In Praise of Slow Films

Regarding Skiff’s comment on creating good quality negatives.

It’s true that transmission densitometers when properly used are helpful inachieving fine negatives. They certainly help to get into the ball park relatively fast. But they are not a prerequisite to achieve this goal. Top notch b&w photographers like Bruce Barnbaum,Ron Rosenstock have described in detail how to determine correct film speed and developing time without use of a densitometer.
 
Testing the theory. Here's todays print from yesterday's walk. Agfapan 25 (courtesy of Larry H-L) developed in Pyrocat HD.
Leica CL, Elmar 35mm f3.5. (The often maligned lens that Erik van Straten & I like very much.) (f4.5 @ 1/15 sec + monopod) yellow filter. Print on Ilford Classic.
Among the best results i've had with a "miniature camera."
An 11"x14" print looks sharp with nice tonality.

50335724167_c850962b75_c.jpg

Flickr
 
Larry H-L said:
Greg, did the film have any base fog, or did the "cryo-storage" seem to work?
Click to expand...

No base fog evident Larry. Development time was pretty much standard... 12minutes in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 dilution. The film is an absolute charm. I'll save the remaining rolls for special things requiring 35mm. Thanks again. Besides 8x10 on Ilford Classic, I printed 11"x14" on Fomatone 131 FB Warmtone & those look stunning. In that size they could pass for MF negatives. The only difficulty is finding enough grain to use the grain focuser....
 
Beautiful image Mike. My first work with TMax 100 shows me it's got remarkable capabilities.
 
Hans Berkhout said:
Regarding Skiff’s comment on creating good quality negatives.

It’s true that transmission densitometers when properly used are helpful inachieving fine negatives. They certainly help to get into the ball park relatively fast. But they are not a prerequisite to achieve this goal. Top notch b&w photographers like Bruce Barnbaum,Ron Rosenstock have described in detail how to determine correct film speed and developing time without use of a densitometer.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of Bruce Barnbaum, have read his book. And have met him in person on a workshop. Have lots of respect for him.
But if he would use a densitomter he would see the limitations of his most used HC-110 much better, which delivers mostly an upswing curve. One of the reasons why Bruce is going down for 1 1/3 stops as his standard rating to get enough shadow detail. Would not be necessary with a different developer. Such facts are immediately revealed by the characteristic curve measured by a densitometer.
A densitometer is a 'once in a lifetime purchase'. At least if you buy a high quality one like those from Heiland electronic. Really good invested money. Better to spend money on that than on the 10th additional camera ;).
 
A "final print" is the goal we are aiming for. This can be achieved with or without use of a transmission densitometer. Different roads lead to Rome.

Bruce B, when deciding on exposure, prefers to place shadow parts on IV instead of III. It works for him.
 
Hans Berkhout said:
Bruce B, when deciding on exposure, prefers to place shadow parts on IV instead of III. It works for him.
Click to expand...

I know. He is doing it to get enough shadow detail. And in a certain way he has to do it this way because HC-110 has this problem with the upswing curve, producing less shadow detail compared to many other developers.
Easy to see immediately by using a densitometer.
Why not using the perfect technology which made my printing life much easier? At least that is my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom