Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Hi All,
I am new to this forum because I like the simplicity compared to PhotoNet for instance.
I use simplicity here to avoid stating that I don't comprehend most of the Photonet threads ...
I am also relatively new to developing and printing B/W films, I have read a lot this on different web-sites sofar, trying to get some pointers on the - Film - Developer - combinations, but boy I cannot seem to find a line here.
Right from the start, about 35 films ago I use Delta 100 (at 100) and 400 (at 400) and DD-X as the developing agent, I print 70% on grade 2 and 3 paper and 20 % on grade 4.
The first film I developed and printed as a test really dumstrucked me, I was so impressed by the result that I never changed this combination again. I think the grain is fine for me, the greytones are fine for me and the contrast is fine for me... in one line I am pleased by what I use and how it develops.
Now reading through all these development threads of people using and trying different combinations, adding "own" formulas etc. I get the feeling that I'm missing out on the fun.... leading a boring Development life .... Am I easily pleased ? Is there something I am really missing out on ?
I am new to this forum because I like the simplicity compared to PhotoNet for instance.
I use simplicity here to avoid stating that I don't comprehend most of the Photonet threads ...
I am also relatively new to developing and printing B/W films, I have read a lot this on different web-sites sofar, trying to get some pointers on the - Film - Developer - combinations, but boy I cannot seem to find a line here.
Right from the start, about 35 films ago I use Delta 100 (at 100) and 400 (at 400) and DD-X as the developing agent, I print 70% on grade 2 and 3 paper and 20 % on grade 4.
The first film I developed and printed as a test really dumstrucked me, I was so impressed by the result that I never changed this combination again. I think the grain is fine for me, the greytones are fine for me and the contrast is fine for me... in one line I am pleased by what I use and how it develops.
Now reading through all these development threads of people using and trying different combinations, adding "own" formulas etc. I get the feeling that I'm missing out on the fun.... leading a boring Development life .... Am I easily pleased ? Is there something I am really missing out on ?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Yes, you're missing out on the excitement of experimenting with different film/developer combinations. On the other hand, if you're happy with the results you're getting, it means you get to spend your time making photographs that matter to you, rather than doing developer tests!
The great thing about photography as a hobby is that there's room for lots of different interests. Some people are exclusively "image-makers", some are exclusively "testers," and most of us fall somewhere in between. So, appreciate the people who are pursuing other lines of interest (they can be great sources of information) but don't feel you have to do the same!
The great thing about photography as a hobby is that there's room for lots of different interests. Some people are exclusively "image-makers", some are exclusively "testers," and most of us fall somewhere in between. So, appreciate the people who are pursuing other lines of interest (they can be great sources of information) but don't feel you have to do the same!
JCdeR
Established
Yeah, experimenting I think I would enjoy that, but what will the "leit-motif" be ... what would I hope to achieve ?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Two reasons I can see for such experimenting.
One: you like to do the experimenting itself. Like the smell of the chemicals, like the risk involved, like the challenge of doing something new each time you load the film.
Two: you are not happy with your results, e.g. you want better negs to print, you want to shoot at iso12800 etc.
One: you like to do the experimenting itself. Like the smell of the chemicals, like the risk involved, like the challenge of doing something new each time you load the film.
Two: you are not happy with your results, e.g. you want better negs to print, you want to shoot at iso12800 etc.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Pherdinand .. hehehehe 12800 ... you know my "style" (photographic) is "slow" Max. asa I ever use is 400, and then 80% is shot with ND's to slow it down. I always shoot with movement in my pics, not the big blurs, but the gentle movement of actually anything, as long as it moves.
But I grab your point, experiment to get even a slower "movement" maybe max korn combined with max movement at 25 asa... I'm not complaining, I just have the feeling I'm missing out on something reall interesting
But I grab your point, experiment to get even a slower "movement" maybe max korn combined with max movement at 25 asa... I'm not complaining, I just have the feeling I'm missing out on something reall interesting
I think a bit of personal testing is a good thing. Different subjects may call for different "look". And then a consistent "look" within a subject or project body is a good thing too.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Where do I start though, there are numorous combinations, how do I find out which leads to what ?
Subsitancy within forum discusions are as regular as the pope being spotted in the rome red-light district, seems that everybody has his/her own preference,.
Subsitancy within forum discusions are as regular as the pope being spotted in the rome red-light district, seems that everybody has his/her own preference,.
digitalox
RF Extraordinaire
Experimenting is fun, but be grateful you've found something you like too! Sometimes you can experiment for a long time before you find a workflow/results you connect with. It took me a while. You can learn a lot just trying to eke the best results from a specific combo.
www.digitaltruth.com is a good place to find the times/ratios for many different chemical/film combos. Everyone has their pref, just try to find some actual examples of the results and try something that you like. There are so many variables anyway, it will be hard to get exactly the same as you see.
www.digitaltruth.com is a good place to find the times/ratios for many different chemical/film combos. Everyone has their pref, just try to find some actual examples of the results and try something that you like. There are so many variables anyway, it will be hard to get exactly the same as you see.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Jarvis said:
One way:
Start with the film you are already using, consider that your standard, and change the developer. Then integrate the results into your current workflow without changing any of those variables. I'm not familiar with DD-X, but if it is Illford's recommended developer for their Delta/t-grain films, then when you switch you should see something change. You might want to start with ID-11 or D-76 (the same thing—well ID11 is probably closer to the original D76 than the current D76). Pick a lighting situation, expose the film, process it, integrate it into your workflow and evaluate the results. You probably already have plenty to compare against.
What you'll find is that you like a certain film/developer combination for certain lighting situations, but not for other lighting situations. Or you'll see something you really like and you'll want to recreate it. Then, you'll be hooked, or damned (depending on your p.o.v.)
Advice:
1.To start, lock down the development variables (solution amount, time, temp, agitation, etc.). You'll find that you can adjust those as well, for even further testing and experimenting. —There are a lot of variables to consider and control, which is why everyone has a personal preference. Most people come to this from different perspectives, depending on limitations and starting preferences. Considering developers, only, if you don't have the room, or are uncomfortable with the process, or can't accurately control some of the variables, you might start with Diafine, while someone else started with D-76, or Rodinal.
2.Also, if you can, bulk load your film. It is great to be able to load up a roll of 10-12 exposures, go into a lighting situation, burn the shots and process.
3.finally, read up on film developing
if you like this type of thing it can be a blast!
S
Skinny McGee
Guest
Pushing and pulling film can be a great way to experiment with differesnt developers. some can give you better results one way or the other... I usually use D76 but when I am pushing it I use HC110 for a finer grain result.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
RayPa,
ok ID-11 seems as good a starting point.
So I do quite a lot of indoor shots (big public area's; railway stations, airports etc) When genarally using DD-X for both indoor and outdoor shots, ID-11 might have a different outcome for Indoor, or outdoor or both ... than DD-X, it#s just a matter of getting it done and reviewing the outcome, which one can also then again adapt/alter/change by finetuning the development variables such as timing, solution, temp etc. this applying to both developers .... ?
I think I understand, but even being a statistician the total amount of variables makes it difficult to find a common starting point, on the one hand I can see that this is going to be part of the fun, you need to document everything right, otherwise you'll lose track ... So in the long run I might have 3 negatives shot outdoors which I develop with X at Y time and with an 1 to z solution, and four negatives shot indoors which I develop alltogether differently, and 5 with flash ... different again ... and this all according to personal preferences ... Sounds feasable actually, but some standards/basics would not go astray here ...
Anyway thanks for making everything more un-understandingly comprehendable ..
ok ID-11 seems as good a starting point.
So I do quite a lot of indoor shots (big public area's; railway stations, airports etc) When genarally using DD-X for both indoor and outdoor shots, ID-11 might have a different outcome for Indoor, or outdoor or both ... than DD-X, it#s just a matter of getting it done and reviewing the outcome, which one can also then again adapt/alter/change by finetuning the development variables such as timing, solution, temp etc. this applying to both developers .... ?
I think I understand, but even being a statistician the total amount of variables makes it difficult to find a common starting point, on the one hand I can see that this is going to be part of the fun, you need to document everything right, otherwise you'll lose track ... So in the long run I might have 3 negatives shot outdoors which I develop with X at Y time and with an 1 to z solution, and four negatives shot indoors which I develop alltogether differently, and 5 with flash ... different again ... and this all according to personal preferences ... Sounds feasable actually, but some standards/basics would not go astray here ...
Anyway thanks for making everything more un-understandingly comprehendable ..
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
During my ever continuous quest for information on development techniques I came across this thread, cannot remember where or whome wrote it, except that his first name was Roger, makes things clearer, certainly for beginners like me:
The two underlying premises are very simple.
1 More exposure means more density.
2 More development means more contrast.
You therefore have nine possibilities, in three groups of three:
1.1 Under-exposed and under-developed: weak, thin negatives with inadequate shadow detail, requiring a hard grade of paper with very short exposure times.
1.2 Under-exposed and over-developed: contrasty negatives with inadequate shadow detail requiring soft paper. The most common beginner's negative.
1.3 Under-exposed and correctly developed: may print OK on grade 2 or 3 but lacks shadow detail. Poor tonality.
2.1 Correctly exposed but under-developed. Thin, requires a hard grade of paper.
2.2 Correctly exposed and correctly developed. Need I say more? Looks good on grade 2 or 3; good shadow detail; good tonality.
2.3 Correctly exposed and over-developed. Contrasty, requires a hard grade of paper.
3.1 Over-exposed and over-developed: dense, contrasty negatives requiring a soft grade of paper and long exposure times.
3.2 Over-exposed and correctly developed. The next best thing to correctly exposed and correctly developed. Denser than it needs to be, leading to long printing times, and grainier and less sharp than a correctly exposed and correctly developed film, but still pretty good.
3.3 Over-exposed and under-developed: nearly as good as 3.2 above, and quite forgiving.
Remember that most illustrations in photo books, including the ones I have written (check my web-site, www.rogerandfrances.com) are exaggerated: gross over- or under- exposure, gross over- or under-exposure. This is to make sure they show up in reproduction but it can be misleading -- as can the Zone System which can lead to type 3.3 negatives if you follow the more overheated advice of some Zone System adherents.
All you need is:
1 Good shadow detail. If you don't get this at the ISO speed, drop your film speed rating, film by film, by 1/3 stop intervals, until you do. In other words with an ISO 400 film go 320 - 250 - 200. If you go much below 200 you are probably under-developing.
2 Negs that print on grade 2 or 3. If you consistently need hard grades (4, 5) you are under-developing: increase dev times in 30 second or 1 minute increments until they print, on average, on 2 or 3. If you consistently need soft grades (1, 0, 00) you are over-developing and need to cut dev times in 30 second decrements.
The two underlying premises are very simple.
1 More exposure means more density.
2 More development means more contrast.
You therefore have nine possibilities, in three groups of three:
1.1 Under-exposed and under-developed: weak, thin negatives with inadequate shadow detail, requiring a hard grade of paper with very short exposure times.
1.2 Under-exposed and over-developed: contrasty negatives with inadequate shadow detail requiring soft paper. The most common beginner's negative.
1.3 Under-exposed and correctly developed: may print OK on grade 2 or 3 but lacks shadow detail. Poor tonality.
2.1 Correctly exposed but under-developed. Thin, requires a hard grade of paper.
2.2 Correctly exposed and correctly developed. Need I say more? Looks good on grade 2 or 3; good shadow detail; good tonality.
2.3 Correctly exposed and over-developed. Contrasty, requires a hard grade of paper.
3.1 Over-exposed and over-developed: dense, contrasty negatives requiring a soft grade of paper and long exposure times.
3.2 Over-exposed and correctly developed. The next best thing to correctly exposed and correctly developed. Denser than it needs to be, leading to long printing times, and grainier and less sharp than a correctly exposed and correctly developed film, but still pretty good.
3.3 Over-exposed and under-developed: nearly as good as 3.2 above, and quite forgiving.
Remember that most illustrations in photo books, including the ones I have written (check my web-site, www.rogerandfrances.com) are exaggerated: gross over- or under- exposure, gross over- or under-exposure. This is to make sure they show up in reproduction but it can be misleading -- as can the Zone System which can lead to type 3.3 negatives if you follow the more overheated advice of some Zone System adherents.
All you need is:
1 Good shadow detail. If you don't get this at the ISO speed, drop your film speed rating, film by film, by 1/3 stop intervals, until you do. In other words with an ISO 400 film go 320 - 250 - 200. If you go much below 200 you are probably under-developing.
2 Negs that print on grade 2 or 3. If you consistently need hard grades (4, 5) you are under-developing: increase dev times in 30 second or 1 minute increments until they print, on average, on 2 or 3. If you consistently need soft grades (1, 0, 00) you are over-developing and need to cut dev times in 30 second decrements.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I've done a bit of experimenting, but my goals were different. I'm looking for maximum shelf life, minimum fuss. So far, Ilford FP4+ & Agfa APX100 in Rodinal seems very good to me, Ilford HP5+ in HC110 and Microphen when push comes to shove .
.zpuskas
Well-known
Lot's of good advice here and, as expected, varying, sometimes conflicting advice. If you are happy with the resuts why make a major change? Yes, you'll misss out on all the fun experimenting but, for me anyway, I prefer to use one or two films and one or two developers. I'm looking to standardize on one developer and use several films.
All in all, the end result should be good photos and having fun. When it becomes a chore (the experimenting) get back to basics.
All in all, the end result should be good photos and having fun. When it becomes a chore (the experimenting) get back to basics.
Jarvis, that was Roger Hicks, who co-authors books with Frances Schultz. Recent one about rangefinder cameras.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Doug.... reall cannot remember the guys name ...
I have however found a "nice" new combo ... Fuji 100 acros and ID-11,... great results, I am now busy with acros and other developers, don't like Rodinal, all comes out a bit to harsh for my liking...
I have however found a "nice" new combo ... Fuji 100 acros and ID-11,... great results, I am now busy with acros and other developers, don't like Rodinal, all comes out a bit to harsh for my liking...
S
Stu :)
Guest
Jarvis said:
I guessing you're only used Rodinal at the factory ratio of 1:25, right?
Fuji Neopan films souped in a 1:50 or 1:75 ratios are fantastic, especially Acros.
Ilford Pan F is not my favorite of mine, but starts getting 'better' when I develop it in Rodinal 1:15 mix.
I have an old Agfa darkroom manual somewhere that says that the times and ratios listed are only recommendations.
Also the final effect on your prints can also altered by changing your paper developer and paper combinations. I was lucky enough to go to a Tim Rudman lecture not so long ago and stated he was amazed at the number of people that spend stupid amounts of time getting their film exposure and development ratios and times just right, then go print on one paper choice using off the shelf developer and use ratios and times governed by the manufacturer. I myself use a two bath developer setup, first one bath is Fotospeed DV10 with 1% Rodinal and second bath is Agfa Neutol at 1:25 ratio. Also I don't develop my prints by time, but by the Printing Out process. Where you look at the developing print until it's blacks are black, whites are white and the shades in between are perfect. There's nothing worse than having a perfect B&W print on the wall of the gallery and everyone admiring it, until a master printer comes along and announces that the print has been 'snatched'.
I think TOO many people have read Ansel Adams The Negative and not enough people have read the The Print.
Stu
Sorry about the rant. I'm bit of darkroom fanatic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Don't change it. Take more pictures instead.
Note that DDX gives a higher true ISO speed -- about 2/3 stop extra as against ID 11. That's true ISO i.e. for ISO conditions of density and contrast. In other words if you are shooting at 400 you are effectively overexposing by 2/3 stop (assuming ideal metering technique) or shooting with about enough shadow density assuming a TTL meter. Switch to almost anything else and you will have less film speed.
I'll second most of what Stu said except for his enthusiasm for Rodinal: it seems to suit some people better than others. I prefer Pan F in Perceptol, but it's a miserable true ISO of 32 or so.
You might want to have a look at the free information on ISO film speeds in the Photo School on www.rogerandfrances.com.
Cheers,
Roger
Note that DDX gives a higher true ISO speed -- about 2/3 stop extra as against ID 11. That's true ISO i.e. for ISO conditions of density and contrast. In other words if you are shooting at 400 you are effectively overexposing by 2/3 stop (assuming ideal metering technique) or shooting with about enough shadow density assuming a TTL meter. Switch to almost anything else and you will have less film speed.
I'll second most of what Stu said except for his enthusiasm for Rodinal: it seems to suit some people better than others. I prefer Pan F in Perceptol, but it's a miserable true ISO of 32 or so.
You might want to have a look at the free information on ISO film speeds in the Photo School on www.rogerandfrances.com.
Cheers,
Roger