marv_thompson

With any film developer I would strongly urge that you use it as a "one shot" developer, at the recommended dilution. In the case of D-76 the recommended dilution is 1:1 with water. Use the developer once and throw it out. You really have no idea how much the deveolper is being exhausted during the development process and the best thing you can do to ensure consistancy is to always use fresh developer. You can re-print a picture that is printed with weak developer, but if you screw up the negatives with contaminated or exhausted developer, you might not get a second chance at the picture. Do what ever you can to get the best negative you can and your printing will be a lot easier.

The package is to make one gallon of stock solution. It is then diluted 1:1, 1 part stock solution to 1 part water. This is the standard dilution, and is always done from stock just prior to your printing session. The solution has a better shelf life before being diluted 1:1 so it is best to follow this procedure. If you are not doing volume processing or are doing it over a period of time, you may want to split the stock up into 1 quart containers, filled to point of over flowing. This will eleminate as much air as possible from the container and will reduce the amount of oxidation over a longer period of time. There are other dillutions that are used, from straight stock to 1:4, for various reasons. I would suggest using 1:1 and try others after you have mastered that. Good luck!

I would think that the difference between 100 and 125 asa is going to be negligable, in fact I am sure of it. Your best bet is to keep records of your exposures so that when you process the film and make a contact sheet you will know what exposures were the most accurate. I am quite certain that the shutter is not going to be very accurate as far as actual speeds are concerned, but if it "sounds" the same at a given speed each time that it is released, then it will be consistent. After a while you begin to recognize the sound that shutter speeds make, especially at 1/30 and below. You might even compare it to a camera you are used to and see if the sound of the shutters at relative speed ie 1/10 to 1/15 are comparable. Keeping records and comparing them to your end proof will tell you a great deal.

O.P. is not the only magazine that has a problem photographically. all of the "off the shelf" magazine rack magazines have the same problem, notably a lack of pictures. articles, generally, have one image to illustrate them, and rarely if ever is this image even related to the article. when they do run portfolios, which is seldom, it only seems to be in conjumction with the release of a book or an upcoming traveling exhibit. this wasn't always so, i remember american photographer of ten to fifteen years ago that featured a different photograher in each issue, with a story and descent portfolio by each. this is where i first encountered the likes of O. Winston Link and Morely Baer, two excelent photographers of very different styles. O.P. is just the most well known of the modern magazines to fall prey of the advertising dollar to keep itsself a float, most of the others have gone the way of the dodo into extinction, and it certainly has become more difficult to view good pictures because of thier demise.

instead of asking what other people are using for thier photography, you need to pick a film, film developer, paper and paper developer and figure out how they relate to your photography. test the negative film and developer to get a handle on how they work. if you dont have any idea of how to test, then a trip to the library might be in order, find a photo book that has basic tests in it and do them. fred pickers zone vi work shop would be a good place to start. i certainly would not base all of the picture that i was going to take on someones suggestions. any film and developer combo will work fine, they are all good,just different, but if you have never tried any of them, then non of them are going to be any good to you. you no doubt will spend a lot of time and money on this trip, so a dozen or so rolls of film and a box of paper will just be chump change. i dont mean to sound hard, but advice and opinion will never, never, ever, take the place of practice and experience, talking about it is not doing it, like the ad says, just do it.

to expand on Jef's answer, most definetly! he is 100 % correctin his thinking that the zone system is a method. what you end up after all of the testing and work to develope your own personal film speed, exposue technique, film developing times, and printing formula is a very stream lined approach to the film exposure. i know, for instance, on any given day exactly what my exposure should be with out even un-holstering my spot meter. how? it is simple, i have calculated the proper exposures, using zone system discipline, for any lighting condition in the part of the country that i am in. and i have taken pictures, developed them and printed them in all of these conditions. i have the prints and know what works. why do i still carry the meter? because in lower light conditons it is more reliable, and i dont have to keep looking up the times for various lighting schemes [yes i have them written down]. but the important thing to remember is, you have to take the readings learn what the zone sustem can and cannot do, and make prints. do that and you will see that the benefits of the zone system really do carry over in to virtually any tipe of photography. an excelenr resource for study of this technique and the place that i learned it from is the zone vi newsletter #24 by fred picker. i dont know if the issue is still available from the zone vi studios {it was put out april 1980} but it would be well worth the time for you to look into its availability, it has a lot of good info and suggestions for developing your own personnal zone system.

CALUMET HAS BOTH THE ILFORD AND KODAK FILMS. TO ORDER 1-800-367-2781. THEY ARE VERY REPUTABLE, I HAVE HAD EXCELENT LUCK WITH THEM OVER THE PHONE AND IN PERSON. THE LAST KODAK TRI-X THAT I BOUGHT WAS $117. FOR A BOX OF 50, THAT WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. THE ILFORD WAS IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE.

all photography is manipulation of the natural scene. the only reality in a photograph is what the photographer choses to put into the frame. by framing the image we have done the first manipulation to a natural scene, what is the difference what is added or subtracted after this. this debate has raged for decades and will continue to rage, which is good, it should be dicussed, debated and even fought over. my only suggestion as a way to ensure that the production of un-digitally modified, hand crafted, silver and platinum prints be recognized for what it is, would be to be sure to always, i mean always mention that the print has been produced in that manner. instead of trying so hard to control the digital medium, what fred picker refered to as C.R.A.P., Computer Re-Arranged Photograph, we need to shout our craft at the top of our lungs, and make sure that people know what it is that they are seeing. tell them that it takes more than going to the one hour photo to get superior results that mean something. the bottom line is that the public is about as cynical about what they see in photographs as they are what they here on the news any more. we as photographers need to inform and educate them on what it is that they are looking at when they see our images, be they either digital or conventional. both sides have a lot to gain from enlightening the public, i just hope that we can do it without having to rely on some outside force to dictate the content of our images and how we present them.