Developmental Issues

[Bill Pierce]

In the heyday of the darkroom, folks chose from a broad array of developers. D-76 and D-76 1:1 were popular all purpose favorites, but Microdol-X, Microdol-X 1:3, Rodinal, Rodinal with sulfite, Acufine, two-bath Diafine, Promicrol, UFG and others were often chosen by a photographer to be their standard developer. Each of them produced slightly different results, emphasis on the word “slightly.” The differences were there and important to the user, but a picture didn’t sink or swim because of developer choice. Perhaps most important was sticking to one developer and tailoring its time, agitation, e.t.c. to produce a negative that worked with your enlarger, your printing paper and, most important, how you wanted your prints to look.

That’s not far from the world of images from digital cameras and digital scanners. There are many image processing programs, and, while they have different features that deal with image quality in different ways, in the end they all prepare a digital file to make your print, your interpretation of the image, be that final “print” on a computer screen or a sheet of inkjet paper.

So, why do we use one over the other? Why did the Time-Life lab use replenished D-76 and I use Rodinal plus sulfite? Why does one photographer use Lightroom and another Capture One or PhotoNinja or Raw Therapee or Luminar?

I use Lightroom because I used Photoshop from almost day one and when Lightroom was coupled with it did use it from day one. The program evolved and so did my understanding and ability to use it. We grew up together. I don’t think it does everything best and sometime use Iridient programs to prepare the raw files. But I have experience that lets me use it well, experience that is unlikely to be gained with other programs.

Having said that, I can see advantages in specific areas of all the other programs I just mentioned. That’s right; I’m using a program because I’m old and set in my ways. Why do you use the program you use? Hopefully, it’s for a specific advantage that you will share with us.

 

[Rob-F]

I use Aperture because it's totally intuitive; it never destroys or loses any of the original file; its filing and cataloging system is easy and foolproof; I like the results; and I can make it do what I want it to do.

I have Lightroom, but it makes it nervous. Do the wrong thing, and you'll never find your picture again. And it doesn't seem to have all the features and controls of Aperture.

And I have some program that came bundled with a Leica. Some say it's the best, whatever it's called. I could never get it to do anything.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Aperture for me.

 

[Bob Michaels]

..... That’s right; I’m using a program because I’m old and set in my ways. Why do you use the program you use?

Photoshop and Lightroom. I always seek the easiest way to get to have my photographs look the way I want them to look. Using software that I have become familiar with over the years is the easiest way.

I believe that over the years the internet has caused us to believe there are major differences in cameras, lenses, film, developers, sensor types, software programs, and the like. In reality, people who view our photography do not discern any difference.

 

[Dante_Stella]

I'm becoming more fascinated with the idea that people think that panchromatic black and white film of a given speed is really that different from any other. I just shoot everything on TMY and develop in HC110B. Done.

 

[charjohncarter]

I use three programs, Picassa 3 (for organization), PSE 6 or 7 or 8 (I haven't check the nubmer for awhile), and RAW Therapee (for DNG development). That is all I need for scan or negative post. But I use Epson scanning software on complete manual before going the PSE.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm becoming more fascinated with the idea that people think that panchromatic black and white film of a given speed is really that different from any other. I just shoot everything on TMY and develop in HC110B. Done.

HC-110 for TMY. But I use Trix and TMX too.

 

[jsrockit]

Why do you use the program you use? Hopefully, it’s for a specific advantage that you will share with us.

I stopped photography from 1999-2008 and my oh my how things changed. I didn't know of many programs once I got back into photography... in 2008. I knew I was going to use digital cameras. I knew photoshop, but that didn't seem catered to photography. I found out about Lightroom and saw semi-familiar darkroom type terms and cataloging. Cataloging! That was the huge one for me. So basically, I started using Lightroom in 2008 and have not felt I need to change... even though I use FUJI!

 

[xayraa33]

I stuck to D-76 1:1 for development of Tri-X and HP-5+ and Rodinal for FP4+ and Pan F films and have not gone full time into digital.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I stopped photography from 1999-2008 and my oh my how things changed. I didn't know of many programs once I got back into photography... in 2008. I knew I was going to use digital cameras. I knew photoshop, but that didn't seem catered to photography. I found out about Lightroom and saw semi-familiar darkroom type terms and cataloging. Cataloging! That was the huge one for me. So basically, I started using Lightroom in 2008 and have not felt I need to change... even though I use FUJI!

I think that with the current higher megapixel Fuji sensors and the current Lightroom Classic, things work fairly well. But, while the improvement you get from programs like Iridient X-Transformer or Iridient Developer approaches pixel peeping with the 26mg sensors, I found them useful with the earlier, lower megapixel sensors. I know one of the genuinely knowledgable Fuji authorities, Rico Pfirstinger, has said that even with the current sensors they produce the best sharpening.

 

[Hari]

No digital. In the darkroom I like mixing from the raw chemicals whenever
it's possible.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I process all my film, TYX, TMY2, TX, FP4+ in Pyrocat

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm with Rob_F, and have been using Aperture since it was first introduced. It is so intuitive, like Apple used to make their programs. Because it worked so well, even when coupled with Photoshop, I never had the need to learn Lightroom.

But now I'm in a pickle. My main desktop computer is very long in the tooth (2009) and Aperture and my legacy version of Photoshop (CS6) won't run on the new Apple machines (one of which I'm going to have to purchase). I'm a stubborn old coot and refuse to use a program that I have to pay for monthly, so I'm slowly but surely looking around for a program that does what Aperture did, and another that does what Photoshop did (although I must admit, I rarely use more than about 5% of what Photoshop is capable of, I could probably get by with Photoshop Elements). Luckily Photo Mechanic still seems to work on the new machines, and I don't have to pay for that monthly, so that one is sticking around.

Would like to hear what others are using on new Macs with Catalina, and how it's working out.

Best,
-Tim

PS: Oh, and for film (only processed B&W) I used Tri-X & Plus-X in D-76 from the mid 70's to early 90's then discovered AgfaPan & Rodinal and never looked back. Okay, until Agfa went belly up. Now it's mostly Tri-X or Double-X and HC-110 and occasionally (if I want sharper, higher contrast images) I'll use Rodinal/Adonal with the Tri-X.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I’m using Photoshop CC and Adobe Camera RAW on an iMac that’s less than a year old (it’s running Catalina, whatever the current version of it is). It’s been great to be able to keep up to date with everything and also that it can handle larger files from the higher megapixel cameras. One thing I do like with the new PhotoShop is the ability to take an image back into the Camera RAW settings/adjustments whenever I like, and not strictly when it’s still a RAW image. I’ve been using PhotoShop since version 2.5 (and Aldus PhotoStyler before that) so I don’t see any reason to switch, plus for my commercial work I have to do a lot of, well, ‘PhotoShop’ work to the images, so it’s an invaluable tool.

Adobe did throw me a curve ball last week when it updated ACR to the newest version. Everything was changed and really confused me. It took about 4 days to get comfortable with it, but now I like it better than the previous version. I do wish sometimes that they’d give users a warning about the changes and not just throw it out the and expect us to seamlessly move from one version we’ve gotten comfortable with and now we’re all of a sudden like a fish out of water. They did the same thing with iMovie a few years ago, took me forever to get used to the so-called ‘updates’.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I'm becoming more fascinated with the idea that people think that panchromatic black and white film of a given speed is really that different from any other. ......

I have shot Neopan 400, HP5, and Tri-X over the last 20 years and find I cannot differentiate between them. I buy film every 18-24 months in quantity with my choice based on current price. I have always exposed them the same, developed them the same, and processed them the same. I can't tell any difference in the final prints.

I once had an exhibit of 35 prints in a gallery. I took questions after the typical introductory talk. One patron asked "Tri-X, right?" I congratulated him on his skill and moved on. In reality about 2/3 were images from Neopan 400, about 1/3 from HP5, and only a few from Tri-X. To me, it was not a point of any significance.

 

[Rob-F]

I'm with Rob_F, and have been using Aperture since it was first introduced. It is so intuitive, like Apple used to make their programs. Because it worked so well, even when coupled with Photoshop, I never had the need to learn Lightroom.

But now I'm in a pickle. My main desktop computer is very long in the tooth (2009) and Aperture and my legacy version of Photoshop (CS6) won't run on the new Apple machines (one of which I'm going to have to purchase). I'm a stubborn old coot and refuse to use a program that I have to pay for monthly, so I'm slowly but surely looking around for a program that does what Aperture did, and another that does what Photoshop did (although I must admit, I rarely use more than about 5% of what Photoshop is capable of, I could probably get by with Photoshop Elements). Luckily Photo Mechanic still seems to work on the new machines, and I don't have to pay for that monthly, so that one is sticking around.

Would like to hear what others are using on new Macs with Catalina, and how it's working out.

Best,
-Tim

PS: Oh, and for film (only processed B&W) I used Tri-X & Plus-X in D-76 from the mid 70's to early 90's then discovered AgfaPan & Rodinal and never looked back. Okay, until Agfa went belly up. Now it's mostly Tri-X or Double-X and HC-110 and occasionally (if I want sharper, higher contrast images) I'll use Rodinal/Adonal with the Tri-X.

Well, I'm still using my 2009 iMac myself. It's working fine, but I did pick up a MacPro with Sierra that already had Aperture on it. And I'm thinking of adding a later model that still runs Aperture. I have an extra disk of Aperture that I haven't even opened yet, saved for later. You can load one disk of Aperture onto two computers, so I think I'm all set.

 

[Freakscene]

I have shot Neopan 400, HP5, and Tri-X over the last 20 years and find I cannot differentiate between them. I buy film every 18-24 months in quantity with my choice based on current price. I have always exposed them the same, developed them the same, and processed them the same. I can't tell any difference in the final prints.

I once had an exhibit of 35 prints in a gallery. I took questions after the typical introductory talk. One patron asked "Tri-X, right?" I congratulated him on his skill and moved on. In reality about 2/3 were images from Neopan 400, about 1/3 from HP5, and only a few from Tri-X. To me, it was not a point of any significance.

But you scan and print digitally, right? Film choice makes a much clearer difference in an analogue-wet print workflow.

On the other hand, with enough work - I can make a Leica Monochrom file look enough like any film that I can make a digital negative and contact print it, and put it in among analogue prints and hardly be able to notice myself. Strangely, this is easier with MM and M10M files than it was with my typ 246.

If you present prints behind glass (I avoid this where possible) everything is harder to see too.

A big part of understanding this is that most people, even afficionados, these days, have seen a lot of photos on a screen and so few printed that they have basically seen nothing, so they simply do not know what to look for.

To answer Bill’s question - I use LR and PS CC - I work with them so they can be written off against tax, negating the cost, and I work with enough different and sometimes strange cameras that I need the most up to date tools.

Marty

 

[John Bragg]

Most developers produce similar enough results that choice is subjective and very personal. 35 years after starting out with FP4 and Ilfosol S, I am now exclusively using HP5+ @ ei200 and developer wise I have gone a complete 360° and back to Ilfosol. (Mostly along the way I have used HC110 and always have some at hand ). Scanning wise I use Silverfast as it came with the Plustek and for post processing I use Gimp. Mostly to remove the odd dust spot, but also to add a thin black border and a white rebate. I mostly print on A4 and this makes for very neat presentation. My biggest bone of contention has always been paper choice because it makes a big difference on the finished result. When wet printing, I had settled on Ilford Multigrade warmtone pearl, and it is no coincidence that my Inkjet prints are mostly on a similar looking paper surface. Ilford Galerie prestige Smooth Pearl looks much the same, and it is hard to tell the difference once framed. I do agree that all these details mean the most to the photographer, and the casual viewer will be unaware. The main thing for me is that whatever recipe I use is 100% reliable, predictable and repeatable.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Well, I'm still using my 2009 iMac myself. It's working fine, but I did pick up a MacPro with Sierra that already had Aperture on it. And I'm thinking of adding a later model that still runs Aperture. I have an extra disk of Aperture that I haven't even opened yet, saved for later. You can load one disk of Aperture onto two computers, so I think I'm all set.

My early 2009 MacPro can't update past El Capitan, and Safari & even Firefox won't update to any newer versions, so connecting to the internet is getting dodgy. Aperture works great on El Capitan but Photoshop (CS6) isn't as smooth as it was on previous OSX versions.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Dogman]

I use Lightroom 6, the last ownership version. Sometimes I use Iridient X-Transformer with Fuji Raw files. Prior to this I used Picasa 3 and did pretty well with that simple program.

Why? Familiarity and convenience. And, of course, I get results that I like. But the more familiar I became with the programs, the easier it was for me to get the look I want. It was the same way with film processing. For years I used Rodinal with sulphite but as I got older and lazier I just went with D76 1:1 and found it was a simpler process and the results looked good. It was hard to mess up Tri-X and HP5 really badly anyway.

 

[Out to Lunch]

The program evolved and so did my understanding and ability to use it.

Indeed, which is why I am still using ACDSee Pro. Cheers, OtL