't see any difference from the Ilford films.

 

Price for 25 sheets of Arista 400 in 8x10: $42.99. Price of 25 8x10 sheets of Tri-X: $69.99. And if you like the Ilford film, as many do, then you are not giving up anything in quality. Of course, if you like Tri-X or Bergger or some other film, then no sense buying the Arista to save money.

 

And by the way, if you want try Diafine, I bought a gallon pack from Freestyle today. In the past, they did not carry it.

[john_kasaian1]

David, Alas, they don't make 25 sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-X anymore. I know its on Freestyle's site---tried to order some, but no joy.

Arista Pro 400 is as close as you'll get in 25 sheet boxes(my opinion!)

[michael_a._smith1]

Thanks to everyone for the nice comments.

 

Easiest is whatever film and film developer you want, but Azo

and Amidol really can't be beat if you want to make silver prints.

And yes, Paula's and my workshop--it is not mine alone--will

save you a tremendous amount of time and probably a lot of

money as well.

 

About the digital camera. Yes, we have one, bought on a whim.

And it sits on the desk until we can figure out how to use it. We

use it so infrequently, that we forget in between. We bought it to

take to Tuscany so we could make pictures of ourselves working

for our web site. And we also took it to Baja California this winter

for the same reason. Result: we forgot to use it in Tuscany and

in Baja we got it out on the next to last day of the trip and had our

assistant make a snapshot of us. And then, when we tried to

download the poictures in the computer I couldn't find the

commands to do it. It was driving me nuts and it was only when

a friend pointed out that they were already downloaded--seems it

is something that happens automatically when you plug it

in--that I calmed down. So the digital camera sits and sits.

Maybe some day we will use it, but I never made a snapshot in

my life, except in 8x10 a couple of times, so it will not be soon.

And the worst part is that you end of getting a lot more than you

see in the viewer (viewfinder?) (screen?) and that is more than a

little unsatisfying.

 

Bottom line: These small digital cameras are too difficult to use.

Any small camera is, really, for someone as untechnal as I am.

Once, when I looked through a friend's rangefinder camera I

handed it back to him and said, "There is a serious problem." He

looked and said it was fine and handed it back to me. This was

repeated a few times. Finally he asked me, "Exactly what is the

problem." My answer: "In the upper right corner the lens is in the

picture." Hopeless, right. But not with an 8x10, or larger.

[graphicjoe]

Jeff,

 

You are thinking along the right lines, but not yet at the right scale. Why have a little toy like an 8 X 10? Better to get a real camera like an 11 X 14, or better 16 X 20. Something with scale, but no nonsense. A real camera. One that can produce a contact print that all can see, and from a good distance.

 

cheers,

 

Joe S.

[jim_shanesy]

16 x 20 is for wimps. Get a REAL camera.

 

http://www.polaroid.com/solutions/solution_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=387627&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9949&PRDREG=US

[jay_de_fehr]

I agree with the advice given by the experienced and dependable posters above, and speaking as an idiot, can vouch for the simplicity of HP5/ABC Pyro/ Development by Inspection and contact printing with any paper/developer combo I've tried, among which my current favorite is Fomatone MG Classic and Edwal Ultra Black toned in selenium. If you've seen M. Smith and Paula C.'s work, then you already know what the Azo/Amidol combo looks like, but if you haven't seen a print made on Printing Out Paper, or a Platinum print, you've really only scratched the surface of what LF contact printing has to offer. Good luck.

[wally_hess1]

Where can one obtain Printing out Paper? What are the brand names and how do you process it?

Thanks