Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I'm getting back seriously into B/W again only to find that I am not >familiar with the current lineup of Films/Developers/Papers the way I >used to be. > >I would be very interested to hear of favorite combinations using >today's mediums--but also please include WHY it is a favorite. Trying >to evaluate "GREAT RESULTS" is pretty difficult unless it is compared to >something else. > >For instance, has anyone sorted out the old guard of TriX and HP5 vs >Tmax vs Delta? >What is superior under what circumstances? WHY? > >Thanks All, > >Stephen Gandy Stephen- I don't know if I can adequately quantify my results according to your request, but I'm glad to tell you what I am using. My standard 35mm mono film is TX (which I buy by the 100' roll). I used to use D76 1:1 with it (rating at about EI200), but I grew dissatisfied with the "look" (here we go!) of my prints with this combo. I've tried many soups over the years, even whipping up some "new" combinations out of bulk chemicals. Eventually, however, I settled on HC110 (in the "B" dilution) and that is what I use today on TX, whether in 35mm, 6cm, or 4x5. Why? I like the grain structure (small, tight, smooth); the convenience and accuracy of fresh chemicals; the long storage life of the stock solution. I tried TMax (altho not recently I will admit) and I didn't like it jumpiness and harsh tonalities, particurly on skin tones. (There's precision for you: jumpiness!) TX gives me the smooth gradations I like on skin tones and plenty of tonal modulation and sharpness in general--particularly in 4x5. I rate my 35mm TX at EI320 and then U/D from the Kodak reccs, which are almost always way off for me andhave been for many.many years. For a while I was using Brilliant paper purchased from Fred Picker at Zone VI. Really magnificent stuff. But then the French company that made it was sold and the new owners went in other directions. The Brilliant II that was then marketted was different (actually made by Ilford) and not as good as the original. Now, under Calumet, there is a new Brilliant (said to be "even better than the original"--by the salesman, of course) but I haven't tried it yet due to my present stock of Brilliant II. After going through the Mad Scientist experimental phase, complete with beam balances, I have settled into a "simpler is better" photographic life-style that suits me--in addition to giving me pleasing results. I work under all sorts of field conditions, but I find that my present darkroom MO gives me what I want. One change I will be exploring is that new Brilliant paper from Calumet. I know what you mean when you say that you're not familiar with the "current lineup" of F/D/P combos. I used to keep up with all of that and found I was spending too much time doing that and not enough time making images. How many times can you read the annual "Push Your Film to 64,000!!!!!!" article or "Kodachrome vs Ektachrome: Who Wins Out?" which seemed to appear about TWICE a year. I just got tired of it, just like I got tired of camera reviews and proliferating electronics. As I used to tell my students: Once you've found a combination ofmaterials that work to your taste, stick with it and learn its pallette in terms ofthe work you want to do. I don't know whether this has been helpful to you, but I hope it has. I'll be glad to try to cat light into any lacunae if I have left them. Good craft to you, Robert