p.2 #2 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
The only fact I can provide is that if you put more care into the developing of the ORIGINAL i.e. the negative - the more you can do further on in the printing process. If you develop poorly you don't get as good a result as you could have with a properly developed negative.
Say for instance that you accidentally underexposed your negative (setting of ISO400 on 100 speed film) and you didn't do a clip test or you developed all six rolls in the same batch without knowing about the under exposure... ...well too bad for you - you now have six underexposed and weak strips/rolls of developed negative. Not that easy working magic out of that even if you are a wiz with the dodging and burning and subsequent processing.
p.2 #3 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
kosmoskatten wrote:
The only fact I can provide is that if you put more care into the developing of the ORIGINAL i.e. the negative - the more you can do further on in the printing process. If you develop poorly you don't get as good a result as you could have with a properly developed negative.
Say for instance that you accidentally underexposed your negative (setting of ISO400 on 100 speed film) and you didn't do a clip test or you developed all six rolls in the same batch without knowing about the under exposure... ...well too bad for you - you now have six underexposed and weak strips/rolls of developed negative. Not that easy working magic out of that even if you are a wiz with the dodging and burning and subsequent processing. ...Show more →
I might argue that if you underexposed a roll of film unintentionally then development changes are going to be of little help anyway save for trying a speed increasing developer like Microphen. An increase in development time is only going to lead to high contrast negatives where the highlights and upper mid-tones gain excessive density while the shadows change imperceptibly. Intentionally placing the low values lower so as to 'underexpose' the negative and then using expansion development to move the mids and highlights up the scale would be a bit different since it is intentional and is an effort in reproducing your vision of a given scene.
p.2 #4 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
Gentleman, I still think you're missing the point. It's not my opinion. Compared to the creating the negative, there are just more creative options in the printing process. REGARDLESS if you have a darkroom or not.
I mean, you can take a negative and contact print it, make a kallitype or platinum print, you can use fiber paper, you can introduce an infinite number of toners, you can crop, make small prints, large prints, high contrast, low contrast, there's lith printing, amidol developers, multiple cropping options, dodging/burning, and on and on and on.
Really, once you've shot the image, you really want to be using one film and developer and one method for consistent results. THEN you can interpret the negative anyway you want.
This is not my opinion. Just do the math and look at the options and you can only come to the same conclusions.
Yes, I know Bresson and many others didn't do any darkroom work. BUT there creativity came BEFORE creating the negative (same with Ansel,Weston, and others).
The final print process is:
1. Pick the subject, lighting, the concept, etc.. Prolly 75% of the creative process if not much more.
2. Develop the negative. Should be a straight forward process.
3. Print the negative. At the heart of much of the artistic expressive process.
Study any accomplished photographer and they will stress numbers 1 and 3 NEVER number 2. What does that tell you??
p.2 #5 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
pawlowski6132 wrote:
2. Develop the negative. Should be a straight forward process.
Umm ... push/pull processing, different chemistry, different temps, different times, etc. I'm pretty sure that some of those same individuals you mentioned were creative in deriving non-standard processes. That's kinda like saying exposure should be a straight forward process or printing should be a straight forward process. There are "standard" / "normal" exposures, developing and printing ... but that doesn't mean that the processes of exposure, development and printing are constrained to such.
I'd agree that FAR FEWER people use #2 creatively than they do in #1 & #3 ... but that does not mitigate it as viable, nor that accomplished photographers don't use #2 creatively to hone in their own development style to develop the negative for their goals relative to #1 & #3. Actually, I'd suggest that those who do are far more accomplished than most ... certainly more accomplished than I.
I get that consistency in a process can be a good thing and that for vastly many folks they prefer to retain consistency in the process at #2, preferring to use variability for creative purposes @ #1 or #3, but it doesn't mean that #2 SHOULD be a straightforward process anymore than #1 or #3 should be straightforward processes.
p.2 #6 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
RustyBug wrote:
Umm ... push/pull processing, different chemistry, different temps, different times, etc. I'm pretty sure that some of those same individuals you mentioned were creative in deriving non-standard processes.
I'd agree that FAR FEWER people use #2 creatively than they do in #1 & #3 ... but that does not mitigate it as viable, nor that accomplished photographers don't use #2 creatively to hone in their own development style to prepare the negative for their goals relative to #1 & #3.
Agreed. I've used all pyro development formulas, push/pull, stand development with over exposure, Rodinal, blah blah blah, rotary processing, develop by inspection, and almost every film under the sun in every format from 35mm up to 11x14.
There are a lot of OPTIONS but, again, my point is that they don't have as much IMPACT on the finished product.
p.2 #7 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
Fair enough ... I think we are trying to say some of the same things, but they are coming across a bit askew/different in cyber-language.
Maybe we should just say that the OP has only seen the "tip of the iceberg" ... with so much more (in varying forms & processes) that might await him if he is so inclined. Good stuff indeed.
p.2 #8 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
RustyBug wrote:
Fair enough ... I think we are trying to say some of the same things, but they are coming across a bit askew/different in cyber-language.
I know. Isn't that the problems with these forums So much time could be saved with a good discussion over a beer.
p.2 #14 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
Hmmm ... I'm wondering if the word "more" was misconstrued in meaning, i.e. potential to mean "additional" ... while we may have (I was) were perceiving it to mean GREATER THAN the others. In that case, it is a fact that there are more (i.e. ADDITIONAL) creativity liberties to be had in printing.
That being said ... can we resume being civil FM'ers and reiterate our congratulations to the OP for his growth/expansion in our beloved craft.
p.2 #15 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
Zaitz wrote:
I might argue that if you underexposed a roll of film unintentionally then development changes are going to be of little help anyway save for trying a speed increasing developer like Microphen. An increase in development time is only going to lead to high contrast negatives where the highlights and upper mid-tones gain excessive density while the shadows change imperceptibly. Intentionally placing the low values lower so as to 'underexpose' the negative and then using expansion development to move the mids and highlights up the scale would be a bit different since it is intentional and is an effort in reproducing your vision of a given scene.
Well, with all that said; if you develop your unintentionally underexposed negative it will render weak and poor negatives. What I am trying to say is just that you do have a certain latitude to begin with - that includes the possibility of a remedy to unexpected problems.
Just straight developing with a "I'll fix in in printing" attitude is not the best approach IMO. It will not help with reproducing the vision of a given scene. Quite the opposite.
When we developed "larger" batches for pros we usually performed a clip test first.
p.2 #16 · Just developed my first roll of film ever
pawlowski6132 wrote:
The final print process is:
1. Pick the subject, lighting, the concept, etc.. Prolly 75% of the creative process if not much more.
2. Develop the negative. Should be a straight forward process.
3. Print the negative. At the heart of much of the artistic expressive process.
Study any accomplished photographer and they will stress numbers 1 and 3 NEVER number 2. What does that tell you??
I think you are overstating your case here. Ansel Adams' famous trilogy of books emphasises each of the three equally, and each book is the same thickness.
I understand that you are saying that there is more scope for change in the darkroom than in exposure and in development, and in this I agree. However, this in no way obligates anyone to set up a darkroom. You need just a kitchen sink, a tank, a few chemicals and a timer to develop. To set up a darkroom is an order of magnitude more involved, and for some, the threshold of pain may lie between the two.
If someone is having fun shooting film, they are free to send it away for development and scanning. If they want to develop their own film, they are free to scan. If they want to do darkroom work, more power to them. All options are open.
that tastes YUM !!!