Alchemy

[Roger Hicks]

This is prompted by Roman's comment on another thread that he has seen good pictures made with Delta 3200 but it doesn't work for him. We have all had similar experiences: what works for me won't necessarily work for you, and vice versa. Ilford themselves recognize this: it is from them I borrowed the term 'the science of colour, the alchemy of black and white'.

But why is this so? The usual response covers all the usual variables: subject, exposure, developer, development regime, enlarger type, paper choice... But even if you attempt to standardize these, there are still variables. Any further thoughts?

And, of course, does it matter? Of course not, unless you sticki with some combination that isn't ideal for you, just because everyone else praises it.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[pvdhaar]

It's also the lenses. Multi-coatings often cut UV to some extent, and where the coatings differ, the transmission differs. As a result, some films work wonders on one camera, and not on another, even if everything else is equal.

But that's not restricted to black and white, it's the same for colour. Although no longer available, Agfa vista 400 rated at 250 did wonders with light on my Hexanon 50/2, and was drab on the Nikons 50/1.8 side by side.. Put NPH in the Nikons, and the difference wasn't there colour wise. (Sharpness still differed though).

 

[TPPhotog]

I think in part it's because there are so many variables including personal technique and also questions are about just one part of the process. When we reply our experience with say D3200 is based on the whole process we like to work to. As such replies can only be offered as a starting point.

The manufacturers do what they can to standardise but after the materials have gone out of the door then nature plays it's part. Different stores transport materials and store them in different conditions and temperatures, before we get hold of them and store them ourselves.

Many of use don't use straight out of the showroom cameras, so over years there has been different wear and tear creating different tolerances.

Then we all have our own method of taking the shot from deciding on the exposure to releasing the shutter.

Living in different locations we have different water with whatever additives the local authority decides is good for us.

We have our own rhythm when inverting, emptying the developing tank. Then we add to these variations when we print to our own taste.

In a way it's a wonder that we get pictures at all with all the variations possible and I suspect shows just how forgiving the materials we use are.

Tony

 

[aizan]

yeah, color is as much an alchemy as b&w.

photography isn't a repeatable activity. to extend the saying, what works for you one day may not work the next.

 

[denishr]

I'd say it's the variables... Too many of those.
One which is often easily forgotten is the shutter speed. Are you sure your 1/500 is actually 1/500 of a second?
As I already said in another thread, there's no point in having a light meter that measures 1/5 of a stop, and setting the f-stop to 1/3 if your 1/250 is actually 1/190 🙂

Also, I would add water to the mix 🙂
Quality of water matters, as I have found out myself... Even bottled distilled water, bought in a store may vary in content (although it should not... but that's another issue).
Temperature is important - for a long time I was rather careless about the temperature of the final wash (water bath). Now I know better....

Precise measurement of chemicals, stringent temperature control, water used for the chemicals, etc.., etc...
To be honest, after several years of developing B&W myself, I still can't claim FULL control over the process, although I try.

Denis

 

[James Burton]

It's taken me 4 years of playing to get what I want out of HP5+ consistently, and to get anything useful from D3200 at all. I think that you need a deal of experience in control, development and of course shooting. I am pretty sure that anybody with an understanding of how exposure & development effects their results will get what they want if they have the patience. The same applies to digital processes as well. This is not trivial stuff to learn how to do.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks everyone. The point about UV transmission is perhaps especially important.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BJ Bignell]

Sometimes, I don't doubt that it's the content and context of a picture that is what makes our response to a particular film and/or developer different.

For example, you see a glamour photo shot on a certain film, processed and printed such that you become interesting in trying this film. If you go out with that film and shoot family pictures or cityscapes or landscapes, or even a tractor pull, and then process and print in a similar manner as the original glamour shot, you're likely going to have similarities in the tonality, grain, etc in the prints. However your emotional responses to the content and contexts of the two photos will almost certainly be significantly different, and you may find that you like your photo less or more. This response may alter your perception of the medium, and you may or may not ever use the film again.

I've had the same experience with Delta 3200, among other films. I say to myself, "Look at that picture, I want that grain." So I go out, shoot D3200 at 6400, process the nuts off of it, and get the grain. But the pictures are snapshots, wasted frames just to get through the roll, and don't carry the same visual interest as the originals: I'm disappointed. From a scientific point of view, the experiment was a success, but from a personal point of view, it was a failure.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear BJB

A fascinating thought; thanks.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[aizan]

I've had the same experience with Delta 3200, among other films. I say to myself, "Look at that picture, I want that grain." So I go out, shoot D3200 at 6400, process the nuts off of it, and get the grain. But the pictures are snapshots, wasted frames just to get through the roll, and don't carry the same visual interest as the originals: I'm disappointed. From a scientific point of view, the experiment was a success, but from a personal point of view, it was a failure.

i was just looking up info on delta 3200, came across this old thread.

anyhow, was it really the grain, or the subject matter you were drawn to?

 

[JOE1951]

Hello

I've always used the term "alchemy" to describe B/W photogrpahy. When people don't seem to understand what I mean, I use the term "cooking". I think it makes more sense to people.

The end result, photograph or food, is the juggling of all the variables in the recipe: time, temperature, agitation, planetary alignments, wind direction, etc, who knows? It's one of the things that makes photography fun for me.

With that in mind, similar examples of alchemy is scotch and wine. Why are certain vintages better than others?

I think that once you find that special combination of variables that give you the desired effect, you then enter the "japanese tea ceremony" phase, where everything you do, controling all those variables, becomes a meditation on the persuit of perfection, whatever that is.

Does it matter, I may be missing your point, but I think it does matter. Anyone who has creative intent, will ultimately think about this question regardless of their medium.

OK , I've had enough scotch, I've stopped making sense to myself...what was the question?

 

[StuartR]

Joe -- that is a very good point. Some chefs adhere strictly to recipes, some just know how much their "pinch of salt" is and can work from intuition. Photography and developing are the same -- some guys work with a meter (I usually do), while some just shoot from intuition. Same goes for developing. Some have a rigid developing regimins, while some are fast and loose. In the end it is the results that matter...if you can achieve good results fast and loose then do so, but if not, stick to the set recipes.

Anyway, all I know is that Ilford Rapid Fixer goes down smoother than Kodak Fixer. Mmmmm, thiosulfate.

 

[Bertram2]

I'd say it's the variables... Too many of those.
One which is often easily forgotten is the shutter speed. Are you sure your 1/500 is actually 1/500 of a second?
Denis

I agree the most important point. Mechanical cloth and metal shutters ( not to speak of blade shutters !!) tend to quite terrible tolerances at the faster speeds compared to good electronic shutters, depending from design, make and age. 1/500 od a blade shuttercan be 1/350 too , and I bet that also modern mechanical shutters (Copal) have considerable tolerances up to 25% or more at the fast times.

Metering tolerances dependig from cell sensivity and metering patterns easily differ around half a stop and if both tolerances get added one stop more or less can be the result. This is enuff to mess up a slide but also tmz 3200 seems to be sensitive on underexposing.

It is still worth while to shoot one roll of a new film for tests on a certain camera before one uses it seriously. Pros bought in former times a load of film out of one Batch-Nr , metered it out and then put it on stock with a sticker for the ISO on it.
Which tells us that even emulsions have tolerances. tho I consider these not as beeing decisive for amateurs.

Best,
Bertram

 

[dr.kollig]

I think it could be D3200, as this film is very flat if developed according the times of Ilford. When it first came out, I shoot at 3200, developing like 6400 times and it was ok. These days I shoot it at 1600 and develop in Xtol. If developed too flat one needs grade 4/5 paper which seems to improve the graininess in a negative way.
By changing developers one can change the style of these high-speed films, e.g. try TMZ in Calbe A 49, soft, smooth grain and FX 37/39 sharp, hard grain.
The most important point to me seems metering, if you underexpose you are in trouble.
Slow shutters, like my Voigtländer Prominent or the M 5 are fine up to 1/125 and slow after that giving more exposures to the film, which usually helps films exposed at higher EI.
One strange thing I remember when pushing film was a kind extreme graininess in the dark parts. By pushing the film very hard, even unexposed silvergrains were activated, these dark parts were burned in to get a homogenous black.
And there is always the subject/grain relation...

Regards,

Wolfram