Film type or development: which makes the greater difference?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Getting back into film with large format and 35mm, I have explored a number of film stocks, intending to settle on just a few: I've tried FP4 and Tri-X in sheets. In 35mm I have rolls to try of FP4, Tri-X, HP5, Delta 400 & TMax 400.

In B&W, from what I've read, I expect to see a difference between the traditional and the T grain films, but would I expect to see much difference between, say, Delta and Tmax, or HP5 & Tri-X? Am I over-thinking this? Are any differences between similar film types swamped by the potential changes in outcome from using different developers and development protocols? Would I not be better off just buying the cheaper film stock, and spending more time exploring different ways of developing?

[frame-it]

29 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Would I not be better off just buying the cheaper film stock, and spending more time exploring different ways of developing?

yes

[andybarton]

Comparing similar technology films is likely to lead to madness - I bet that you won't be able to tell much between them. Comparing different technology films, will just show up the differences between the technologies. (Constant developing being assumed).

If I were to go back to film, I would keep the film AND the developing consistent, once I had got back in the groove of doing it again. If you mess around with both film and developer / developing techniques, the combinations are almost limitless and it's likely to "Do your head in", as the yoof of today say.

 

Keep it simple, is my advice. Find a combo you like, or perhaps several just for a variety of film speeds, and stick with it.

[Ouroboros]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Getting back into film with large format and 35mm, I have explored a number of film stocks, intending to settle on just a few: I've tried FP4 and Tri-X in sheets. In 35mm I have rolls to try of FP4, Tri-X, HP5, Delta 400 & TMax 400.

In B&W, from what I've read, I expect to see a difference between the traditional and the T grain films, but would I expect to see much difference between, say, Delta and Tmax, or HP5 & Tri-X? Am I over-thinking this? Are any differences between similar film types swamped by the potential changes in outcome from using different developers and development protocols? Would I not be better off just buying the cheaper film stock, and spending more time exploring different ways of developing?

Be methodical and be prepared to spend time and money on film & dev combinations.  Since you've already used it, I would suggest you take 5x4 and FP4+ with a standard developer such as ID11 as your benchmark at this stage.  Forget trying to dive straight in with numerous films and developers expecting to be amazed at 5x4" quality across the board,  this is about understanding your choices.  

Just go out and use your FP4+ and ID11, make some images until you get a feel for what outcomes you can expect with various scenes and light conditions and don't forget you'll need to introduce filters into the mix.  Printing your work, either inkjet or wet printing, is an important part of gaining experience with your film & dev choices.  You'll be better prepared to judge other film & dev combinations later if you persevere with an uncluttered regime at the understanding stage.

Next, I'd keep within a similar speed range with Delta 100 so that you can compare the results with FP4+, using both ID11 and an alternative developer such as DDX.  It's much easier and quicker to make almost simultaneous combination comparisons  with the 5x4" process than it is with 35mm.

You could then go on to repeat the process with HP5 and Delta 400, Tri-X and TMax 400 and so on.  You can take short cuts by reading the opinions of others on comparisons and what might be their recommendations but I think this can also be a handicap.  The benefit of doing it yourself is that you are building your own personal experience and practical understanding rather than trying to make hypothetical judgements.  Clear your mind. 

Personally, I would keep to films and developers from the same manufacturer in the early stages rather than adopting a mix and match approach whilst you're getting to grips with predictability. 

When you've discovered your favourite combinations,  you'll understand why they are and that's the point where you can expand your experience with confidence to try other emulsions and the myriad of processing options out there. 

I hope this does not come across as patronising, it isn't intended to be.  The thing I enjoy most about this forum is following 'I Like Film' and watching the progress of contributors who are new to film photography or getting back into it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

16 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I hope this does not come across as patronising, it isn't intended to be. 

Not at all. Thank you for your clear advice.

I am already committed to HC110 for the moment - I have a bottle that will take a while to work through!

[Ouroboros]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

Not at all. Thank you for your clear advice.

I am already committed to HC110 for the moment - I have a bottle that will take a while to work through!

You'll have gone well beyond the comparisons stage before you finish it! 

 

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Use the KISS methodology (Keep It Simple Stupid), and only change one variable at a time, whether that is developer type, developer time, agitation, dilution, temperature. Do that same process for each film type. Keep a detailed spreadsheet to compare the results. And after about 50-60 years you may either reach a conclusion or be driven to madness.😁

[Ornello]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Getting back into film with large format and 35mm, I have explored a number of film stocks, intending to settle on just a few: I've tried FP4 and Tri-X in sheets. In 35mm I have rolls to try of FP4, Tri-X, HP5, Delta 400 & TMax 400.

In B&W, from what I've read, I expect to see a difference between the traditional and the T grain films, but would I expect to see much difference between, say, Delta and Tmax, or HP5 & Tri-X? Am I over-thinking this? Are any differences between similar film types swamped by the potential changes in outcome from using different developers and development protocols? Would I not be better off just buying the cheaper film stock, and spending more time exploring different ways of developing?

If you use a wide variety of films, you may need a couple of developers. Solvent-type powder developers such as Microphen, D-76/ID-11, Perceptol, etc. are best for fast films (HP5, Tri-X, etc.) where fine grain is important. Acutance-type developers (FX-39, Beutler, Neofin, etc.) are best for slow films such as Pan-F. Slow films benefit from the compensating action of dilute developers (such as HC-110 highly diluted).

If you have to use just one developer, I would suggest using D-76/ID-11 straight for the fast films, and diluted 1:1 for slower films.

[chrism]

If you have chosen HC-110, you'll find it a very versatile and useful developer. General rule of thumb with it: the weaker dilutions with longer developing times are both easier for someone who may be rusty at changing solutions in a hurry, and also more forgiving about imprecise timing. Bit less grain and contrast too, but you can do something about that in post if desired.

I strongly agree with people saying stick to a film - maybe a slow film and a fast one - and get to know it well before experimenting. I haven't been excited by the T-grain films, but I know some people love them. I think buying cheaper film is fine up to a point - it gets you more film to practice with and get back all your old skills - but I'd keep away from the really cheap stuff until you want to experiment. A lot of eastern European films have rather soft emulsions, some use a PET base, and some have, hmm, a bit less quality control than others. I think Ilford a better buy than Kodak, but that's just me.

Forgive yourself the inevitable errors (even I occasionally pour in the fixer first sometimes!), and enjoy the triumphs. Most of all, have fun!

[Ornello]

22 hours ago, chrism said:

If you have chosen HC-110, you'll find it a very versatile and useful developer. General rule of thumb with it: the weaker dilutions with longer developing times are both easier for someone who may be rusty at changing solutions in a hurry, and also more forgiving about imprecise timing. Bit less grain and contrast too, but you can do something about that in post if desired.

I strongly agree with people saying stick to a film - maybe a slow film and a fast one - and get to know it well before experimenting. I haven't been excited by the T-grain films, but I know some people love them. I think buying cheaper film is fine up to a point - it gets you more film to practice with and get back all your old skills - but I'd keep away from the really cheap stuff until you want to experiment. A lot of eastern European films have rather soft emulsions, some use a PET base, and some have, hmm, a bit less quality control than others. I think Ilford a better buy than Kodak, but that's just me.

Forgive yourself the inevitable errors (even I occasionally pour in the fixer first sometimes!), and enjoy the triumphs. Most of all, have fun!

It would probably be best to start with HP5 and FP4. Don't try Pan F yet, it requires very delicate development, much less than the others.

Again, D76/ID-11 is the standard for grain and speed. You cannot go wrong with it. Learn how to use these materials, and watch your time carefully! It's probably better to use 1:1, as it gives longer times and thus more margin for error.

 

 

 

[adan]

My take, and my odyssey:

1) On the title question, I usually find the film stock to be more important than the developer, except perhaps at the extremes of developer methods (staining, two-bath, caffeinol, "stand"). Which I avoid. I had a chemistry set to play with at age 6, but these days that is no longer entertaining.

And certainly with color films - where the process is always C-41 or E6 - period. Just no real room for variation there, due to the time/temps being based on "penetration times" through the various color layers. Otherwise one ends up with color-crossover problems (e.g. greenish highlights, reddish shadows - no global correction can repair both).

But see (5, 6, 7)

2) I find the Ilford Delta films to be "in between" the Kodak TMax films of the same speed, and the cubic-grain (Tri-X/HP5/FP4) films of the same speed. I.E. the Deltas do not have quite the fine grain of TMax, but also have slightly less "rigid" tonality and processing needs. It is subtle, but visible, to me.

3) With Leica 35mm film pre-2006 (Pan F) I used Ilford DDX. Simply because Ilford did a better job of providing data on the combination of their own products. I chose Pan F as the film because it scanned better than any other film (less grain aliasing), and the low speed allowed more exposure variety with an M body limited to 1/1000th sec.

4) Nevertheless, I use the TMax films in 120 for a non-imaging reason. They still have a "retouching coating" on the back of the plastic base. And while I don't need that for retouching, it does reduce the film curl significantly by applying tension to counteract the emulsion tension once dried, and makes the 120 film easier to click into a film holder. May or may not apply with the thicker bases of 35mm or 4x5. I've standardized on TMax 400 as "effectively as grainless/sharp" as PanF/FP4.

5) When I returned to film in 120 format, I chose one-shot HC-110 because it is so relatively inefficient to tank-process 120 film (1 roll of 120 requires ~twice the depth of developer as 1 roll of 135-36). I was using 1960s-70s Hasselblad C T* lenses.

6) However, once I also switched to relatively contrasty 1990s Mamiya-Sekor-G lenses (on Mamiya 6) ~3 years ago, I found that HC-110 with TMax400 were producing thin shadows - had to shoot it at ISO 200, which tended to clog the highlights even with significantly-reduced dev. times. Those lenses require more compensating-type-development to hold deep shadows and keep highlights under control in hard sunlight (the norm in Colorado).

I experimented with many developers (TMax, DDX, Rodinal, HC110, D-76) over those three years. DDX solved the shadow-density problem, but at 1:5 dilution compared to 1:32 for HC110, was very inefficient for 120.

7) I've now switched to D-76 1:1, as almost as efficient as HC110, but with better "full-ISO" capability (more shadow density, everything else being equal). But more efficient (and easier to find) than DDX.

Alternatively, I could have switched back to a Hassy and gentle C lenses - but my back would have complained: 885g for a 50mm Distagon T* vs. 335g for the sharper Mamiya-G, and 710g for a Zeiss Sonnar 150mm f/4 vs. 410g for the sharper Mamiya-G 150 f/4.5  - UGHH!

[Ornello]

10 hours ago, adan said:

My take, and my odyssey:

1) On the title question, I usually find the film stock to be more important than the developer, except perhaps at the extremes of developer methods (staining, two-bath, caffeinol, "stand"). Which I avoid. I had a chemistry set to play with at age 6, but these days that is no longer entertaining.

And certainly with color films - where the process is always C-41 or E6 - period. Just no real room for variation there, due to the time/temps being based on "penetration times" through the various color layers. Otherwise one ends up with color-crossover problems (e.g. greenish highlights, reddish shadows - no global correction can repair both).

But see (5, 6, 7)

2) I find the Ilford Delta films to be "in between" the Kodak TMax films of the same speed, and the cubic-grain (Tri-X/HP5/FP4) films of the same speed. I.E. the Deltas do not have quite the fine grain of TMax, but also have slightly less "rigid" tonality and processing needs. It is subtle, but visible, to me.

3) With Leica 35mm film pre-2006 (Pan F) I used Ilford DDX. Simply because Ilford did a better job of providing data on the combination of their own products. I chose Pan F as the film because it scanned better than any other film (less grain aliasing), and the low speed allowed more exposure variety with an M body limited to 1/1000th sec.

4) Nevertheless, I use the TMax films in 120 for a non-imaging reason. They still have a "retouching coating" on the back of the plastic base. And while I don't need that for retouching, it does reduce the film curl significantly by applying tension to counteract the emulsion tension once dried, and makes the 120 film easier to click into a film holder. May or may not apply with the thicker bases of 35mm or 4x5. I've standardized on TMax 400 as "effectively as grainless/sharp" as PanF/FP4.

5) When I returned to film in 120 format, I chose one-shot HC-110 because it is so relatively inefficient to tank-process 120 film (1 roll of 120 requires ~twice the depth of developer as 1 roll of 135-36). I was using 1960s-70s Hasselblad C T* lenses.

6) However, once I also switched to relatively contrasty 1990s Mamiya-Sekor-G lenses (on Mamiya 6) ~3 years ago, I found that HC-110 with TMax400 were producing thin shadows - had to shoot it at ISO 200, which tended to clog the highlights even with significantly-reduced dev. times. Those lenses require more compensating-type-development to hold deep shadows and keep highlights under control in hard sunlight (the norm in Colorado).

I experimented with many developers (TMax, DDX, Rodinal, HC110, D-76) over those three years. DDX solved the shadow-density problem, but at 1:5 dilution compared to 1:32 for HC110, was very inefficient for 120.

7) I've now switched to D-76 1:1, as almost as efficient as HC110, but with better "full-ISO" capability (more shadow density, everything else being equal). But more efficient (and easier to find) than DDX.

Alternatively, I could have switched back to a Hassy and gentle C lenses - but my back would have complained: 885g for a 50mm Distagon T* vs. 335g for the sharper Mamiya-G, and 710g for a Zeiss Sonnar 150mm f/4 vs. 410g for the sharper Mamiya-G 150 f/4.5  - UGHH!

Thus, my recommendations....see above!

[LocalHero1953]

Again, thank you to all those who have been generous with their advice! I clearly have quite a bit of work to do.

For the moment I have some rolls of TMax 400, Delta 400 and HP5 to use and compare with Tri-X; all will be developed with HC110. Once the results are in, I shall pick one of these for the medium term, and see how different development protocols change its performance.

I will use colour only with large format (alonside B&W). I'm waiting for 20 sheets of Provia 100F to come back from the processor; transparency would be convenient for evaluation and scanning, but my preferred alternative, Portra 400, is probably a bit more tolerant of my inexperienced metering.

[Ornello]

41 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Again, thank you to all those who have been generous with their advice! I clearly have quite a bit of work to do.

For the moment I have some rolls of TMax 400, Delta 400 and HP5 to use and compare with Tri-X; all will be developed with HC110. Once the results are in, I shall pick one of these for the medium term, and see how different development protocols change its performance.

I will use colour only with large format (alonside B&W). I'm waiting for 20 sheets of Provia 100F to come back from the processor; transparency would be convenient for evaluation and scanning, but my preferred alternative, Portra 400, is probably a bit more tolerant of my inexperienced metering.

I believe you will find metol-based developers (e.g., D-76/ID-11) easier to work with, especially diluted 1:1. T-Max 400 in particular benefits from this. HC110 uses phenidone (under another name and form) as the primary developing agent. Metol (4-(methylamino)phenol sulfate) is more easily suppressed by the by-products of development (bromide ions), and this effect restrains the highlight areas a bit more, because by-products are formed and released more in areas of greater density. All of the films you mention will give good results, but I would avoid HC-110 unless working in a studio where lighting can be controlled. The difference may be subtle, but it is real.

Look here:

https://www.timlaytonfineart.com/blog/2016/9/darkroom-daily-digest-exploring-metol-and-d23-formula

Edited December 15, 2021 by Ornello

[chrism]

4 hours ago, Ornello said:

I would avoid HC-110 unless working in a studio where lighting can be controlled.

I'm guessing (wildly) that this advice comes from the same place that said Rodinal is useless and should be avoided?

Edited December 15, 2021 by chrism

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, chrism said:

I'm guessing (wildly) that this advice comes from the same place that said Rodinal is useless and should be avoided?

Huh? I have said that Rodinal is among the worst developers for small format high-speed films.