That's not exactly what I meant though. I am doing more B&W which I develop myself. My point is that there are several different looks in B&W films. Its worthwhile to have a general idea about the look you want before settling into a particular film. For example, I like the smooth tone of TMax and Ilford Delta over the steeper curve of HP5, Tri-X and other traditional grained films. And I'm not crazy about light skies common with ortho films. But I wouldn't know these things unless I'd tried some other films along the way. Its not that hard to get standard developer times for various film/developer combos. Once you find the right sort of film, then getting control over the development process is the logical next step. Or maybe these things intertwine.
I don't print in a wet darkroom though I have considered the idea. I scan and print digitally and that brings with it a different set of challenges.
printing traditionally depends more on a good negative than scanning does (at least from what I've seen). For someone who is already comfortable with film, yea trying different films wouldn't be that hard (though I still think it takes a while to really get the most from a combo). But particularly for someone just looking to get into film, I stand by the recommendation that was given to me, to try one film and developer (preferably a classic combo, that is known to work well) so that one can learn the ropes with out constantly having the notion that they need to change their film/developer/whatever to get better results. Good results can be had with probably any combo, you just need to learn how to use it.
It's easy to just try out all the color films because you drop them off at the lab and they stick em in the same stuff and you get the results, with b&w you can get so many different looks from just the same film and varying other parameters that you can't even get to know it properly until you've done at least 10 rolls... and used a few developers.
Spend sometime online looking for examples, find the look that seems best to fit your own vision and start with that emulsion... read what others are doing to get the best out of their film... come up with what works best for you.
Trying a lot of film with a lot of developers and a lot of different dilutions and agitation schedules gets very very tedious... film testing can become as stupid as lens testing.
mh2000 wrote:
It's easy to just try out all the color films because you drop them off at the lab and they stick em in the same stuff and you get the results
Its possible to do exactly the same with B&W films. I can name 3 labs in my area that will process B&W films. You can develop a few different ones in basic a basic developer like D-76 using a standard formula to get an idea of the "look" of the film at a basic level. If you don't feel comfortable developing on your own yet, use a lab to do the first couple rolls. They know how to process your film and it will only cost a few bucks if you don't have prints made.
Yes the look of Tri-X will be changed by the developer used, but Tri-X is much different than Delta 3200 or Tmax or an ortho film and that distinctive look will be there regardless of the developer used. You can get this sense even in a basic development recipe of the film. And that is my point. HP5+ is not the film for everyone, nor is TMY...
I'm not suggesting that he chase every B&W film available, but I think it is reasonable to get a sense for the family of B&W film that fits best. This is certainly possible by looking at samples on the web... just as it is with any color film or any digital camera. But you only get a certain amount of information this way.
I think we are just debating two different philosophies, neither one is probably better than the other, just depends on the user :-) For me, sticking with one combo until I was very comfortable with it, was very rewarding, and is now very predictable. And now that I know what I can get with that combo, I'm searching for another film/developer that gives me a different look
I like the idea of three films and one or two special purpose developers.
an extremely fine grained film at slow speed used in rodinal (for instance) for sharpness and in a fine grain developer for a different look. That way one sees the possibilities available and can develop ones tastes.
Then a T grain film perhaps for something completely different and perhaps something like tri-x or one of the silver rich old style films. Again use two different developers over time to see what you can cook up.
but I think it is a common mistake to try ten film and ten developers, all a bit too fast one after another.
It probably takes a year and fifty rolls before one gets a good feel for one combo.
I've got to try sheet film then again. But I'm having a hard time getting it into my F100! It's hard to close the back with the 8x10 folded up in there in particular.
A wordy comment on trying just the one film/developer combo:
Back in the day I was taught photography, we had to shoot an "ideal" subject, covering from deep black with just some detail and bright white with just some detail showing and the whole setup should nearly fill the frame. That was quite a challenge and usually accomplished with towels/cloth and other inanimate objects. Measure the light, and take 5 shots: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 exposures. Do that 5 times, and develop each strip of five negs with -2t, -1t, 0, 1t, 2t (where "t" is a developing time variable) This would give a large range of negatives, of which only ONE neg, technically speaking, was perfect: it could be printed on No.2 paper and show the entire tonal range.
This test and its result was to be a guide for future work we were handing in. It definitely was a valuable test and learning experience.
joekraft wrote:
First, is Alt. the correct ('best') forum for film-related questions now, or should this be general gear talk?
The main question: How does Kodak TMAX compare to Ilford HP5 Plus?
Thanks!
You wanna talk film, go check apug.org
I actually like the look of TMAX with my development regime a bit better than HP5+ (harder to control contrast on the latter). I use rotary processing (continuous agitation in other words) of sheet film (4x5) in Kodak HC-110B developer and the TMAX stuff just comes out nicer (lower highlight density but good metallic-looking microcontrast). The HP5+ tends to block up in the highlights and get too contrasty to handle and doesn't scan so well in this state.
HOWEVER: I think the important point here is that this is with *my* preferred development style (which is dictated by convenience and the economy of HC-110B, a dirt cheap liquid (gel-like actually) developer that lasts for an eternity in an open container). The actual performance of a film is going to have an awful lot to do with how you expose & develop it and what developer & agitation you use. It just happens that I've picked a film that suits my preferred style of development, rather than the other way around.
Go check APUG... unless you want to talk about scanning said film at which point they'll lock the topic. Hey! How do all those pictures show up on their website?
If you want to talk about film/digital workflows, Hybrid Photo is an appropriate forum.
mrladewig wrote:
Go check APUG... unless you want to talk about scanning said film at which point they'll lock the topic. Hey! How do all those pictures show up on their website?
If you want to talk about film/digital workflows, Hybrid Photo is an appropriate forum.
I am tagging this to revisit the topic. I have so many questions about getting into developing on your own, that perhaps a different thread is in order. But, I am off to get some film today for my new MF's (haha ), and I think in short order I am going to need to learn how to develop myself.
Have fun developing your own film, it's really easy once you get the hang of it, and it's very rewarding. i agree with the earlier post suggesting having a slow , medium, and fast film. My favorites are: Rollei ATP for a slow film,
unbelievably sharp, and virtually grainless. If you want to print big from MF it can't be beat. Fuji Acros is my choice for a medium speed film. Sharp, very fine grain, and responds well in many developers. in the high speed realm, I think Tmax 400 is the finest grained, but I've been experimenting with Fuji Neopan 400, and really like it's look. Rodinal is a good starting point for a developer, it lasts forever and yields very sharp negs. I like it at high dilution (1:100) using stand development. Keep us posted.
Dumb question: I've not been using my new cameras around the house yet, because for the most part I need to shoot at ISO 800 to get a decent shutter speed at sufficient DoF (we have a pretty dark house, unfortunately).
In general, can I shoot 400 speed film and expect it to turn out well in the end in these circumstances? I'd imagine I could tell the lab to push it one stop (yes? Is that what people mean when they say push it a stop?), but on the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that EVERY shot on the roll will need to be pushed, either.
These are the questions about latitude of film developing that I don't really understand yet.
joekraft wrote:
Dumb question: I've not been using my new cameras around the house yet, because for the most part I need to shoot at ISO 800 to get a decent shutter speed at sufficient DoF (we have a pretty dark house, unfortunately).
Technically, you'd be shooting at EI800 (exposure index), the actual sensitivity of the film remains the same.
In general, can I shoot 400 speed film and expect it to turn out well in the end in these circumstances? I'd imagine I could tell the lab to push it one stop (yes? Is that what people mean when they say push it a stop?), but on the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that EVERY shot on the roll will need to be pushed, either.
Yes, it will turn out fine. Negative film is very tolerant of incorrect exposure. However, unless you're shooting sheet film and can tailor development to each sheet individually (see: Zone system), you have to push or pull the entire roll all at once, i.e. shoot the entire roll at 800. However, if you're shooting color negative and scanning anyways, even not developing differently will still yield good images if one stop underexposed.
Tariq and mh2000, I have been playing a little with Tri-X 400 in my Hasselblad, but haven't tried low-dilution stand development yet. Could you give me a quick run-down on how it is done? Any other changes to the regular development procedure?
There should be a film users forum on FM.....I started a thread on the topic ages ago that got huge support from members.....but the site owners completely blanked my messages / enquiries on the proposal.
The "Massive Developing Chart" was my film developing bible back when I was shooting a lot of B&W (up until a few years ago). This thread has got me itching to put down the digital and pick up some film....
Hey, does anyone know where you can buy Rodinal and X-Tol these days? Are photo stores still stocking these developers?
