Developer Comparison
Michael Healy
the other in a different one, at identical temps and prescribed "normal"
times. A cursory examination with a loupe hasn't betrayed much difference.
So now, after the fact, I'm wondering, well, just how DOES one approach the
comparison and contrast? What differences am I looking for?
The shots involved controlled studio lighting, the film was Delta 100, the
developers were HC110 (B) and Rodinal (1:25); however, I am less interested
in feedback on the specific film and developers than I am in the theoretical
underpinnings involved in approaching any such comparison. I also am taking
for granted that time variance can be involved. (Actually they came out very
close.) Irrespective of film or developers, what factors should one examine
in the results of such a comparison? EG, should I be able to see differences
in the negs themselves? Do I need to print portions of extra-large
enlargements
before I can compare acutance or grain structure? What other differences
(or,
conversely, things to expect NOT to show difference)?
Doug Kanter
I don't mean to be evasive, but frankly, it's all very subjective. What effects
are you trying to get? What moods are you trying to convey? Are some of your
shots "extreme", in terms of the range of tonal values? It's kind of like a
painter who wonders just how blue a blue flower should look in the final
painting. Should it be a little purple? Sharp? Blurred? Or perhaps, it should
appear almost black, as a blue flower might when viewed from a distance under
certain conditions. If it was sunny, some blues have a neon quality to them...or
not. Was it misty in the garden and should the painting exaggerate that mood in
order to communicate it more accurately? Did the shadows look totally black to
you in the studio, or was there detail? Do you want to communicate what you saw
in a literal sense or not?
This is not to suggest that you might photograph a mountain and alter it to the
extent that it looks like a pile of bread dough. The adjustments will probably
be more subtle, and involve relatively non-intrusive filters, chemical changes,
etc.
Others may disagree, but as long as your negs & prints are not simply screwed
up, i.e.: within the range of "done right", everything else is a matter of
interpretation.
If you're asking these question, I would invest in the Ansel Adams basic photo
series. When I bought the books 30 years ago, it was a series of 5. I only see
three at the web site, but you might email them and find out what's cooking.
The three listed are:
The Print:
http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=52&CATID=17
The Negative:
http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=51&CATID=17
The Camera:
http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=50&CATID=17
The ones I don't see were entitled "Natural Light" and "Artificial Light",
although I suspect the first two above would be of prime interest to you. I
still consult those regularly, 30 years after buying them, just to keep that
part of my brain filled with information, so it will trickle out when I need
it. They're especially good for people doing large format work, since he goes
into tremendous detail about developing each film differently, based on subject
matter and what you're trying to communicate.
Doug
The Fixer Man
You might want to check out Richard J. Henry's book, "Controls in Black and
White Photography, Second Edition," ISBN 0-240-51788-1. He covers in great
depth (maybe too much depth for some) quite a few of the variables that
effect the final characteristics of the images we produce. His conclusions
are rather sound but not always indisputable.
"Michael Healy" <mjh...@kcnet.com> wrote in message
news:9a5nh5$dlh$1...@news3.kcnet.com...