anorak
Member
anorak
Member
I think I will try the classic D76 1+1 with Tri-X. I use a Mamiya 7 with the 80mm.
anorak
Member
I always imagined that he uses a simple combination, but this is will be my first experience developing my own b/w negatives so I'm needing some advices.
And I already have a big negative (mamiya 7).
I will post some examples as soon I develop them.
Steve M.
Veteran
I agree, if you use Tri-X, a medium format camera, and most any developer (D76 would be my choice), there you are. Smooth tonality. T-Max would be smoother, but not my film of choice. 4x5 would give even creamier images.
Or, you could use C-41 B&W in a 35mm camera. Nice and smooth, and easier than toting a MF camera. I love the tonality of Tri-X and 120 film, but I do not like the large cameras that go along w/ that, which is why I went back to 35mm. MF is a whole 'nother style of shooting style, and I prefer the quickness and ease of 35mm. Still, if you want smooth film tones in B&W, that's a good way to go.
Also, and this should be obvious, beware of making any decisions based on someone's online images. You have no idea what sort of post processing was done to achieve what you see on a monitor. I can run some rough looking B&W scans through noise reducing software and get a totally different look w/ just a few mouse clicks.
Or, you could use C-41 B&W in a 35mm camera. Nice and smooth, and easier than toting a MF camera. I love the tonality of Tri-X and 120 film, but I do not like the large cameras that go along w/ that, which is why I went back to 35mm. MF is a whole 'nother style of shooting style, and I prefer the quickness and ease of 35mm. Still, if you want smooth film tones in B&W, that's a good way to go.
Also, and this should be obvious, beware of making any decisions based on someone's online images. You have no idea what sort of post processing was done to achieve what you see on a monitor. I can run some rough looking B&W scans through noise reducing software and get a totally different look w/ just a few mouse clicks.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Start with good light and metering for it. You are going to have a hard time if you start with harsh, high contrast light. For me, an incident meter works better than a reflective meter as I'd rather measure the light and then choose how to shift it than try to figure out what a meter was picking up in the scene (obviously not a problem if you use a spot meter and can be highly selective).
I like Tri-X (at ei 200) or Acros (at ei 50) in Rodinal 1:50 for ~10 minutes. A nice large negative helps.
Due to low light, I've been shooting Tri X in at 400 which gives a much higher contrast result. It isn't my preferred as I like lots of shadow detail but you can get good tonality there as well - as long as you avoid needing it in the shadows.
I like Tri-X (at ei 200) or Acros (at ei 50) in Rodinal 1:50 for ~10 minutes. A nice large negative helps.
Due to low light, I've been shooting Tri X in at 400 which gives a much higher contrast result. It isn't my preferred as I like lots of shadow detail but you can get good tonality there as well - as long as you avoid needing it in the shadows.
gns
Well-known
I was looking through some Steinmetz books over the weekend. And thinking about your question, I'd say, while it's important to find the materials that work for you, do not forget that honing some good printing skills and understanding how you really want the thing to look probably deserve more attention. One lesson in Steinmetz's work is that though he shoots in all kinds of light (bright direct sun, back lit sun, open shade, dappled sunlight, etc.), his pictures always feel right. They always look natural and believable. Not like they were taken on some other planet.