B&W noob, looking for film/chemistry recommendation [Archive]

View Full Version : B&W noob, looking for film/chemistry recommendation

Tim k

31-Aug-2008, 19:30

When I started my adventure into 4x5 my end goal was a large color print on the wall.

However, I find my tastes seem to be migrating toward black and white. In the last 50 years I have shot a total of 1 roll of 35mm black and white. So I have no idea whats what now.

I would like to be able to stick with a chemistry film combination for some time, so I'm not messing around with confusing variables. It would be nice to be able to use the same combination in 35mm for testing and later 4x5. My interest is landscape and just stuff. I'm not a big fan of grain. I'm just getting started in processing, so forgiving would be good. Also it would be nice if the chemistry didn't kill the dog.

I did a lot of searching and reading and was unable to come to a conclusion on my own. So I sure would appreciate some opinions or suggestions.

Thanks again for all your help.

ic-racer

31-Aug-2008, 19:35

T-max100 is excellent as both 4x5 and 35mm film. T-max developer can be used for both. My development times and exposure index are similar with both film sizes.

mbdiesel

31-Aug-2008, 19:38

Tim,

Tri-x in D76 or Xtol is very forgiving. Delta 100 in xtol is very nice if grain is an issue.

Didn't want to bore you to death with details but the above suggestions should be a start.

venchka

31-Aug-2008, 21:29

Oldies, but goodies: D-76 & Rodinal, dilute to taste.
Newer and nice: Xtol, dilute to suit. Contrary to Kodak USA, Xtol diluted 1:3 works very nicely.
For the adventurous: Xtol with a shot of Rodinal. Or Rodinal, 1:100, semi-stand development. GOOGLE can point the way.

Ron Marshall

31-Aug-2008, 21:54

Both TMX and TMY give fine images in XTOL, sharp, very fine grain.

Daniel_Buck

31-Aug-2008, 22:12

I learned with Tri-X 320 in HC110 (1:31). It's a very nice combo, and I'm still using it! It's easy to develop, forgiving (not super critical on timing and temperatures) and it gives a nice classic look. And on 4x5, the grain isn't near as apparent as it is on 35mm film. I tried some slower speed film, but found that I actually enjoyed the touch of grain that I got from the Tri-X, I missed it when it wasn't there!

Francesco Gallarotti

31-Aug-2008, 22:37

Not to hijack Tim's thread but I have the exact same question... with one further limitation... I am a big fan of Ilford and Fuji and really cannot stand Kodak.
Maybe Tim would be interested in hearing also suggestions from the non-Kodak side of the barricade :-)

For B&W I did some research and looks like people have been suggesting the following combinations:

HP5+ with Ilfotec DD-X 1+4
FP4+ with Infosol S 1+14
Any Ilford B&W with Rodinal 1+25

Would you steer me in one or another direction based on your personal experience?

Also, I am not sure of the two following points are also of some significance in the process of deciding which film / chemistry combination to choose, but here they are:
1) I would like to use my developer only once and then dump it
2) I will be using a uniroller base and two 8x10 print drums for my developement.

Tim, if you rather me delete this message from your thread and start my own, please let me know. Thanks

telkwa

31-Aug-2008, 23:27

I love the look of Plus-X in D-76 1:1. I normally over-expose 1/2 stop or so.

Gary L. Quay

1-Sep-2008, 00:07

Tim, Franz,
I shoot landscapes as well, and I've found that T-grained films just don't have the right look. I like Ilford FP4 in Clayton F76 (like D76) or in HC110. These are good developers to start with. You can graduate to others if the mood strikes. I learned by trial and error (heavy on the error) that I should have started out using a bullet proof combination like the one I mentioned above before leaping straight into pyro. I would have ruined a lot less negatives.

--Gary

Bruce Barlow

1-Sep-2008, 04:09

I second Clayton F76+. It just replaced 25 years of HC-110 bias because I like what it does to lift shadow values better than HC-110, and I just finished my last big bottle of HC-110, which Kodak apparently no longer makes. Easy to use, I decant a gallon into liter bottles for convenience and it keeps forever.

Ilford HP5 just replaced no-longer-in-usable-size-boxes-in-8x10 Tri-X as the house film. Same with Richard Ritter, although he's trying T-Max 400 for platinum printing (but he's one of those crazy ULF guys). HP5 tests at ISO 200 (for me), and is quite lovely. I want as much speed as I can get in LF, just to have more options. FP4 is nice, too, but tests at only ISO 64 for me. My world won't hold that still.

Thing is, when I travel I use lots of film, and the idea of ten-sheet boxes of 8x10 film? So I'm going to take 15-20 boxes for a week? Have to use two or three boxes to reload each night in the bathtub? I don't think so. Gimmee 50 sheets, but I'll live with 25 (Ilford).

Big yellow, are ya listening? Nah, didn't think so.

Gary L. Quay

1-Sep-2008, 04:15

FP4 is nice, too, but tests at only ISO 64 for me. My world won't hold that still.

I've been discovering the joys of HP5 as well, especially since I've been moving to 8x10. FP4 was my film of choice when I shot mainly medium format.

--Gary

Bruce Watson

1-Sep-2008, 05:34

My current king of the hill is 5x4 400Tmax, in XTOL 1:3, rotary processing in a Jobo 3010 tank.

You'll like the speed for 5x4 use, graininess is amazing for a 400 speed film, as is sharpness. XTOL is about as environmentally friendly as it gets. Mix it with distilled water and you should be fine.

Brian Ellis

1-Sep-2008, 09:20

The best thing said here is something you said yourself - "I would like to be able to stick with a chemistry film combination for some time, so I'm not messing around with confusing variables." Good thinking. There really are no bad films or developers on the market any more, at least none I know of, so you're unlikely to go too far wrong no matter what you do. Much better to stick with one film and developer for at least a year, learn them inside and out, avoid the "film/developer of the month" club.

For me the first consideration in selecting a film was film speed. I like a 400 speed film because it gives more flexibility in terms of aperture/shutter speed combinations than slower films. So I've been using Ilford HP5+ for years. I also used TMax 100, which is a fine film but I used it only because it came in Readyloads. Now that it doesn't, I'll stick with HP5+ exclusively. I tried TMY years ago and didn't think the tonal gradations were as subtle as HP5+ but that wasn't from testing, just an observation. Also, TMY has been changed by Kodak a couple times since I used it.

I've used D76 1-1 almost exclusively for many years. It's an excellent general purpose developer that's been around for almost 100 years so it must be doing something right. In truth, I've never had the patience to really spend the massive amount of time and energy that would be required to do the tests needed to really know which developers do what in terms of shadows, highlights, grain, etc.(I'm not talking about film speed and developer time testing, I've done plenty of that). D76 is a good general purpose developer, it isn't spectacularly great at any one thing but seems to do everything well so that's why I used it.

Steve Sherman

1-Sep-2008, 09:38

If your not using a Pyro based developer you're really cheating yourself out of negative quality. It's really that easy, not a debate.

Francesco Gallarotti

1-Sep-2008, 10:34

If your not using a Pyro based developer you're really cheating yourself out of negative quality. It's really that easy, not a debate.

Could you elaborate a little?
1) In what do you see such a dramatic difference?
2) I am looking at the Ilford film processing chart right now and in the list I see the following: Ilfotec DD-x, ID-11, Ilfotec HC, Ilfotec LC29, Ilfosol S, Microphen, Perceptol, Acufine, Rodinal, D-76, HC110A, HC110B, Microdol-X, T-Max, XTOL -- which (if any) of these is Pyro based?

Thanks

Ron Marshall

1-Sep-2008, 10:41

Could you elaborate a little?
1) In what do you see such a dramatic difference?
2) I am looking at the Ilford film processing chart right now and in the list I see the following: Ilfotec DD-x, ID-11, Ilfotec HC, Ilfotec LC29, Ilfosol S, Microphen, Perceptol, Acufine, Rodinal, D-76, HC110A, HC110B, Microdol-X, T-Max, XTOL -- which (if any) of these is Pyro based?

Thanks

None of those is Pryo based. Pyrocat or PMK are a couple of well respected pyro developers. But, if you are looking for low toxicity stay away from pyro.

Tim k

1-Sep-2008, 15:09

You know, I expected a lot of different opinions, but did you guys get together somewhere else and agree to all tell me something different?

Ok, so here is what I got so far.

3 tmax xtol
1 tmax tmax
1 tmax xtol
1 tri-x d76
1 tri-x cc110
1 fp4 infusol
1 fp4 f76, d76, hc110
1 hp5 ddx
1 hp5 d76
1 +x d76

So, its Tmax in xtol by a landslide. :)

Seriously thanks for the input. It does help me sort out some of the options by hearing all of your different opinions.

Thanks again.

venchka

1-Sep-2008, 16:35

I didn't list a film, only deveopers.

I'm slowly working my way through 100 sheets of HP5+. To date, I've developed the negatives in D-76 1:1, Xtol 1:3 and an experiment using Rodinal 1:100, semi-stand for 1 hour for a two stop underexposed negative. I processed the same negative in Xtol 1:3, Jobo 3010 and spun at 30 rpm on a Beseler base for 17 minutes. Both negatives look good to my novice, non-nit picky eye. In fact, I can't tell them apart.

I currently have 5 liters (minus 250ml) of Xtol mixed up. I also have 8-9 1 gallon bags of D-76. I was giving serious thought to buying TMY-2 after the HP5+ is gone and using Xtol. After reading this thread, I may just stick to HP5+, D-76 and pocket the change. I also have a 25 sheet box of Ilford Delta 100 and no clue what to do with it.

One more thought: I am going to buy some Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros in sheets to use for longish exposures. Based on what I've seen, the Acros works very well in Xtol.

Confused? You bet I am.

Brian Ellis

1-Sep-2008, 19:14

If your not using a Pyro based developer you're really cheating yourself out of negative quality. It's really that easy, not a debate.

Instead of saying the first thing that came to mind when I read this I'll just say that having done very time-consuming and extensive testing with PMK to see if prints from negatives processed in it really were distinguishable in any way from prints made from negatives processed in D76, I disagree with your statement. I could go on about the numerous outstanding photographers who didn't and don't use pyro, including some who were or are very technically oriented such as Ansel Adams, Phil Davis, and John Sexton, but arguments about pyro tend to become like arguments about digital so I'll let it go at that.

Michael Kadillak

1-Sep-2008, 20:41

Let's be honest about the pyro developer scenario and put it into the correct context.

Prior to fairly recent experimentation with pyro formulas like PMK and Pyrocat that have accomodated projection printers, most if not all of the early users of pyro were contact printers because of the large grain that comes with the older but very effective formulations hence it is an apple and oranges comparison. Back in those days catechetol was recognized as a great potential developer, but nobody put the hard research to get it into a workable formulation commensurate with the advances in film technology and the industry transformation to smaller negative sizes.

Check out the first chapter of Gordon Hutchings Book of Pyro and read first hand why pyro has been around for nearly 100 years as a photographic developer. Why? Because it does very unique things with the negative that gets translated directly to the print that I have only seen one or two other developers attain.

That does not mean that other conventional developers from A-Z are not very effective in their objective. They do what they were designed to do.

I will tell you that Steve Sherman is a very descriminating photographer and he speaks the truth as his experienced have taught him.

Relative to developers I don't care about how easy it is to use or how cost effective they may be because these parameters have absolutely no affect on producing a glowing print and that is all that matters. If you have never really seen a "glowing" print up close and personal then you really do not have a good reference point.

That is how I see things and I am not saying this at the expense of any other comments to this post.

Michael Kadillak

1-Sep-2008, 20:48

Thing is, when I travel I use lots of film, and the idea of ten-sheet boxes of 8x10 film? So I'm going to take 15-20 boxes for a week? Have to use two or three boxes to reload each night in the bathtub? I don't think so. Gimmee 50 sheets, but I'll live with 25 (Ilford).

Big yellow, are ya listening? Nah, didn't think so.

Actually, I said the same thing to a rep from Kodak over lunch a while back and he said that they will be bringing out 25 sheet boxes this fall.

Steve Sherman

1-Sep-2008, 20:56

Instead of saying the first thing that came to mind when I read this I'll just say that having done very time-consuming and extensive testing with PMK to see if prints from negatives processed in it really were distinguishable in any way from prints made from negatives processed in D76, I disagree with your statement. I could go on about the numerous outstanding photographers who didn't and don't use pyro, including some who were or are very technically oriented such as Ansel Adams, Phil Davis, and John Sexton, but arguments about pyro tend to become like arguments about digital so I'll let it go at that.

Yesterday Brian you wrote...

I've used D76 1-1 almost exclusively for many years. It's an excellent general purpose developer that's been around for almost 100 years so it must be doing something right. In truth, I've never had the patience to really spend the massive amount of time and energy that would be required to do the tests needed to really know which developers do what in terms of shadows, highlights, grain, etc.(I'm not talking about film speed and developer time testing, I've done plenty of that). D76 is a good general purpose developer, it isn't spectacularly great at any one thing but seems to do everything well so that's why I used it.

Pyro based developers have certain undeniable characteristics.

Pyro developers are topical in nature, chemical reduction takes place on the surface of the film, emulsion is hardened in this phase very early in the reduction process. This leads to higher accutance, greater edge effects, more scratch resistant emulsions. Non pyro developement occurs as chemistry is slowly absorbed into the emulsion promoting silver migration, causing lower accutance. Emulsions scratch easier and have less edge effects. Look at a pyro negative in glancing light and you will see an etching effect to the emulsion surface which lends to higher micro contrast between subtle tonalities and and overall higher accutance.

The staining properties of pyro not only are able to produce an increase in the contrast index of any film over non pyro dev. but the stain also has a natural grain masking effect for those who need to worry about degree of enlargement.

I agree whole heartily with your recommendation of one developer and one film. Like the famous photographers you sited, Adams, Sexton etc I used exclusively Tri-X and HC 110 dev. and was able to achieve a high degree of negative / print quality for over 20 years. The day I switched to PMK my prints got noticeably better in all aspects.

I don't tend to test a whole lot so I can not offer plotted graphs and intersecting curves but I can show plenty of prints, some of which end up in the trash and many that end up in a portfolio case.

Today I used exclusively Pyrocat HD using a reduced agitation form of development. Those photographers who have seen the results of this technique have switched exclusively to this technique as I have. If nothing else, once a film and developer combination is arrived at and believed in you are now free to go and make photographs as I hope we all can do.

I am really not looking to start a verbal back and forth, just to state as emphatically as most people do on these forums what they believe in.

Cheers!

Francesco Gallarotti

1-Sep-2008, 21:16

Today I used exclusively Pyrocat HD using a reduced agitation form of development. Those photographers who have seen the results of this technique have switched exclusively to this technique as I have. If nothing else, once a film and developer combination is arrived at and believed in you are now free to go and make photographs as I hope we all can do.

I think this -- being free to go and take pictures without having to worry too much about the perfect combination of film and chemicals -- is what the OP and I were both interested.
Being a newbie, I am probably missing 95% of the speculations and discussions here and I might ask questions that are not proper, but I guess my question to you, Steve, is what are the reasons why not many people use Pyrocad HD then? You are the first one to mention it in the past few weeks I have been monitoring the forum. Is it harder to use? Does it require tray development (I don't have a darkroom and my only way to develop will be using a Uniroller + 8x10 print drums)? Is it very dangerous to handle? Can it be disposed down the drain or does it require special disposal procedure?
Feel free to ignore these questions if you think they are too entry-level -- I will try to find the answers myself on this forum or other internet sources.

Thanks,
Francesco

Ron Marshall

2-Sep-2008, 01:45

Steve Sherman

2-Sep-2008, 04:09

I think this -- being free to go and take pictures without having to worry too much about the perfect combination of film and chemicals -- is what the OP and I were both interested.
Being a newbie, I am probably missing 95% of the speculations and discussions here and I might ask questions that are not proper, but I guess my question to you, Steve, is what are the reasons why not many people use Pyrocad HD then? You are the first one to mention it in the past few weeks I have been monitoring the forum. Is it harder to use? Does it require tray development (I don't have a darkroom and my only way to develop will be using a Uniroller + 8x10 print drums)? Is it very dangerous to handle? Can it be disposed down the drain or does it require special disposal procedure?
Feel free to ignore these questions if you think they are too entry-level -- I will try to find the answers myself on this forum or other internet sources.

Thanks,
Francesco

There is rumor that Pyro is very toxic, it is in it's powered form. The dust can be very dangerous, I mix my Pyro from powder, I am very careful to wear a mask and gloves, once the chemical is in liquid state it is not nearly as dangerous. Most people wear gloves when their hands are exposed to wet developer. Pyro can be disposed of just as any other developer is disposed of, if you have a big concern about putting it down the drain then dilute the developer even more than to process film.

I remember some years ago buying $55.00 worth of chemicals to make Pyrocat HD. I remember thinking this is almost a 5 year supply, incredibly inexpensive for the results the developer is capable of. However, Pyrocat can be purchased in liquid form from Photographers Formulary in Montana.

The chemistry of the B&W process can be mysterious in nature, many photographers like to think they have found the "magic bullet". And now because of the forums many enjoy talking about them on the internet. I like to make photographs of a high caliber and that is my sole intention, if I can pass along some acquired experiences along the way then great, really not interested in knock down debates or constantly defending my beliefs.

Either way, as Brian said, one film and one developer, commit to it and make images.

I would be remised not to give credit to Sandy King, he is the author of Pyrocat HD. He has written and published numerous books on photography and process. He tirelessly tests films and developers so the rest of us are free to go and make photographs. So, out of the Adams and Sexton analogy, if it's good enough for Sandy King then it's good enough for me!

Hope this helps

Francesco Gallarotti

2-Sep-2008, 04:46

Either way, as Brian said, one film and one developer, commit to it and make images.

Hope this helps

Not sure if it does help me, but I thank you all for your replies. I have learned something new today... you ask 17 photographers what is their film / developer favorite combination and they will give you 17 different answers that will have only one thing in common: the words "this is the best combination you can possibly find"!!

Jokes aside, what I understand is that this means that all developers are good enough for a beginner. Just pick one and stick to it to remove one more variable from the equation.

Thanks all,

Francesco

Bruce Barlow

2-Sep-2008, 06:29

I might suggest "evolving" to pyro developers.

I tested PMK against HC-110 side-by-side for the kinds of photographs I make (a key variable), and didn't see enough difference in LF to put up with the toxicity and having to wear gloves. I decided that these were major inconveniences for me that didn't justify changing. And now i like Clayton F76 Plus better than HC-110.

Now, PMK with 35mm, THAT's worth the trouble, and I don't need gloves.

Good friends and fine photographers swear by Pyrocat. I'll belive them, but might suggest that as new to all this that you start with something a bit more convenient, and when it can't do something that others tell you that pyro developers can, at that point try a pyro concoction.

John Bowen

2-Sep-2008, 11:43

Mr. Barlow has given you some wise advice.

The only additional advice I might offer you is to look at photographs, find someone who photographs the same subject matter you expect to photograph, then find out what materials that photographer uses. Maybe that photographer offers a workshop or has written a book that disucsses their materials.

There are extensive discussions regarding Pyrocat HD on the Azo Forum

www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoforum

Folks tend to swith TO pyro....not FROM pyro (just my personal observation)

I used Tri-x and HC-110 in 35mm & 4x5 for decades (if it was good enough for Ansel..) but when I "graduated" to 8x10 and ULF, I discovered the Azo forum, TMY and Pyrocat HD

Bruce Barlow

2-Sep-2008, 12:58

Mr. Bowen's a smart guy.

He uses Pyrocat because he needs long-scale negatives to contact print ULF on Azo paper. A pretty specialized thing that he happens to excel at (I've seen the pictures). HC-110 wouldn't do what he needed.

His advice to find someone whose work you like and do what he/she does is dead-on.

Lenny Eiger

2-Sep-2008, 15:50

When I started my adventure into 4x5 my end goal was a large color print on the wall.

However, I find my tastes seem to be migrating toward black and white. In the last 50 years I have shot a total of 1 roll of 35mm black and white. So I have no idea whats what now.

What's missing here is what you want to accomplish. Just saying "black and white" doesn't describe it well enough. What type of black and white do you want to do. Some say that TMax is great. I can't stand it. However, for some things its terrific. For others it fails miserably. I think its irresponsible to give advice before one knows what the goal is....

Why not try this - I want to photograph in b&w and I like the printing style of "fill in some photographer here". (Best if you choose someone recognizable.) Then those of us who are experienced with film and developer combinations can answer correctly...

Lenny

Daniel_Buck

2-Sep-2008, 16:29

I have learned something new today... you ask 17 photographers what is their film / developer favorite combination and they will give you 17 different answers that will have only one thing in common: the words "this is the best combination you can possibly find"!!

Yup! if there really were one magic combo, everyone would probably be using it :)

I do agree with those who suggest that you stick with whatever combo you choose, at least for a while anyway. This was the advice my Uncle (my main source for info when starting out!) gave me when I was starting, and I'm glad I followed it! If you keep changing developers, film, and paper, you'll never really learn the (sometimes very subtle) differences between them, it'll be difficult to really understand and get used to one combo, and you may get stuck in the rut of "if I could only find a better paper, my photos would be better!" and end up changing paper/chemicals every other week. Making your results more random and less intentional/predictable :-)

Once you're familiar with one combo and know it's strengths/limitations, then that's probably the time to start researching another combo that gives you the strength that your current combo lacks.

That's the advice I was given, and It's proved to serve me well, I would suggest the same to anyone starting out!

Tim k

2-Sep-2008, 21:45

Lenny,
I don't know enough at this point, to have an opinion as to style. I just want to get my feet wet in "non color", and get some seat time, to see where the journey takes "me".

Bruce Barlow

3-Sep-2008, 04:09

Lenny,
I don't know enough at this point, to have an opinion as to style. I just want to get my feet wet in "non color", and get some seat time, to see where the journey takes "me".

Then use good film (too many horror stories about cheap film), and READILY AVAILABLE developer (it needs to be there when you need it), and make many photographs. When you feel like you've acquired a style that needs something else, go loooking.

I'd vote HP5 and D76 - D76 is made in various flavors by just about anybody - as presiously, Clayton is my version, but many others are available and, in a pinch, substitutable-enough. Ilford HP5 is a lovely film with the speed I think you want.

We've all spent enough time agonizing over this. Get photographing! Have fun!

Lenny Eiger

3-Sep-2008, 09:48

Lenny,
I don't know enough at this point, to have an opinion as to style. I just want to get my feet wet in "non color", and get some seat time, to see where the journey takes "me".

I'm not going to tell you to stop and not to photograph anything. But I would at least slow down for a little reading. I spent many years teaching. At one institution for adult ed, The New School in NYC, my classes required a portfolio review. I reviewed a lot of portfolios. I would see an image that looked like a Walker Evans, another that looked like a Robert Frank, another that looked like a Stieglitz. None of the portfolios reviewed exhibited a sense of the photographer's personal style, or even intent. I would ask the person whether they had read the History of Photography, by Beaumont Newhall. Invariably, they had not. Nor had they read any of the other fine Histories, nor had they looked at a lot of different historic photographers works. They were out there and were photographing, but they hadn't an idea of what they were doing.

A seasoned photographer ought to know exactly what they are doing, even if what they are doing is experimentation, or discovering something new they are doing. They ought to know who their primary influences are and why, and what genre of photography they live in. It's important to have a context, to know who you are. If you do, you can refine your message, get better at it, and be more concise and to the point - and maybe get your message across. If we're both lucky, the rest of us can actually learn something from what you have to say.

Lenny

Bruce Barlow

3-Sep-2008, 10:25

Ahm gonna quibble. Your personal style will only evolve after making many, many photographs. For now, find someone you like and learn how they do it. It's totally acceptable for your work to look like someone else's, as long as you feel you're learning. Copy several folks whose work moves you.

After a while (maybe years!) you'll evolve your own style based on your experience imitating someone else.

Remember that you can only be a photographer by making photographs. You can't think about them and be a photographer. You can't think about a style without experience and have that thinking be useful. You must work, and produce. If, for a while, you look like Ansel or Walker or Dorothea, or... then so be it. You know that you're learning, and you'll have faith that you'll get where you want to be. Lenny's right, but he's talking about "seasoned photographers." You aren't there yet, and that's fine. You have it to look forward to.

In the meantime, HP5 and D-76. Lots of both.

Lenny Eiger

3-Sep-2008, 10:58

Ahm gonna quibble.

In the meantime, HP5 and D-76. Lots of both.

No problem with quibbling. Here's how I see it, however. Photographing is a good thing - lotsa practice. However - we are not innocent. We have all been bombarded with imagery almost since the day we were born. Most of it has been bad, or at least not meaningful or useful in any way. It's like we have been eating junk food. I think it is essential for any photographer, especially a new one, to begin to fill themselves with "better food". If you look at enough great photographs - and gain a little understanding by discussing it with someone knowledgeable, taking a PhotoHistory class, or just reading a bit, two things can happen. You can discover what makes you want to photograph something and all of it will mix up inside and something new, that is essentially your own vision, will pop out. Without this, without better influences, you are relegated to repeating history, including the history of junk images that are your influence. One gets nowhere without a little understanding...

If there is one thing that characterizes the field of Photography today more than ever is the lack of knowledge in this area. It's a pet peeve of mine. I celebrate when I find someone that knows their own subject, understands the importance of a Walker Evans, Frederick Evans, O'Sullivan, Carleton Watkins, and many, many others. I find it quite distasteful when a person who calls themselves a photographer can only name one photographer: Ansel. Nothing against him at all, but there are a lot of others that defined the history of what we do as well.

I vote for Efke25 and D23 on the film, but that depends on what you want to do. I think HP5 has too much grain...

Lenny

Bruce Watson

3-Sep-2008, 11:48

Ahm gonna quibble. Your personal style will only evolve after making many, many photographs.

Yep.

There's a story told, I don't remember by whom, I don't even remember where I heard it, but it goes something like this:

A pottery teacher ran an experiment. He divided his class in half. Both had the same assignment -- make the one best pot you can for your final exam.

The first half of the class did the full teacher thing -- they talked about clay, the workflow from taking the clay out of the bag to taking it out of the kiln, they talked about the history of pottery, and they had lab time when they made some pots.

The second half of the class did nothing but make pots. All lab, all the time. The instructor would walk around answering questions and offering suggestions, but the students made lots and lots of pots.

At the end of the semester everybody brought their one best pot and the class judged itself. The people who made the best pots were overwhelmingly from the second half of the class.

The motto? Make lots of pots.

How does this apply to LF photography? Same way. Make lots of photographs. Resign yourself to the fact that your hit rate (keepers to total) will be low in the beginning. But as you master the craft, your hit rate will increase. And coincidentally, your own vision will become ever more visible in your work.

Why does this work? Because you need to master the craft of photography so you can forget it. The mechanics of the camera need to become automatic, second nature, whatever you want to call it. So you can put your full attention toward the art.

Works the same way as just about every worthwhile venture, from painting to coding software, to baking, to...

Now you can and almost certainly should study up as Mr. Eiger suggests. Take some time to learn the art and history, to see what's possible and find out where the bar really is. But I agree with Mr. Barlow (and therefore disagree somewhat with Mr. Eiger) that making more photographs should always be your first priority.

Lenny Eiger

3-Sep-2008, 12:30

At the end of the semester everybody brought their one best pot and the class judged itself. The people who made the best pots were overwhelmingly from the second half of the class.

The question here is based on what? If we are talking technical expertise, then maybe. Understanding is good, but practice at making pots or developing, for that matter is required. Art is quite another story. One has to have reasons for things - even if they come afterwards. I think this is a bad story. You apparently studied engineering. This may have nothing to do with your studies, but would you have people practice at making bridges - or look at different structural strategies, and examples of successful and not-so-successful bridges?

How does this apply to LF photography? Same way. Make lots of photographs. Resign yourself to the fact that your hit rate (keepers to total) will be low in the beginning. But as you master the craft, your hit rate will increase. And coincidentally, your own vision will become ever more visible in your work.

We are still talking about craft. And you are talking about collecting photographs. You are suggesting when they get something they think is successful they put it in their portfolio, on their web site, etc. You speak of the "hit rate" - this is not an artistic notion. Art is not about collecting. Ultimately, it is about what wisdom you have to share with the rest of us. Context is more important than craft. It takes many years to refine one's vision (and yes, one has to photograph to do it). However, simply put, there is no Art without History. Whether one extends it or rails against it. One has to understand why the great photographs are great - and it isn't because the photographer ever took a million shots just to get that one. Otherwise we could all just get motor-winders. That's not it.

Years ago, in Peru, I took a photograph that I thought was superb. Truth is, Robert Frank would have loved it - it really was superb. But it wasn't a Lenny Eiger, and it hit the trash. How does one make those distinctions when its time without understanding? I can go out with a camera, make 19 or 20 out of 20 perfect exposures in a day with my 8x10, all really good compositions. What makes one of these, if any, great, or worthy of being in the portfolio? Craft is only a beginning. Its an important base for me, but only a base from which other elements are discussed.

I taught for many years at the college level in great schools. I still teach workshops here and there. I have helped a lot of students progress in their photography, by identifying what they were attempting to do in their photograph and discussing how they can do it better. That's how you learn and grow, by using your mind. I spent a lot of my youth in Puerto Rico. They have a saying there, roughly translated - even the blind chicken gets some feed. (As they peck away at the ground.) While it may be true, it isn't a very efficient way of proceeding.

Lenny

Bruce Watson

3-Sep-2008, 14:39

I think this is a bad story.

I surmised as much. I don't mind; I still think it's a good and instructive story.

You apparently studied engineering. This may have nothing to do with your studies, but would you have people practice at making bridges - or look at different structural strategies, and examples of successful and not-so-successful bridges?

Oh, absolutely! We started out making model bridges from soda straws and tongue depressors. Stand on them and fall through. Examine the remains, figure out what happened, correct for it and try again. All this long before the first structures class.

The people who design car and rail bridges all have a huge amount of experience before they make it to lead engineer. And you wouldn't have it any other way if you care about your safety.

We are still talking about craft. And you are talking about collecting photographs.

Say what? You're the one talking about collecting. I didn't use that word or invoke the concept. At least not intentionally. But heck, if I could write well I wouldn't need photography so much.

You are suggesting when they get something they think is successful they put it in their portfolio, on their web site, etc. You speak of the "hit rate" - this is not an artistic notion.

Sure it is. If the person you are trying to satisfy is yourself, and you succeed, then there's no reason not to put it in your portfolio. A portfolio isn't a juried exhibit after all. It's more like an artists journal.

Art is not about collecting. Ultimately, it is about what wisdom you have to share with the rest of us.

That's a definition. It's not the only definition. Another way to look at making art is that it's a way to explore what the artist sees as important and what wisdom the artist can explain to him/herself. And there's as many ways to look at art as there are people looking at it and making it.

I think you put too big a cap on it to say that art is only about showing it to others. If it doesn't speak to the artist first, what other see in it is random chance.

Context is more important than craft.

Context doesn't exist without craft.

It takes many years to refine one's vision (and yes, one has to photograph to do it). However, simply put, there is no Art without History.

Then how do you explain the first art? What was the history before the cave paintings at Lascaux?

There's no art without inspiration. And it's difficult to capture the inspiration without craft.

Whether one extends it or rails against it. One has to understand why the great photographs are great - and it isn't because the photographer ever took a million shots just to get that one. Otherwise we could all just get motor-winders. That's not it.

I don't agree. It's nice to know this, and it certainly, absolutely helps. But it isn't a requirement. It can't be. If it's a requirement then photography is never developed because Fox Talbot (or whomever you want to argue made the first great photograph) can't make a great photograph because he doesn't understand the other great photographs because they don't exist. Yet.

Years ago, in Peru, I took a photograph that I thought was superb. Truth is, Robert Frank would have loved it - it really was superb. But it wasn't a Lenny Eiger, and it hit the trash. How does one make those distinctions when its time without understanding?

You do it by understanding yourself. You don't have to understand Robert Frank, or even to have heard of him. You can't know every artist, even worse know all their works. So how do you make a choice in the face of incomplete knowledge (and everyone's knowledge is incomplete in a host of ways, which is part of the human condition we all have to live with)? Know thyself.

I can go out with a camera, make 19 or 20 out of 20 perfect exposures in a day with my 8x10, all really good compositions. What makes one of these, if any, great, or worthy of being in the portfolio? Craft is only a beginning. Its an important base for me, but only a base from which other elements are discussed.

What makes it great for you is that you think it's great and it does what you want it to do. What makes it great to other people is much more difficult to gage. Most people can't explain it. Hell, most art curators can't explain it very well either. There's no reason not to try to explain it, but there no reason not to do it even if you can't explain it either.

I taught for many years at the college level in great schools. I still teach workshops here and there. I have helped a lot of students progress in their photography, by identifying what they were attempting to do in their photograph and discussing how they can do it better. That's how you learn and grow, by using your mind.

Yes! We agree on this!

What we don't agree on his how one best goes about learning and growing and using one's mind. And there are lots of methods besides our two favorites also.

Some people, indeed probably many people, will do great in your classes. They'll learn a lot and improve.

But some will not. Some learn by doing. I'm one of those. I'm a disappointment to teachers like you. But what can I say? It's not like I got a choice in how my brain is wired, weird as it may be to everyone else.

I spent a lot of my youth in Puerto Rico. They have a saying there, roughly translated - even the blind chicken gets some feed. (As they peck away at the ground.) While it may be true, it isn't a very efficient way of proceeding.

Around her we say: "even a blind sow finds an acorn every once in awhile." It might not look efficient to you. But you aren't the one doing it either. The sow might be blind, but she might also have a heightened sense of smell. She might not be as inefficient as you think. She might be working differently is all.

I also like the Tolkien quote that includes "...not all who wander are lost."

I'm not saying you are wrong Mr. Eiger. But I'm also not saying you are right. Because each of us learns in our own ways, and people have to find the ways that work best for them. IOW, YMMV.

To the people who made it this far, I apologize for being loquacious. But it's an interesting subject. And Mr. Eiger, thanks for the discussion. It's nice to have to think about these things on occasion.

Bruce Barlow

3-Sep-2008, 15:19

Yep.

There's a story told, I don't remember by whom, I don't even remember where I heard it, but it goes something like this:

A pottery teacher ran an experiment. He divided his class in half. Both had the same assignment -- make the one best pot you can for your final exam.

The first half of the class did the full teacher thing -- they talked about clay, the workflow from taking the clay out of the bag to taking it out of the kiln, they talked about the history of pottery, and they had lab time when they made some pots.

The second half of the class did nothing but make pots. All lab, all the time. The instructor would walk around answering questions and offering suggestions, but the students made lots and lots of pots.

At the end of the semester everybody brought their one best pot and the class judged itself. The people who made the best pots were overwhelmingly from the second half of the class.

The motto? Make lots of pots.
.

I'm pretty sure that I read that story in "Art and Fear" by Ted Orland and David Bayles, a Must Read book for any photographer.

As the story goes, half the class would be graded by weight of all their pots, and the other half by quality. At the end, the folks who made the most weight also made the best pots. Those who were graded on quality were less successful. Great book.

Thank you, Mr. Watson. I, too, gently disagree with Mr. Eiger.

Just finished watching "West Wing," and in one episode Leo McGarry, former campaign manager just named the Veep candidate, is told "just cause you've trained a thoroughbred don't mean ya know how to sit a horse." Study is useful, but a photographer makes photographs, and to make them in the wake of someone you admire is a fine way to start. You won't become a photographer by studying, and if studying takes time away from making photographs, then I'd study less, for now. Creative muscles will take you in a unique direction soon enough.

In deference to Mr. Eiger, the search for someone to imitate should be substantial and careful. Libraries are great places to look at books of photographs by folks you won't find at Borders.

In reasonably sized enlargements, Ilford's grain will be unnoticeable. And D-76 is readily available just about anywhere, and easily substitutable in a pinch.

Ken Lee

3-Sep-2008, 20:02

"...look at photographs, find someone who photographs the same subject matter you expect to photograph, then find out what materials that photographer uses." -- John Bowen

Amen.

Steve Sherman

3-Sep-2008, 20:32

Agree with Bruce's

Pyro can wait, find a combination and go make photographs

Michael Lloyd

12-Sep-2009, 07:01

:cool: Whew... what a thread!

I'm one of those people that accumulates knowledge, tries to separate the wheat from the chaff, walks around the subject 100 times so I can discern every detail, studies some more, and then... hesitantly... I tackle whatever new thing it is that I'm trying to do and I tackle it with zeal :) So- for a LF newb that hasn't even put film in a loader yet... this has been a topic that really intrigues me.

For now I am taking away (landscape is what I am focusing on for LF)-

(1) HP5+ in Clayton F76+
(2) Stick with one film/developer that you like (I know me well enough to know that I'll be trying other things but for now, (1) will do)
(3) The bag of D-76 that I have gets to play first. Mostly because I already have it

I missed (because the question wasn't answered)-

(1) Pyrocat HD- is this something that can be used in a Jobo or Jobo-ish processor or is this tray and darkroom stuff? "Glowing prints" and the effects on the negative that were described is intriguing. To be honest- I seriously doubt that I will ever move to 100% film and own a true dark room so Pyrocat-HD may be out of reach for me (kind of sad. I always wanted a darkroom). Just curious

John Kasaian

12-Sep-2009, 07:37

Jim Fitzgerald

12-Sep-2009, 08:37

Michael Lloyd,
A B&W dark room can be as unpretentious as a bathroom with a piece of cardboard covering the window...so what's your excuse again?:rolleyes: Film/developer combinations have different attributes and that is something to explore, but your bag of D-76 is a perfect place to start if you want to soup a good conventional emulsion like FP-4+ or Tri-X.
Have fun! :)

John, I agree with you about the bathroom thing. I use the bathroom in my one bedroom apartment to develop 8x10,11x14 and 8x20 negatives. Let alone the huge trays I need for my 8x20 carbon prints ( 14x32 trays).
Like everyone says stick with a film/developer combo and get to know it. For me I just decided to start with Pyrocat-HD and Efke-25.

Jim

ki6mf

12-Sep-2009, 11:22

I shoot HP5 from Ilford and use D 76 diluted 1 part developer to 2 parts water. My film speed test indicated ISO of 300, yours may be different! My standard development time is 14 minutes this eliminates streaking and allows for 2 minutes per zone/stop when compensating for highlight developing times. There are other threads in this forum on doing a film speed test. For compensation developer I use D 76 diluted 1 to 4 and do agitation every 2 minutes with normal development time of 15 minutes. D 76 is tried and true and is easy to mix if Kodak drops production. D 76 is also available from other manufacturers.

redrockcoulee

12-Sep-2009, 20:53

Shooting one film in one developer is good advise but there should be a caution given with it. To me it is pointless to keep trying to perfect your technique with a film/developer combination if it is unlikely to acheive the results you wish. The advise of looking at other photographers is a good one, decide if you like the grainy gritty look or the sharp as a tack with little grain and THEN decide on the film developer combination and learn them well. When I first started out in a college course we shot Tri-X and Plus-X and used Microdol-X. Still do not like Tri-X but my buddy thinks there are only two kinds of films, Tri-X and what you use if and only if Tri-X is not available.

Currently use both HC110 and Rodinal and in the process of once again deciding on my standard film. In my case I was away from B&W for a decade and the last few years have mainly been shooting whatever was given to me. Tech Pan. TMAX, Tri-X etc.

To piggyback on the discussion on pyro I am safe to assume that for my 35mm MF and 4X5 film I can continue to use HC110 etc but for the 5X7 and Whole Plate which will be primarily used for contact printing (was given some AZO paper) and photograuvre I should develop in a pyro developer? Currently have FP4 in both these formats. I have thought of doing so but in the interest of standardization it sounds like my 4X5 and MF go together and the larger two formats together.