michael_goldfarb1

Without going into exhaustive detail, and bearing in mind that everyone's darkroom technique and experience is different:

D-76 is the old standby. It works well with nearly every b/w film out there and produces a reasonable balance of good tonal quality, sharpness, and grain. I always use it 1:1, but it works just as well straight too. In my experience, the T-Max films have a tendancy to come out with higher contrast and more burned-out highlights in D-76 than in something more contemporary like Xtol.

HC-110 produces negatives similar to D-76 at most of its (several) usable dilutions. Its advantage is that it's a liquid concentrate that you only dilute a little bit at a time as you need it, and the bottled concentrate will last for years. (Once mixed to stock solution, D-76 won't even last a single year [although in my experience it does last much longer than Kodak's conservative estimates of only a few months], even when put into several small airtight bottles.) If you only develop once in a while and worry that you'll typically end up throwing out stock D-76, HC-110 might be just the ticket. (I haven't used it for T-Max films, but it might be better for them at one of its dilutions than D-76, contrast- and burned-out-highlight-wise.)

DK-50 is a different animal, an old formula primarily used in deep tanks for sheet film. (I've used it for Tri-X, Plus-X, and now sadly discontinued Ektapan.) You mix it, let it sit covered in a tank, throw in some replenisher every now and then, and use it for months and months. It is a fast-working, harsh developer that is not nearly as fine-grain as D-76 (since grain isn't ever really an issue on 4x5 film), and I suspect that it wouldn't work very well with the T-Max emulsions...

Anyway, that's my POV on this stuff. Hope it helps.

I get very nice results with APX 100 in good old Kodak D-76 1:1 (even

my Minox negatives yield sharp, nearly grainless 5x7s) with nice,

even, medium-density negatives that are a joy to print on our good

old Omega D-3v condenser.

<p>

However, I definitely use less developing time than Agfa recommends,

and less agitation than nearly anyone recommends:

<p>

9 minutes at 68 degrees, with gentle agitation at 1-minute intervals.

<p>

Then a plain water rinse (in the dark, I open the tank and dip the

reel in a graduate of water a couple of times), a couple of minutes

in the fixer (still in the dark, take the film off the reel and

immerse it in a big tray - wait about a minute to turn on the light),

a short vigous wash (in a big tray with cold tapwater coming in

quickly through a rubber tube, including some manual swishing around

to make sure it's even), a quick dip in very dilute PhotoFlo, and

hang up with an "easy clip" on the bottom to weight it.

Ektapan has been my dad's standard 4x5 film for, I dunno, 25 or 30

years. He switched from Plus-X and has never looked back. His

somewhat non-technical reason is that Ektapan has "far more zip" than

Plus-X.

<p>

What he basically means is punchier contrast and a somewhat different

spectral response. Most of his work is tabletop product shots lit

with a couple of big banks of (WWII surplus!) florescent lights,

sometimes with some hot lights mixed in. With Plus-X, these lighting

scheme can yield somewhat blah results, given Plus-X's tend towards

low-to-medium contrast and a somewhat grayish look. With Ektapan,

this stuff just "pops".

<p>

A friend of his - a portrait and wedding specialist who mostly uses

studio flash for portraits - also made the switch years ago for his

4x5 work. In his case, it was from T-Max 100 to Ektapan. He finds it

a far easier to handle film, and loves the results.

<p>

Because it's only a sheet film emulsion, Ektapan is not very well

known - but many folks who use it swear by it. Let's just hope that

Kodak doesn't phase it out soon (after all, it can't be a very big

seller!)...

It's funny, I think of DK-50 as a really harsh-working developer. My

folks have used it in deep tanks for 4x5 sheet films (mostly Ektapan,

Tri-X, Plus-X) for as long as I can remember. The stuff can stand in

the tank covered for ages, then come right back to life with a little

fresh stock or DK-50R replenisher added. It's faster than developers

like D-76: I seem to recall that development times for most films are

only around 5 or 6 minutes at 68 degrees, with agitation at 1-minute

intervals.

<p>

But it's not a fine-grain developer. Though great for sheet film, I

suspect it would yield coarse results on smaller formats (which might

be a nice effect, if that's what you're after!) I never actually

tried it, though. But we souped some outdated 6x9 Tri-X in my dad's

tank just last year, and got nice punchy negs...

Not even a year outdated? No sweat! Black and white film doesn't

degrade anywhere near as quickly as color - I've used stuff four or

five years outdated with good results.

<p>

Give it an extra minute in the developer if you want to, but you

probably wouldn't notice any difference either way.

I concur with my fellow Goldfarb (no relation, there are just lots of

Goldfarbs into photography!) and I think that conventional b/w films

are probably the way to go. And yes, the printing is where any tones

(gray vs. brown, etc.) are controlled. But for poster size prints,

the main issue that there's simply no getting around is that you

really need to start with a good negative.

<p>

The real question for Jill is what kind of camera she's using. If

it's a medium-format camera, good old Tri-X 400 developed in nearly

any developer will enlarge to poster size without too much grain.

However, if she wants to blow up a 35mm negative to that size, slower

films like Kodak Plus-X or T-Max 100, Ilford FP4 or Delta 100, or

Agfa APX 100 are necessary.

<p>

Among these, my own bias is towards the "old tech" emulsions,

especially if her subjects are portraits. Not to denigrate T-Max or

Delta, they are indeed sharper and finer-grained, but I find their

look is just less flattering overall. And FYI, my own informal

testing (with Minox negatives in D-76) has found that APX 100 is the

finest-grained and sharpest of the classic 100-speed films... at

least in MY darkroom.

<p>

As to where to get it developed and printed, keep in mind that you

get what you pay for. A pro lab that does conventional b/w and poster

size prints on a regular basis is your best choice... but it'll cost

ya.

I haven't done APX 25 in D-76, but I have done APX 100 in D-76, so

let me mention a perhaps semi-relevant observation:

<p>

The published times are too long! My APX 100 would have been

overdeveloped - too dense - if I had given it the suggested time (I

think 13 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68, right?) I use 9 minutes for APX

100 in D-76 1:1 at 68, and consistenly get nice, even, "medium"

negatives that print up beautifully on our old Omega condenser.

<p>

I would approach the published times for APX 25 in D-76 with

suspicion, if I were you. Follow the published times for your first

roll, but watch out for overdevelopment: you might want to give your

next roll less time...

Not much to add. Either Plus-X or APX 100 in D-76 (don't believe

Agfa's times, they're too long! I do it 9 min at 68, 1:1 dilution and

1-minute agitation.) would be a good bet. Rodinal's even older than D-

76, so you could go that route too.

<p>

Take care with your image-making apart from the film used: Avoid

using electronic flash, go with "hard" lights (photofloods,

theatrical spots) or window light if you're doing portraiture. Using

an old camera or lens would surely help too (but old doesn't have to

be ancient: a Nikon with a non-AI lens would be nice.) Wide-angles

weren't much used back then, go for longer lenses. If shooting

outdoors, try to avoid including recent buildings or cars...

<p>

Sounds like a fun project!

Oops, sorry about confusing the Ilford films. No sleight intended -

they're very comparable to the Kodak films. (I just don't use them

personally very much, and find their 2-letter-1-number names a little

hard to remember.)

Tri-X is a 1957 Chevy. (Classic, dependable, beautiful.)

<p>

T-Max 400 is a 1986 Taurus. (Catchy new very-hyped design, but only

slightly better mileage, and a definitely few bugs to be worked out

in future models that aren't immediately obvious.)

<p>

Black&White+ is any current smaller SUV. (Superficially appears to be

a real heavy-duty truck, but really isn't - reasonably dependable,

can definitely be fun and will get you around, but eats more gas than

you might think, and it's a totally new model, so you really don't

know how it will stand up to the years.)

<p>

Personally, I have made zillions of great shots on Tri-X, and was

very underwhelmed with T-Max 400 (while SLIGHTLY sharper than Tri-X,

I found it equally grainy, with far too much contrast for my taste),

and have no personal experience with the chromogenics, 'cause I have

a standing darkroom and fresh D-76 I can use whenever I need... But

if YOU aren't developing the film yourself (or having a trusted

friend or pro lab you absolutely trust do it), Black&White+ may be

the best choice for YOU...

<p>

There's nothing wrong with new technology, but is anybody going to be

holding nationwide conventions for Nissan Pathfinders in 40 years?!?

I was also extremely disappointed in XTOL when I tried it last year

(mostly with TMX). I had borderline underdevelopment right off the

bat (and I mixed, diluted, timed, and agitated VERY carefully per

Kodak's instructions - I used to be a pro and I've been doing this

since the sixties), and the solution become exhausted in a matter of

weeks. Despite constantly increasing my dev time, I never got a truly

good roll.

<p>

The closest-to-good negs I got on the first roll did show promise.

The TMX did come out a little finer-grained than in D-76, and, more

importantly, with the inherently high contrast somewhat tamed. But I

grew tired of ruining roll after roll, and eventually I went back to

D-76...

<p>

Personally, my gut feeling is that the newer products like TMX and

XTOL really demand the extremely precise metering/exposure of modern

cameras and extremely precise temp-control and agitation of machine

processing. Using our old match-needle Nikons and small tanks, I

consistently get much better results with old standbys like PX and TX

in D-76. (And since I also happen to much prefer the look of the old

films, this isn't really a tragedy.)

<p>

I'm sure if I continued in a concerted effort I could get the

XTOL/TMX combo to work better for me... Maybe I will sometime, but

for now I think I'll stick with the classics, which (due to Kodak's

quiet incremental improvements over the years) also happen to produce

better results than ever.

I recently shot a roll of the 127 R100 film in a Yashica 44 and

developed in D-76 (1:1, 10 min at 68) and got very nice results. Good

tonality and contrast, sharp, no visible grain in 8x10s from a 4x4cm

negative. Will definitely try it again sometime in 127, but I see no

reason to stop using Kodak and Agfa for my other cameras...

Arista Camera in Bronxville, New York carries Minox film. I was

shocked to find a dealer in Westchester that carries it, considering

that from around here it's only a short drive to B&H and the rest of

the Manhattan crowd. It did cost a dollar or two more, but when

convenience counts...

1. (A) Back in the 60s, when I was 12, my parents were pros and we

got all the photo mags, so I know about Minoxes. Since it was the

height of the James Bond/Man From U.N.C.L.E./Our Man Flint/etc. spy

craze, I asked for one for my bar mitzvah gift, and ended up with a

Minox B that I kept for two years. I eventually lost interest and

traded up for a super-small 35mm (a Petri Color 35, a fabulous

shooter!), but we kept the developing tank and negative carrier

because I knew I'd get another Minox someday.

<p>

1. (B) In 1995, when I turned 40, I looked around for something to

reconnect me to my lost youth and provide a much-needed creative

outlet. A friend at work showed me his Minox and I suddenly

remembered that I had always wanted another (plus my parents still

have a darkroom and the old equipment). So I got a IIIS ('cause it

was the smallest and most challenging) and haven't looked back.

<p>

2. I just have the IIIS now, but I'd like to get a B, and maybe a C,

one of these days. Perhaps an EC for one of my kids or wife too.

<p>

3. One I'll almost certainly never be able to afford - the BL! A B

with a better meter, no losing frames if you advance without

shooting, etc. Very cool.

<p>

4. Not much at work (aside from the occasional portrait or coverage

of some lunch or party), but basically all the rest of the time.

<p>

5. In my parents' darkroom, in my old 50-exp Minox Daylight

Developing Tank. I use only 100-speed films (mostly TMX, APX 100, and

PX) because it makes estimating exposure easier, and typically

develop in D-76 1:1 (though I've also used Microdol-X 1:3 and XTOL

1:1 with pretty good results). Of the negs I end up printing, I make

about 70% 4x5 prints and 30% 5x7s. I also occasionally - like every

two years - shoot a roll of color and let MPL process it.

<p>

6. Etc.: I love the Minox and carry it ALWAYS. I also shoot with a

bunch of other mostly old cameras (a Pen half-frame, an OM SLR, my

dad's old Nikon F2s and TLRs, my wife and kids' assorted p&s

cameras), but I shoot the most with the Minox, averaging about 8 to

10 rolls a year. It's just the coolest!

<p>

MSG

The Krehbiel-style flatbed slitter is a much cheaper alternative to

the ritzy Minox slitter. If you're handy, one can be put together

with about $15 worth of materials. If you're not handy, you can

probably find somebody who is who will make you one for under $100.

See Don Krehbiels's website for info and plans.

<p>

The price of the Minox slitter is ABSURDLY high. No doubt, this is

partially to discourage people from rolling their own and eating into

Minox GmbH's and MPL's film sales!

My IIIS is always on my belt. If you can live without a light meter,

it's definitely the way to go. Nothing against the later models, but

the IIIS is the summation of the first 20 years of Minox design and

engineering, and is a simply gorgeous, perfect little thing... and a

fabulous photographic instrument!

<p>

(You'll find there are MANY more IIISs than IIIs out there, and they

generally cost a bit less and are a few years newer. Size is

virtually the same, and the flash sync definitely comes in handy at

times... So, unless you're a fanatical purist, the IIIS is the one to

go for.)

Remember that TXP and TX are different emulsions (or so I keep

reading, I've never used TXP), so your 35mm TX results may not be

truly comparable...

<p>

Perhaps Pryo isn't good with TXP? I'd try something that's known to

work well with TXP, something from Kodak like D-76, and see if it's

any sharper.

Four years ago they told me Microdol-X 1:3, but I think they've

probably changed since then.

<p>

(This led me to using MicX 1:3 for a while, but it was less than

ideal - I eventually switched to D-76 1:1, and have also experimented

with XTOL 1:1.)

Good old D-76 1:1 at Kodak's stated times (I think 12 minutes at 68,

agitation at 30-sec intervals). Very punchy negs, verging on too much

contrast occasionally, but still eminently printable. Nearly

invisible grain in anything less than 11x14 from 35mm.

<p>

Personally, I've had borderline-underdevelopment every time I've

tried TMX in XTOL 1:1, but I plan to try it again soon, as I think it

is a bit better in terms of contrast, and perhaps grain too. But D-76

works fine most of the time...

I have recent experience like that:

<p>

I connect a Vivitar 2800 to my IIIS with an 8-inch cord, and sight

and fire the camera with the right hand while holding the flash in

the left, usually angling it in somewhat to get a more dimensional

effect.

<p>

With 100-speed film, and the flash at its lower auto setting (which

specifies an aperture of f/4 with 100-speed film and covers distances

of about 4 feet to 12 feet), I shoot at 1/100 (although faster and

slower speeds also seem to work fine) and get VERY nice results.

(Although with TMX, the dreaded high-contrast can be a problem when

using flash.)

<p>

The only think I don't like is that the Vivitar 2800 is so much

larger than the Minox. A smaller automatic flash (like the old

Vivitar 200) would probably work just as well, as long it had an auto

mode that provided roughly the right exposure at f/3.5 for the film

you're using.

<p>

But no question, using an automatic electronic flash via a PC cord

can work BEAUTIFULLY!

A dissenting view: I know this is heresy, but I only use the Minox

Tank for development proper.

<p>

When my timer goes off, I turn off the lights, pull out the Tank

spiral with the film still on it (I use my right thumb to keep the

cassette on its little mount), dunk it into a large graduate of water

(roughly the right temperature, to prevent reticulation) two or three

times, then unspool the film and drop it into a tray of fixer. After

about a minute, I turn on the lights and swish the film around in the

fixer tray until it's clear (taking care not to scratch the emulsion

side), then leave it in the fixer for a couple of additional minutes.

<p>

I then wash the film in a small tray with a faucet running into it

(again at roughly the right temperature to prevent reticulation),

swirling the film from the cassette end and taking care not to bruise

the emulsion side. Most films only need about three minutes of this,

but TMX takes roughly twice as long to finally lose its purplish

cast. Then a quick dunk in a dilute PhotoFlo solution, and hang it up.

<p>

I've done this with nearly a hundred rolls over the years - the Minox

Tank is THE solution for developing, but for rinsing, fixing, and

washing, I find not using it works fine... and I NEVER worry about

adequate solutions at each stage, as I'm using vast amounts of them

compared to the size of the film.

Since you're using a medium-format negative and grain isn't a

significant concern, of the last two recommended, I'd start with APX

100. It's a much easier film to handle than TMX, and produces simply

gorgeous results - much nicer to my eye than TMX. A well-exposed 6x6

APX 100 negative developed in nearly anything (except, say, Rodinal)

should blow up pretty darn big before grain becomes an issue.

<p>

And in my Minox-negative-blowup experience with ALL of the 100- and

125-speed films in the last five years (all dev'd in D-76 1:1, with

some rolls in XTOL 1:1 or Microdol-X 1:3), APX 100 was consistently

right behind TMX and Delta 100 in the high resolution/sharpness and

fine-grain category (and quite clearly in front of Plus-X and FP4

Plus). It's a wonderful film, and with an old Rolleiflex, a match

made in heaven!

<p>

Nothing against TMX - I use that a lot too, but there's no getting

around its more temperamental personality. However, for medium

format, I'd definitely go with APX 100.

Not surprisingly, it's basically a matter of film choice/speed and

development, plus negative size vs. print size.

<p>

If Kodak still makes it, Recording Film - with a standard speed of

1000, this was the 1950s version of TMax P3200 - is famous for

producing big "pointallistic" grain (especially when pushed a stop or

two). Failing that, you're stuck with 400-speed old-tech films like

Tri-X and HP5. (There's no point in using the newer TMax or Delta

films - they're totally engineered for fine grain!) The trick with

getting mega-grain with these films is, once again, exposure speed

and development.

<p>

Tri-X or HP5 shot at 1600 and (over)developed in straight D-76 (or ID-

11) for TWICE the standard time will give you some grain. You can

also go further and up the speed and development even more - go ahead

and experiment. Another thing to try is harsher-working developers:

old sheet-film developers like Kodak DK-50 yield pretty grain results

with smaller-format films; print developers like Dektol should also

produce mega-grain. (I have no clue what kind of developing times to

use for prints developers with film, though - maybe somebody else can

help with this.)

<p>

Also, agitate the heck out of your film during development. While the

new-tech films flourish with even constant (machine-style) agitation,

the older films will definitely show more pronounced grain. Agitate

violently and as much as you can stand to - that should promote some

grain.

<p>

Another approach is to blow up your negative more. Try shooting with

a subminiature camera like a Minox, or an Olympus Pen half-frame 35mm

- or just simulate it by using only a fraction of the full frame. A

quarter of a 35mm frame is roughly equivalent to a Minox negative,

and this will yield grainy 8x10s even with a fine-grain film: with

something like pushed Tri-X, you'll get grain like cannonballs!

<p>

And while you're busy breaking the rules, try for partial or full

reticulation by using radically different solution temperatures: a 20-

degree hotter water rinse between the developer and fixer, a much

colder fixer, a final wash in hot water, etc. While full reticulation

isn't grain, per se, it can still create an interesting image full of

jagged transitions.

<p>

Basically, have some fun breaking the rules and experimenting!

Personally, I've developed something like 60 rolls of Minox film in

the Minox Tank, and I've NEVER used the thermometer. I use a plain

old round-dial photo thermometer to check my developer temperature

before pouring it in, and since I use the "rap on the table and shake

like a martini" agitation method, I don't even put in the thermometer.

(Nothing against Martin's pumping technique, but I've never used it.)

<p>

In any case, the thermometer is NOT required to get good results with

the Tank.

I can't believe I beat Martin to an answer with this one!

<p>

Try Minox Processing Labs at www.minoxlab.com.

<p>

(You can also check out B&H Photo-Video - it'll be a dollar or so

less a roll - though MPL really needs the business more.)