tho60
Well-known
Dear Friends,
Recently, I have checked hundreds of photos uploaded on flickr.com to study different films, developers. Guess what: the distinction between BW film brands and developers is almost negligible. If someone does not tell you what kind of film and developer was used, you might not figure out this.
So seeking for “the most perfect film and developer” is worthless in general, but seeking for the film which fits you the most can be a worthy purpose.
I know that this statement is contrary to the public opinion.
Do you share my sentiment? What are your estimate? Any answers, comments and ideas will be appreciated!
Cheers, Thomas
Recently, I have checked hundreds of photos uploaded on flickr.com to study different films, developers. Guess what: the distinction between BW film brands and developers is almost negligible. If someone does not tell you what kind of film and developer was used, you might not figure out this.
So seeking for “the most perfect film and developer” is worthless in general, but seeking for the film which fits you the most can be a worthy purpose.
I know that this statement is contrary to the public opinion.
Do you share my sentiment? What are your estimate? Any answers, comments and ideas will be appreciated!
Cheers, Thomas
EliasK
Well-known
Some people with their eyes closed can taste a wine and tell you the type, geographical area and year of production.
Some people can hear a car horn and tell you its exact musical tone.
Same way they are many who can see a well scanned or printed negative and tell you film, developer, and lens used.
They are differences, but you must be well trained and maybe have some talent to understand them.
Some people can hear a car horn and tell you its exact musical tone.
Same way they are many who can see a well scanned or printed negative and tell you film, developer, and lens used.
They are differences, but you must be well trained and maybe have some talent to understand them.
George Bonanno
Well-known
So, since you photographed a Fiat 500 that makes you an expertise and talented observer ?
Ranchu
Veteran
Here is a test.
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html
There are different developers on the top right. I don't think looking at flickr is reallt the best way to make that determination..
I hear this kind of claim here and there - that because "some people" can't tell the difference between "some things", at "some time" then there must be no differences, then, ever.
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html
There are different developers on the top right. I don't think looking at flickr is reallt the best way to make that determination..
I hear this kind of claim here and there - that because "some people" can't tell the difference between "some things", at "some time" then there must be no differences, then, ever.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Films and developers weren't designed for looking at a digitally generated scan on a screen. You'd need to compare darkroom prints to see the subtleties, different combinations produce.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Both Henri Cartier Bresson and Robert Frank fretted constantly about film and developer choice, NOT.
I'll concede on Ansel Adams though
I have over 4,000 shots on Flickr and on some you can tell the film, Tasma type 17, Technical Pan, but Flickr is a great quality leveller, down and not up.
If your final output is to that medium it may well not mater a lot if at al but for other final outputs it may.
My stock answer- It Depends.
Spanik
Well-known
Even with 2 people using the same film and developper you can still get 2 very different results.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Firstly, as you can see from the link Ranchu put up the differences between films/developers are most consistently obvious based on the grain, which is generally difficult to see on low resolution flickr images.
Second, different emulsion/developer combinations have differing tendencies that are emphasised or mitigated based on the exposure, light conditions and the lens that is being used. Because of that making comparisons of random film images on flickr isn't going to be very fruitful in expressing these differences because of the other variables that mask or amplify those attributes. The film/developer is only one factor in the whole chain.
So you're right about the "film that fits you" thing, there are certainly noticeable differences between films; wether those differences are a deciding factor in the success or failure of a given photo is another issue.
Second, different emulsion/developer combinations have differing tendencies that are emphasised or mitigated based on the exposure, light conditions and the lens that is being used. Because of that making comparisons of random film images on flickr isn't going to be very fruitful in expressing these differences because of the other variables that mask or amplify those attributes. The film/developer is only one factor in the whole chain.
So you're right about the "film that fits you" thing, there are certainly noticeable differences between films; wether those differences are a deciding factor in the success or failure of a given photo is another issue.
mfogiel
Veteran
"the distinction between BW film brands and developers is almost negligible"
One could say, that the distinction between cameras and lenses is also negligible, particularly for the same format and focal length. Why then do we use Leicas instead of Brownies and Summicrons instead of Soligors? Because there ARE differences and some of them are not negligible. Try taking a Hasselblad with 3 backs, a tripod, and walk around taking the same pictures on 3 different films: HP5+ exposed at EI 800, Tri X, exposed at EI 200, and Delta 100 Exposed at EI 80. Develop HP5+ in Rodinal 1+100, Tri X in D76 1+1 and Delta 100 in Acurol N 1+70. Then come back with your impressions again.
One could say, that the distinction between cameras and lenses is also negligible, particularly for the same format and focal length. Why then do we use Leicas instead of Brownies and Summicrons instead of Soligors? Because there ARE differences and some of them are not negligible. Try taking a Hasselblad with 3 backs, a tripod, and walk around taking the same pictures on 3 different films: HP5+ exposed at EI 800, Tri X, exposed at EI 200, and Delta 100 Exposed at EI 80. Develop HP5+ in Rodinal 1+100, Tri X in D76 1+1 and Delta 100 in Acurol N 1+70. Then come back with your impressions again.
mdarnton
Well-known
I'm not too good at telling developers apart on a screen, but had an interesting experience a couple of years ago when I was curious about a particular developer/film combination. I went to Flickr and looked at hundreds of photos tagged with that combination, and after a while started seeing consistent behavior in tonal rendering that I didn't want, so I didn't try the two. Was it the process' fault? Was it some tendency of the people who chose that process to "print" a certain way for the web? I didn't know and I didn't care: I didn't want to be in that club. At this moment, even though I know what I was seeing, I would not be able to certainly say someone was using that pairing by looking at one picture; I only know that the general TENDENCY was in a direction I didn't like.
That shouldn't surprise me--it's the same in my own field. I may think I know what a particular violin string or adjustment or construction change sounds like, but I don't know for sure until I've experienced that change many different times on many different instruments with many different players.
That doesn't mean that there aren't tendencies; they can be definite, but still difficult to identify from one random example.
That shouldn't surprise me--it's the same in my own field. I may think I know what a particular violin string or adjustment or construction change sounds like, but I don't know for sure until I've experienced that change many different times on many different instruments with many different players.
That doesn't mean that there aren't tendencies; they can be definite, but still difficult to identify from one random example.
x-ray
Veteran
There are too many factors that influence the look of the final image to be able to determine by just looking want film, developer, printing paper, scanner, camera, lens and film that were used. You can't do it.
Age of film, heat its exposed to, exposure whether over or under or correct exposure, pushed or pulled or normal development, if scanned the type of scanner, profiles for scanning, any adjustments, printing, paper, paper developer and your level of skill are just a few factors. There's no way a person can look at a print or scan without any clues and accurately determine the film and developer. Obviously you can see the difference in tech pan and HP5 but given all 400 or all 100 speed films for example you will not be as to tell with any accuracy what is what.
The same is true of lenses. On two occasions Ive posted a series of images shot with different brand of cameras and lenses and even different formats and NO person got any significant number correct as to what lens I used. It's totally myth.
Given a series of prints in front of you each shot with different lenses, film, printing papers and developers, no person can tell what lens, film or developer was used. The majority won't be able to tell the paper.
There are differences in films and developer combinations, significant differences but they come down to personal preferences as to what suits your shooting style and subjects. Do you shoot contrasty subjects and need a compensating developer or do you like a more general developer for more contrast? Do you want finer train at the expense of highlights and speed? You you want to push your film? Yes there are film and developer combinations that suit each of these needs better but in the final image you can't accurately say what film and developer were used. There are exceptions when dealing with the extreme ends of high speed films or ultra fine grain like tech pan or Tmax 3200. But within a given range of 100 or 400 within that ISO you can't generally te byooking at a print without some clue as to what it is.
Age of film, heat its exposed to, exposure whether over or under or correct exposure, pushed or pulled or normal development, if scanned the type of scanner, profiles for scanning, any adjustments, printing, paper, paper developer and your level of skill are just a few factors. There's no way a person can look at a print or scan without any clues and accurately determine the film and developer. Obviously you can see the difference in tech pan and HP5 but given all 400 or all 100 speed films for example you will not be as to tell with any accuracy what is what.
The same is true of lenses. On two occasions Ive posted a series of images shot with different brand of cameras and lenses and even different formats and NO person got any significant number correct as to what lens I used. It's totally myth.
Given a series of prints in front of you each shot with different lenses, film, printing papers and developers, no person can tell what lens, film or developer was used. The majority won't be able to tell the paper.
There are differences in films and developer combinations, significant differences but they come down to personal preferences as to what suits your shooting style and subjects. Do you shoot contrasty subjects and need a compensating developer or do you like a more general developer for more contrast? Do you want finer train at the expense of highlights and speed? You you want to push your film? Yes there are film and developer combinations that suit each of these needs better but in the final image you can't accurately say what film and developer were used. There are exceptions when dealing with the extreme ends of high speed films or ultra fine grain like tech pan or Tmax 3200. But within a given range of 100 or 400 within that ISO you can't generally te byooking at a print without some clue as to what it is.
Dwig
Well-known
I agree.
What the OP is seeing is not a measure of the difference between different films and developers, but the differences in and limitations of presenting the images on a monitor, with all of the limitations and alterations resulting from the scanner, scanning technique, resampling by the online service, and the monitor's adjustments.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
People are often blind in terms of many technical aspects of photography.
But, Thomas, you only looked at just hundreds. It is too early for you to declare anything. And who knows may be you looked at load of crap, it is possible with Flickr.
Take hundreds on different films, develop them all, scan and process by yourself as I did. Then come back here and tell me what you have seen on yours.
But. If you aren't regular film waster of these days and print in the darkroom, yes, it is hard, next to impossible to tell, which film and developer was in use.
I'm only able to see Fomapan 400 @400 in stand developed by Rodinal vs Delta 100 in HC-110 B or H. One print will be with load of grain, another will looks like digital camera
Cheers, Ko.
But, Thomas, you only looked at just hundreds. It is too early for you to declare anything. And who knows may be you looked at load of crap, it is possible with Flickr.
Take hundreds on different films, develop them all, scan and process by yourself as I did. Then come back here and tell me what you have seen on yours.
But. If you aren't regular film waster of these days and print in the darkroom, yes, it is hard, next to impossible to tell, which film and developer was in use.
I'm only able to see Fomapan 400 @400 in stand developed by Rodinal vs Delta 100 in HC-110 B or H. One print will be with load of grain, another will looks like digital camera
Cheers, Ko.
x-ray
Veteran
For those that are so certain they can tell film, developer, lens and format go to the link at the bottom of my post and go to my gallery. Take a dozen images that don't give film, camers and one data and tell us what format, lens, developer and or film they were shot with. You can't do it with any accuracy. You can't even do it looking at the original prints. The only way I can tell is remembering what I was using and in some cases I can't remember so I can't tell.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
The International Standards Organization (ISO), headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the worldwide recognized body responsible for publishing standards on the permanence of photographic materials, has repeatedly recommended using the Fiat 500 as the gold standard for testing B&W film.
The Fiat Photographic Activity Test, or FPAT, developed by IPI became an ANSI standard and then ISO Standard.
Research is being done to determine if Fiat 500 image data can be applied to the many digital print types now available.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Try Fuji Acros 100 with Sprint Standard deveolper as detailed in the ZoneSimple section of my web site www.charlielemay.net. There are free downloads.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My current workflow is to expose all films at the manufacturers' nominal EI, mix up a batch of HC-110 to 1:49 dilution from concentrate, and process for 8 minutes @ 70°F in an Agfa Rondinax daylight developing tank with continuous agitation. This is producing negatives I like.
Different films produce slightly different results, but how they differ—by the time I finish scanning and doing image adjustment—is more a matter of how I've rendered the image than indicative of how the film and developer interacted. The important thing is that I know how a particular film will react and therefor what to expect, which is the basis of why I might choose one film over another.
G
Different films produce slightly different results, but how they differ—by the time I finish scanning and doing image adjustment—is more a matter of how I've rendered the image than indicative of how the film and developer interacted. The important thing is that I know how a particular film will react and therefor what to expect, which is the basis of why I might choose one film over another.
G
valdas
Veteran
I can't even look at some of my old negatives because I know I have over-agitated a particular developer... I will never post those photos on any flickr. I don' even start about film/developer combination...
Corran
Well-known
Whether or not one can tell the difference in someone else's images is irrelevant.
Does film/developer choice matter in one's personal photographic pursuit / vision?
You betcha.
Does film/developer choice matter in one's personal photographic pursuit / vision?
You betcha.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
That is why I used rather pedestrian methods for many years, Kodak films and developers, used according to Kodak recommendations. I did finally move to Acufine chemistry, because I wanted Tri-X at 800.
Remember the old saw? -- "No one ever got fired for buying IBM products." I felt that way about Kodak.