Visiting (maybe again) developers for B&W film

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

44 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Huh? What do you mean 'straight from the post'?

Straight from the post/thread #25 where there were two images recently processed. It was stated "un-edited".

I'm past discussing this anyway, I felt the images were fine, you didn't, and now we are being told we don't know what a good B&W image looks like.

I appreciate your concern for everyone else, but you're wasting your time on me, however thanks for the concern. I'll leave you to lecture anyone else who is interested, I'm done.

[giannis]

17 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

I also would like to ask the effect of agitation on the results as some developers ie Rodinal has a different agitation regime.

So to my understanding, a higher diluted developers (1:100) creates lower contrast images compares to a lower diluted developers (1:25)

The longer the development time, the contrasty the image.

 

However there is also a talk about how much agitation should be applied especially around Rodinal (less solvent hence doesn't dissolve silvers).I understand highlights have more silver and shadows have less silver. What happens if you agitate more or less to the negative

Increased agitation means increased contrast with virtually every developer (apart from Diafine and its ilk). The mechanism of action is simple: developers exhausts faster where it has to develop more silver, i.e. the highlights. With reduced agitation, developer becomes weaker in the highlights and slows down or stops development there. With increased agitation, you keep constatly bringing fresh, string developer in contact with the highlights and they keep developing, increasing contrast.

Highly diluted developers don't mean lower contrast per se. But they mean longer developing times, which if combined with reduced (or greatly reduced) agitation, they lower contrast, This is amplified by the fact that there's less developer in the tank in total, so with reduced agitation it exhausts locally even more.

If you want to dip your tows in reduced agitation techniques, check if there's a dilution that gives ~15-20min of development, agitate slowly for the first 30seconds, and then invert twice every 3minutes. Also extend development time by 10%. You'll probably like the results.

3 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

if I follow standard Ilford regime, 4 turn in the first 10 sec and repeat at each minute, would it be a good regime for overall other developers?

 

Yes it's a good standard agitation regime, and will work fine with most developers and films.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fatihayoglu]

7 hours ago, Ornello said:

Again, you don't know what a good B&W image looks like.

Yes I don’t, could you please post couple of your unedited photos so I can understand what a good B&W image looks like. I am quite sure you have enough material at your disposal to enlighten me.

Edited April 13, 2020 by fatihayoglu

[fatihayoglu]

6 hours ago, giannis said:

Increased agitation means increased contrast with virtually every developer (apart from Diafine and its ilk). The mechanism of action is simple: developers exhausts faster where it has to develop more silver, i.e. the highlights. With reduced agitation, developer becomes weaker in the highlights and slows down or stops development there. With increased agitation, you keep constatly bringing fresh, string developer in contact with the highlights and they keep developing, increasing contrast.

Highly diluted developers don't mean lower contrast per se. But they mean longer developing times, which if combined with reduced (or greatly reduced) agitation, they lower contrast, This is amplified by the fact that there's less developer in the tank in total, so with reduced agitation it exhausts locally even more.

If you want to dip your tows in reduced agitation techniques, check if there's a dilution that gives ~15-20min of development, agitate slowly for the first 30seconds, and then invert twice every 3minutes. Also extend development time by 10%. You'll probably like the results.

Yes it's a good standard agitation regime, and will work fine with most developers and films.

Thank you very much. I’ll stick Ilford regime at the time being as some other people said before, I’ll change only 1 parameter to see the effect. So I’ll do Ilford regime for a roll with Rodinal and then a twice frequent version ie agitation (inverting 4 times gently) at each 30 mark to see the effect. Based on my research I won’t get bromide drag or surge with either method but hey you learn from your mistakes right  At least I know what works

[Pyrogallol]

We are all viewing this forum on a computer screen of some type, so we are not able to debate what a good black & white image looks like.

You have to have a print in front of your eyes to be able to talk about print quality, we can only discuss the composition and general light and shade/contrast of the image as it appears on our screen.

The two pictures in #25 look fine to me, like the portrait. An indoor portrait is likely to have areas of dark shadows and bright highlights. There is detail in the skin tones and just the bright highlight in the white plastic of the cup lid.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[Stealth3kpl]

12 hours ago, Ornello said:

Again, you don't know what a good B&W image looks like.

Do you think you could try to make your posts sound less confrontational?

Why not say " That's not a bad first effort but I think you might be able to bring out a wider tonal variation using this technique to achieve results such as these".

See the difference?

Pete

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, Stealth3kpl said:

Do you think you could try to make your posts sound less confrontational?

Why not say " That's not a bad first effort but I think you might be able to bring out a wider tonal variation using this technique to achieve results such as these".

See the difference?

Pete

+1 A very judicious suggestion!

At a time when we are all feeling under a lot of stress, it's especially important to take great care when giving well-intended criticism.

[Ornello]

7 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

Do you think you could try to make your posts sound less confrontational?

Why not say " That's not a bad first effort but I think you might be able to bring out a wider tonal variation using this technique to achieve results such as these".

See the difference?

Pete

The lack of good exemplars is crucial here. Today, very few people have seen first-class B&W work of any kind first-hand. So, indeed, most people on a forum do not know what a good B&W print looks like.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Ornello

[giannis]

19 minutes ago, Ornello said:

The lack of good exemplars is crucial here. Today, very few people have seen first-class B&W work of any kind first-hand. So, indeed, most people on a forum do not know what a good B&W print looks like.

Instead of contributing to the problem, why not help solve it by posting some good exemplars of yours?

Let me start.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bags27]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

The lack of good exemplars is crucial here. Today, very few people have seen first-class B&W work of any kind first-hand. So, indeed, most people on a forum do not know what a good B&W print looks like.

Really? Let's see some of yours posted here:

 

[fatihayoglu]

Well, just for the sake of improving my knowledge, I have checked a lot of B&W pictures from masters like HCB, Koudelka, Capa etc. I choose these artists as their style ie shooting out on the street whether a portrait or documentary is similar what I do or trying to do

 

I can see many blown out highlights or really dark shadows. I even can see blurry photos or bad developments like. Capa’s. So sorry but, there isn’t such a thing called good or bad B&W. The story and composition is nearly everything. A good one will be hugely different for Adams or Bresson, so it is really important who or what is your benchmark. More importantly, having full tonality etc doesn’t make a photo good or bad. Now you changed to print and again that is a whole different subject.
 

Giving the fact that you still can’t produce an exemplary image to contribute, sorry my friend but you’re nothing but a troll.

Edited April 13, 2020 by fatihayoglu

[Stealth3kpl]

16 hours ago, Ornello said:

The lack of good exemplars is crucial here. Today, very few people have seen first-class B&W work of any kind first-hand. So, indeed, most people on a forum do not know what a good B&W print looks like.

I'm commenting on your delivery rather than the substance of your comments.

Pete

[Ornello]

23 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

Well, just for the sake of improving my knowledge, I have checked a lot of B&W pictures from masters like HCB, Koudelka, Capa etc. I choose these artists as their style ie shooting out on the street whether a portrait or documentary is similar what I do or trying to do

 

I can see many blown out highlights or really dark shadows. I even can see blurry photos or bad developments like. Capa’s. So sorry but, there isn’t such a thing called good or bad B&W. The story and composition is nearly everything. A good one will be hugely different for Adams or Bresson, so it is really important who or what is your benchmark. More importantly, having full tonality etc doesn’t make a photo good or bad. Now you changed to print and again that is a whole different subject.
 

Giving the fact that you still can’t produce an exemplary image to contribute, sorry my friend but you’re nothing but a troll.

 

 

Soon!

 

The fact is that it's entirely possible to shoot spontaneous work and still have high quality.

[Pyrogallol]

I don’t think the “masters” mentioned did their own printing, so the quality is down to their professional darkroom assistants. Apart from Ansel  Adams of course.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Am 15.4.2020 um 02:43 schrieb Pyrogallol:

I don’t think the “masters” mentioned did their own printing, so the quality is down to their professional darkroom assistants. Apart from Ansel  Adams of course.

Some did some didn't, many not in the later time of their lives. W. Eugene Smith, a Life photographer would only use the darkroom at night, cause he was out with his camera during the day. If he had a job to finish he would go in and work all night and into the next day, until it was done, also that generally meant a bottle of whiskey too. I knew someone who was his assistant, which meant finding negatives for him to print, he said it was the most maddening and informative job he ever had, lasted 6 months. Classic b&w documentary work, well worth looking at, he used Contax rangefinders. 

[Ornello]

On 4/15/2020 at 2:43 AM, Pyrogallol said:

I don’t think the “masters” mentioned did their own printing, so the quality is down to their professional darkroom assistants. Apart from Ansel  Adams of course.

Many of the so-called 'masters' had limited darkroom technical skills, or were not in a position for their work to be accurately controlled.

[fatihayoglu]

FYI, HCB used to process all his work for about 15-20 years if I remember correctly, meaning I’m quite sure he has enough technical skills.

and again, printing is not important for the purpose of my endeavour. I don’t print and not planning to print my photos for anytime soon.
 

However all the books I have acquired over the years from “so called” masters have crashed shadows or blown out highlights. These books are printed in the last 15 years or so meaning technically and digitally edited to a degree yet you see ‘imperfections’ though not competing to myself.

again, I prefer to work for the best possible picture within my limits rather than best possible negative and yet again people might have different views.

 

 

[giannis]

2 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

However all the books I have acquired over the years from “so called” masters have crashed shadows or blown out highlights.

Of course. It's an artistic visual medium, it's all about intent. And the intent was to cause emotions, make you see the world through the photographer's eye, etc. That many times means crushing shadows and blowing highlights to draw your attention where the photographer wants, as well as create a specific aesthetic. You can see that even more prominently in the work of Moriyama or even more so in Antoine d'Agata. 

A good photo is not one that captures the widest dynamic range - sometimes a wide DR is counterproductive to a photo's impact. A good photo is one that successfully communicates the photographer's intent and is visually appealing.

[Ornello]

On 4/19/2020 at 2:34 PM, giannis said:

Of course. It's an artistic visual medium, it's all about intent. And the intent was to cause emotions, make you see the world through the photographer's eye, etc. That many times means crushing shadows and blowing highlights to draw your attention where the photographer wants, as well as create a specific aesthetic. You can see that even more prominently in the work of Moriyama or even more so in Antoine d'Agata. 

A good photo is not one that captures the widest dynamic range - sometimes a wide DR is counterproductive to a photo's impact. A good photo is one that successfully communicates the photographer's intent and is visually appealing.

Nonetheless, one should learn how to make perfect prints easily, and it can be done easily. One must learn to play one's instrument flawlessly before setting it on fire. Think Hendrix.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giannis]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

Nonetheless, one should learn how to make perfect prints easily, and it can be done easily. One must learn to play one's instrument flawlessly before setting it on fire. Think Hendrix.

 

This one for sure. It's all about intent. You have to know how to work your medium, to arrive to a result with intent and not accidentally.