Film monogamists and polygamists

tho60

tho60

Well-known
Local time
8:41 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
309
Hello!

Some scholars tell that someone should familiarize himself with one film-chemical couple in order to avoid confusion, errors of unknown origin. In their opinion, the photographer ought to stay with a proven film-developer combo. Only push and pull process are recommended. I call them ‘monogamists’.

Polygamists, on the contrary, suggest that the photographer must try on and use many films and chemicals to benefit from their advantageous features.

What is your opinion?
 
It really depends primarily on the scope of your photohraphy, Some people are able to restrict their output to only B&W MF or LF studio portraiture. In this case one film stock appears ideal, while others will range from shooting car races to theater, street, travel, people, macro... you name it, plus they will use multiple formats, colour and B&W. In this case you have to use the best film type for each job. I have restricted myself to B&W, and shoot mainly Tri X and HP5+ ( would only shoot Tri X if it dried flat in 135 format...), but also use slower films for some uses.
 
tho60 said:
Hello!

Some scholars tell that someone should familiarize himself with one film-chemical couple in order to avoid confusion, errors of unknown origin. In their opinion, the photographer ought to stay with a proven film-developer combo. Only push and pull process are recommended. I call them ‘monogamists’.

Polygamists, on the contrary, suggest that the photographer must try on and use many films and chemicals to benefit from their advantageous features.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

I think there are advantages to both methods.

When one is attempting to learn and expand one's horizons, it may be good to experiment.

When one is trying to express a very specific vision, it may be good to stick with what one has mastered.

When one wishes to break out of a rut, it may be good to experiment.

When one is trying to make a living, it may be good to stick with what one has mastered.

As an amateur whose photographs are inconsequential, it hardly matters what film, developer, camera, or lens I use. An utter disaster means little to anyone except me, and I might happen upon some happy accident by pure happenstance.

On the other hand, imagine a wedding or event photographer. They experiment just for fun and they ruin a set of irreplaceable wedding photos. Probably not a great idea.

I think there is a time and place for everything. And for every temperament. Some people don't care to change what works for them. Others thrive on change.

In the end, one must please themselves. There are no absolutes.
 
Nowadays the Fomapan 100 is my default film- in both 135 and 120 version, but I have tried several others. Later I will narrow my stock, having chosen the best. I am playing with different developers, but one can hardly surpass the Fomapan 100- ST 2 combo.
 
I have and continue to buy film that is somewhat reasonably priced or goes on sale, assuming the film meets my needs. I have/had a fridge full of Arista Premium 400, Neopan 400 and 1600, Tri-X, and a lot of HP5+. My approach is based on price/meeting my needs. I call it 'whoring.' ;)
 
Do you do photography or lab? I think it lies there. If you enjoy photography and like to spend time on that, then stay with a single film/chem or even just let a lab develop for you. If you really like spending time in the dark, then by all means enjoy your time there.
 
I can't hold it on paper. If I see new paper and cheap, I'm taking it to my darkroom and enlarger is getting involved.
 
Spanik said:
Do you do photography or lab? I think it lies there. If you enjoy photography and like to spend time on that, then stay with a single film/chem or even just let a lab develop for you. If you really like spending time in the dark, then by all means enjoy your time there.
Click to expand...

I have a small home lab, I mix the chemicals on my own.
 
The problem with the advice of being monogamous is that it assumes you are less than brilliant. Be a polygamous film user if you are brilliant and can effortlessly keep track of what film is in the camera you are using, all the way through to developing it. That can be done, and I have done it many times successfully.

In the recent past, though, I mixed 200 ISO and 800 ISO films on an outing, was not on top of the game, and made mistakes (not resetting the meter to the correct ISO). That was the first occurrence. Then, on later outings, I again mixed film types, and again made stupid mistakes. So, while a photographer who is not easily confused can mix as many film types as he/she can carry, and pull it off, sometimes that mental edge is not there, and it all goes to pot. Until I can avoid the confusions, I have decided to stick to only one film type at a time; it just makes life simpler.
 
sreed2006 said:
The problem with the advice of being monogamous is that it assumes you are less than brilliant. Be a polygamous film user if you are brilliant and can effortlessly keep track of what film is in the camera you are using, all the way through to developing it. That can be done, and I have done it many times successfully.

In the recent past, though, I mixed 200 ISO and 800 ISO films on an outing, was not on top of the game, and made mistakes (not resetting the meter to the correct ISO). That was the first occurrence. Then, on later outings, I again mixed film types, and again made stupid mistakes. So, while a photographer who is not easily confused can mix as many film types as he/she can carry, and pull it off, sometimes that mental edge is not there, and it all goes to pot. Until I can avoid the confusions, I have decided to stick to only one film type at a time; it just makes life simpler.
Click to expand...

It must be comforting to be so brilliant. However, tracking which roll is in what camera is really not the reason that many people recommend that you stay with one type of emulsion.

Where as it is certainly possible to successfully get a passable negative from just about any type of film you choose to use, to really understand exactly how to get the type of print you see in your mind's eye when you press the shutter then you should really stay with one emulsion.

However, since a lot of people scan their film now days they don't worry about it as much as we did back in the darkroom days. Photoshop can be used to cover up all kinds of sins.
 
Pioneer, fair enough. "Brilliant" was a poor word choice - "organized" would have been a better word to convey what I meant.

But, to address the other way of taking the monogamous/polygamous advice, if someone can master one particular type of film, can they not also master two types of film (or more) at the same time? Is that impossible? I do not think that it is impossible, and that is why I wrote what I did. Take for example Fritz Henle, the noted Rolleiflex photographer. He carried two cameras with him all the time, one with black and white film, the other with color film, and was very good with both. Here's the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V2VqUMqH-8
 
An interesting discussion, especially in light of my recent exercise. In 35mm film I like to use Tri-x and I also like to have some 100ISO film for when I want a different feel. However I have little patience for developing say 1 roll of Tri-x then reloading the tank with FP4+ or whatever to develop those rolls. So I wondered if there was any reasonable 100ISO film that had similar developing requirements of Tri-x in my preferred XTOL. My research eventually came up with one, and what a good one it is - Adox Silvermax. So now I can happily and successfully co-develop those films together which is just brilliant.
 
It depends on the format for me. For 35mm B/W, I try to only shoot Tri-X; I've got other films, but try to stay clear of them. For MF, I love Acros, because I do much different photography when shooting MF.
 
I use several kinds of film and developers. I also eat many kinds of food and like several whiskies and wines. Just my way.
 
I was once all over the map, trying everything once.
Now after 40 years I find myself still experimenting,
but mostly with essentially very similar products.

Chris
 
Cannot comment on what's 'best' but I can state that after polygamisting for several years and messing up loads of films, I have now settled on TriX and Tmax400-2 in X-Tol, since I'm getting good results with those combos. Slower film, I tend to use RolleiRetro100 in Rodinal 1:100 stand.

Color and slide film go to the chemist's and those are a whole other story, I have a load of nice expired films in the freezer and prefer Portra 160 and 400 for fresh film.
 
sreed2006 said:
Pioneer, fair enough. "Brilliant" was a poor word choice - "organized" would have been a better word to convey what I meant.

But, to address the other way of taking the monogamous/polygamous advice, if someone can master one particular type of film, can they not also master two types of film (or more) at the same time? Is that impossible? I do not think that it is impossible, and that is why I wrote what I did. Take for example Fritz Henle, the noted Rolleiflex photographer. He carried two cameras with him all the time, one with black and white film, the other with color film, and was very good with both. Here's the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V2VqUMqH-8
Click to expand...

Certainly! Using more than one type of film is not all that difficult. The problem comes when everyone thinks they are Fritz...or some other famous photographer. Very few people have reached the point where they really understand one film emulsion, let alone 5 or 6.

However, on the other side, I don't think it is as necessary as a lot of people believe to run around using several different types of film. I firmly believe that understanding what your film can and cannot do and then using it to express your vision will net you far more good and great photos than bouncing from film to film.

Once I start a project I usually decide what I want the results to look like and I settle on a film emulsion that will provide what I want without having to twist myself and my emulsion in knots to get there. I usually have enough on my hands just trying to get the compositions I want to waste my time trying to get a film to do what it really isn't comfortable doing in the first place. The only time I have ever considered changing film in mid-project was when Efke closed their doors. Fortunately I had enough time to stock up on enough film to finish the project.

Obviously this is not a hard and fast rule. If you get results you are happy with by shooting several different emulsion types then don't stop because someone else doesn't recommend it. Always do what your heart and vision tell you are right. But, if you are having difficulty getting what you want it may be because you are trying to make an emulsion do what it doesn't do well.
 
confusion

confusion

I have started with one film-chemical couple: the Fomapan 100 and Fomadon R09. For a quite long time, it was enough for me. Then, I was curious about other films and chemicals. Now I find a little difficult keeping track what I am using. If you use more films and chemicals, more possibility of errors or unwanted effects can occur and you might not know what went wrong since there are multiple factors.
For a while I will play with some films and developers (mixed on my own), but after I will choose 2-3 default films and 2-3 default developers.
 
For a long time I have settled on Rodinal with Acros and D76 with Tri-X. I never needed to shoot anything else and to be able to reach a level of consistency is valuable. However with the threat of film discontinuing founded or not I started to experiment with other films such as Fomapan. I don't think I would give up my usual film choices but it is good knowing there are viable alternatives. I still yet to find a good b/w 400 iso film outside of Kodak and Ilford. Neopan 400 was my preferred choice but I am very pleased with TMY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom